higher education in europe - unesco

U N E S C OEUROPEAN CENTRE

FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

HIGHEREDUCATIONIN EUROPE

In this issue:

DIVERSITY of STRUCTURESfor Higher Education

Vol. XIX, No. 4, 1994

Computer Typeset by Morsel CalinoaiaPrinted and bound by ”METROPOL” Publishing & Printing Company

Bucharest, ROMANIA

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPEVol. XIX, No. 4, 1994

ContentsFROM THE EDITORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Diversity of Structures for Higher Education

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7James WIMBERLEY

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Carin BERG

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, AND OTHERS: DIVERSITY OF STRUCTURESFOR HIGHER EDUCATION: DISCUSSION OF THEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

THE IMPACT OF HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND THE ECONOMY ONHIGHER EDUCATION POLICY: A COMPARATIVE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Raymond SAYEGH

REFORMING THE RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Alexander PROKOPCHUK

PYRAMIDS, PRISONS, AND PICTURESQUE HOUSING: A DISCUSSION ON DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Leo C J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. Lynn MEEK

HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT: CHANGING CONDITIONSFOR DIVERSIFIED STRUCTURES OF HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Ulrich TEICHLER

THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES . . . . . .60Johan L. VANDERHOEVEN and Jan de GROOF

DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A UNITED KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE . . . .69Sir Graham HILLS

LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES:THE FRENCH CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76Renée RIBIER

HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES IN ROMANIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 Ioan MIHAILESCU and lazar VLASCEANU

HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 Jiri HOLENDA

COLLEGE EDUCATION IN HUNGARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100Imre CZINEGE

SOME PROBLEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN GERMANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Gotz SCHINDLER

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES AND OTHERS: DIVERSITY OF STRUCTURESFOR HIGHER EDUCATION - REPORT ON THE MULTILATERAL WORKSHOP .109Jan Fridthjof BERNT

InformationDenmark, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Bibliographical ReferencesBook Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123New publications received by CEPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125

Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126Notes on Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131CEPES Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

FROM THE EDITORS

This issue of H i g h e r Education inEurope presents many of the paperswhich were delivered at a workshop onUniversities, Colleges, and Others:Diversity of Stru c t u res for HigherEducation, held at CEPES from 23 to 25September 1993 in Bucharest Romania.It was the third in a series of workshopsorganized in Eastern and Central Europeas part of the Project on LegislativeReform in Higher Education of theCouncil of Europe. The workshop wasalso supported by CEPES and theMinistry of Education of Romania.

Being a workshop, much of the pro-ceedings consisted of oral presentationsand discussions in addition to the presen-tation of papers. Indeed, two of the majorpresentations, one by James Wimberley ofthe Council of Europe, and the other, byRoeland In’tveld of the Netherlands, wereoral deliveries, the only written recordavailable to use in both cases, being theexcellent pages prepared for the overheadslide projector.

During the six sessions of theWorkshop (including opening and clos-ing sessions), four major topics were in-troduced and thoroughly discussed.These topics were 1) History, Geography,and Economy: Elemental Influences onHigher Education Policy Decisions; 2 )Policy Goals for the Future; 3) L e g a lC o n s t ruction of Higher EducationStructures; and 4) Managing Change. Theusual modus operandi was that each of thefour topics was introduced by a paper (orin the case of Topic 4, by a long oral pre-sentation) giving major theoretical consi-derations and was then followed by one

or more national case studies (in the caseof the first three topics) and then by opendiscussion.

At the opening session of theWorkshop, following welcomingremarks by Professor Liviu Maior, theMinister of Education of Romania, andby Carin Berg, the Director of CEPES,Mr. James Wimberley of the Council ofEurope presented the aims and premisesof the Workshop and situated it in theProject on Legislative Reform in; HigherEducation.

The objective of this Project is toassist the process of legislative reformfor higher education, primarily in Centraland Eastern Europe, through the provi-sion of advice to single countries on legalmatters and by the search for a deeperunderstanding of shared problems by theorganization of workshops, the commis-sioning of studies, and the providing ofdocumentation. The idea is to remedysuch problems as overspecialized andrigid programmes, many small and weakinstitutions, high unit costs and low par-ticipation, and unclear institutional mis-sions. Differences, that is, diversity, areuseful, even necessary, and non-univer-sity higher education is important, as iteducates over fifty percent of students insuch countries as the USA, the Nether-lands, and Sweden. As examples of non-university higher education, he cited theformer Polytechnics of the UnitedKingdom, the IUD’s of France, theFachhochschulen of Germany, and theHBO’s of the Netherlands. There areboth advantages to be gained through adiversified system which would includetraditional universities as well, also, aspossible disadvantages. Two important

- 5 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE, Vol. XIX, No. 4, 1994

questions are where diversity should lie:in institutions and/or in programmes, andhow change in the direction of diversityshould be guided.

The first topic, History, Geography,and Economy: Elemental Influences onHigher Education Policy Decisions, wasintroduced by P rofessor RaymondSayegh of France and illustrated by thecase study of Mr. Alexander Prokopshukof the Russian Federation. The secondtopic, Policy Goals for the Future, waspresented by Dr. Leo Goedegebuure ofthe Netherlands and complemented by apaper by Professor Ulrich Teichler ofGermany on the link between the diversi-fication of higher education and the ini-tial and continuing employment of gra-duates. The third topic, L e g a lC o n s t ruction of Higher EducationStructures, was introduced by Dr. JohanVanderhoeven of Belgium and illustratedby case studies by Professor Sir GrahamHills of the United Kingdom, Mrs. ReneeRibier of France, P rofessors loanMihailescu and Lazar Vlasceanu o fRomania, Dr. Zdenek Kovar of the CzechRepublic, and Dr. Gotz Schindler of Ger-many. As Dr. Kovar delivered an oralpresentation, we are publishing in itsplace a written description of the legalbasis of Czech higher education reformsince 1990 by Mr. dirt Holenda, also ofthe Czech Republic, which was distribu-ted during the Workshop. We are also in-cluding a written description of the Hun-

garian college system written by Mr. ImreCzinege, one of the Hungarian par-ticipants in the Workshop.

The last topic, Managing Change, waspresented orally by Professor R. In’treldof the Netherlands who illustrated themany points which he raised with a set oftwenty-seven overhead slides. The gist ofhis message, given that the public gene-rally expects change to be brought aboutin higher education by legislation, is thatsuch legislation should be general innature, for instance, framework laws, notdetailed attempts to legislate curriculaand course programmes.

The last session was devoted to a sum-ming up by Professor J. F. Bernt of Nor-way, the General Rapporteur.

Because of the length of the ‘Topic’section, we have not been able to includea ‘Tribune’ section; however, there arethe usual ‘Information’, ‘BibliographicalReferences’, ‘Calendar of Events’, and‘Notes on Contributors’ sections.

Our next issue, Number 1, 1995, willhave as its ‘Topic’ the proceedings of amajor CEPES conference held in May1994: Quality Assurance andInstitutional A c c reditation in Easternand Central European Higher EducationSystems: Pro c e d u res and OperationalAspects.

- 6 -

FROM THE EDITORS

The Workshop, Universities, Colleges,and Others: Diversity of Structures forHigher Education, held at CEPES inBucharest from 23 to 25 September1993, was the third in a series organizedunder the auspices of the special Projecton Legislative Reform in HigherEducation (LRP) of the Council ofEurope. This programme has been arran-ging many advisory missions to the cen-tral and eastern European countries thathave recently joined, or are expected tojoin, the Council.

The workshops are multilateral andallow an exchange of experience on keyshared problems. In practice, these pro-blems are turning out to be very similarto those faced by the older w e s t e r nMember Countries. Admittedly, their in-tensity has been heightened by the bur-den of the mistakes of the communistanciens regimes and by the peculiarstresses of the democratic and markettransitions.

CEPES-UNESCO and the RomanianMinistry of Education co-sponsored theworkshop, which was opened by theRomanian Minister of Education, Profes-sor Liviu Maior. Forty representativesfrom twenty-two countries took part, in-cluding thirteen in central and easternEurope, except for Albania, Poland, andCroatia, and also a good number fromwestern Europe, reflecting the great cur-rent interest in the topic.

The aim of the Workshop was to ex-plore the policy aspects of structuraldiversity in higher education. Diversity isoften held up as a good thing, indeed, theonly way to accommodate the variousrequirements of students and ofemployers in a mass higher educationsystem. The widespread perception of theSoviet model of higher education wasthat its fragmented and highly special-ized programmes represent a failed con-cept of diversity. The new member coun-tries are therefore struggling to define anew structural concept of higher educa-tion, groping towards shorter cycles andperhaps a clearly defined non universitysector.

The programme of the workshop com-bined theoretical presentations and natio-nal case studies in an attempt to drawinferences about the future of diversity inhigher education, and the role of govern-ments and institutions in promoting andmanaging it. The discussions were livelyand achieved the objective of a high-qua-lity exchange of experience. The greatvariety of models of non-u n i v e r s i t yhigher education (binary and integrated)in western countries and the vigorousdebate surrounding them meant, howe-ver, that no single model or even view-point could be presented to the newmembers.

That the whole question is in a state offlux is proved by the interpretation given

- 7 -


Diversity of Structures for Higher Education

FOREWORD

James WIMBERLEY

to the ending of the binary system in theUnited Kingdom. Was it simply a policyshift by the government or the inevitablefate of attempts by policy makers to fixstructures in concrete? Diversity had per-haps to be seen as a state of disequi-librium, like riding a bicycle, that couldonly be maintained by constant effort.

Another area of debate was the role ofthe law itself. It seemed reasonable to laydown the basic map of the system in law,but legal rules can be clumsy and infect-

tive instruments for steering develop-ments, or better, guiding their evolution.In these circumstances, the conclusionstended to be charts of the dangers in-herent in any given policy rather than aviewpoint reflecting a consensus.

The General Rapporteur, Professor J.F. Bernt of Norway, wrote a thoughtfuland informative final report that broughttogether the various strands of the dis-cussion.

- 8 -

FOREWORD

• The participants in the workshop are welcomedand the rationale for the workshop and its ob-jectives are stated. As the diversification of highereducation structures is necessary and is takingplace spontaneously throughout eastern

I am honoured to be here today and toaddress this meeting which brings toge-ther distinguished academics both fromwestern and central and eastern Europeancountries. It is a pleasure for me to meetonce again, this time in Bucharest, someof the participants in the InternationalH i g h-Level Consultation on PolicyIssues of Quality Assessment and In -stitutional A c c reditation in HigherEducation, which also took place inRomania in Oradea - from 5 to 7 May1993, the results of which have had asalutary influence on the elaboration ofRomanian legislation concerning theevaluation and accreditation of highereducation institutions in Romania.

I am confident that this workshop,devoted as it is to the topic, ”Universities, Colleges, and Others:Diversity of Structures for HigherEducation”, organized by the Council ofEurope in association with the UNESCOEuropean Centre for Higher Education(CEPES), will also play an important rolein the continuing reform of the highereducation systems in the countries ofcentral and eastern Europe.

In the period of transition to pluralistdemocracies and market economies,when widespread economic and social

and central Europe, the need has arisen to give itsome direction, above all to ensure that higher educa-tion evolves in ways compatible with the transition todemocracy and a market economy.

changes are taking place in all the centraland eastern European countries, the uni-versities, as depositories of social andhuman values, are assigned a radical rolein acting as spearheads in the assertionand implementation of the required struc-tural changes in all fields. It is from thisperspective that I am following withinterest the numerous initiatives under-taken by the Council of Europe withinthe Project on Legislative Reform inHigher Education, aimed at assistingeducational reform and harmonizing theeducational policy decisions in the cen-tral and eastern European countries sothat they may comply with internationalnorms.

As every one very well knows, theuniversity is once again at a crossroads-if not throughout the world, definitely incentral and eastern Europe. Influencedas they were by a model of the universi-ty which proved to be alien to them, thehigher education systems in this part ofEurope are now faced with new challen-ges and questions. The development ofautonomous institutions prepared to as-sume important responsibilities, thebreaking away from the past whileaiming at the realization of new demo-cratic values in society, the radical

- 9 -


INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS

Carin BERG

1 The proceedings of this meeting were published as the topic of theNo. 3,1993, issue of Higher Education

reform of the contents, coupled with thedevelopment of a new quality of staff,students, and researchers - all are amongthe new options. In particular, changes inthe structures are of great importance forthe future. Europe has its own traditionsin this respect. One cannot avoid men-tioning the Humboldtian or theNapoleonic models of the universitywhich although shaped in the past, stillprove to be references for today’s op-tions. However, we cannot avoid an-ticipating the future, while critically con-sidering the not-too-distant past as wellas the present.

The fragmentation and the wide diver-sification of structures are among thechallenges being faced in Romania. Itmay seem difficult not to mention in thiscontext the rapid expansion of bothpublic and private institutions in condi-tions of scarce resources, a situationwhich is negatively affecting the qualityof education. It is from this perspectivethat the Romanian Parliament is present-ly adopting a new law on the qualityassessment and accreditation of highereducation2 and that the Ministry ofEducation is working with a large teamof academics and researchers to under-line the basic principles of a new struc-tural reform which will lead us awayfrom the trends of uncontrolled diver-sification and of unfruitful fragmenta-tion.

We expect new qualitative develop-ments to evolve in the Romanian systemof higher education. The problem is notonly one of establishing new structures.Whatever their dimensions, the structuresby themselves remain mere struc-

tures. What matters is their contents andfunctioning - that they prove their rele-vance at the dawn of the coming century.The present of the university is alwaysprojected into the future, or in otherwords, the university is expected to bringthe future into the present world. Manyof our hopes lie with today’s studentsbecause they are the ones who must carryout many of the values pertaining to ademocratic, pluralist society. Neverthe-less, the option is not one of waiting forthe future to shape itself. We have tried tostimulate and to bring about newchanges. Other changes are being prepa-red. The unavoidable question is: whats o rt of changes? Realizing that theoptions are multiple and highly deman-ding, the responsibilities of choosing theright ones for our contexts are perma-nently confronting us.

This workshop, which brings togethereminent specialists, academics, and re-searchers under the auspices of theLegislative Reform Project in HigherEducation of the Council of Europe inco-operation with CEPES, is expected tobring to the fore new ideas and experien-ces with a view to fostering educationalreforms in the central and easternEuropean countries.

In hosting this workshop, our basicassumption has been that only throughconcerted action, a better knowledge ofrealities, and proper solutions to pro-blems can the difficult transitional periodto democracy and market economy besuccessfully negotiated. I am confidentthat the participants in this workshop willfind the right answers to our commonproblems.

- 10 -

INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS

2It was promulgated by the President of Romania on 17 December 1993 as Law No. 88/1993.

. The topic of the workshop is presented and analy-zed, and the themes are stated in the order in whichthey will be taken up. Diversity, which is viewedas evolving either from the top down o r from thebottom up, is considered as the differentiation ofthe wide variety of institution al types and of edu-cational offerings Within the

THE AIM OF THE WORKSHOP

In view of the fact that no higher educa-tion structure in Europe has proven to bepermanent and that presently majorchanges taking place throughout Europeare increasing the degree and speed withwhich these structures are undergoingreform, it is important to consider diver-sity as a key element in the reform ofhigher education. In a changing world ofnew technologies, new democracies, andnew patterns of living and working, thediversification of higher education pos-sibilities may be the key to the capacityof a society to adapt to the processes ofpolitical and economic transformationthat are affecting the whole of Europe.The legislative reform project for highereducation of the Council of Europe aimsnot onlyn to facilitate and documentlegislative reform in Europe but to act asan East/West co-operation project: sha-ring information, experiences, and cur-rent initiatives in the area of legislativereform of higher education. This work-shop, co-organized with CEPES and theRomanian Ministry of Education, is partof the programme of multilateral ac-tivities of the project which seeks to pro-vide a deeper insight into specific topicsin higher education reform in Europe

context of such major questions as where diversityshould be located and how it should best be en-couraged, the subject is discussed in terms of countryand international contexts, policy goals for the future,the legal construction of higher education structures,and the management of change.

through discussion and the interaction ofparticipants from all parts of Europe.

This workshop aims to discuss theplace of diversity in higher education andto explore the various means for ac-commodating it in higher education sys-tems. It will combine theoretical presen-tations and case studies with discussionsthat will attempt to draw, if not con-clusions, at least general influences aboutthe future role and nature of diversity inhigher education.

DEFINITIONS

The concept of diversity in relation tohigher education needs to be defined.Diversity here is held to be the differen-tiation or the wide variety either of in-stitutional types of course programmes orof educational offerings. The differen-tiation of higher education institutions, intheir names, statuses, research pos-sibilities, degree awarding abilities, etc.,is conceived of as external diversity, whilethe differentiation of course offerings,study periods, diplomas, areas of study,etc., within one higher education institu-tion is termed internal diversity.

More specifically, diversity can be saidto evolve from the top-down when natio-nally prescribed institutional or ex

- 11 -

HITHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE, Vol. XIX, No. 4, 1994

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, AND OTHERS: DIVERSITYOF STRUCTURES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION: DISCUSSION OF THEMES

ternal diversity cause institutions of a likecategory (for example, universities) tospecialize in order to maintain com-petitivity with other similar institutions.Diversity can be said to evolve from thebottom-up when differentiation of pro-grammes and courses eventually causesmodifications in the original character ofthe institution, thus setting it apart fromothers.

THE CONTEXT

Changes are taking place in all parts ofEurope. Some higher education struc-tures, once of a binary nature, are beingintegrated, and some, once of an in-tegrated nature, are being restructuredalong binary lines. Governmental poli-cies towards the steering of higher edu-cation are in flux. In some parts ofEurope, painful transitions to a marketeconomy and liberal democracy implythe fundamental reform of the highereducation system as a whole. The neces-sity of ensuring that higher education willcontinue to fulfill the needs of societyand will be capable of meeting futureneeds has made the issue of diversity,once again, both central and very impor-tant.

In western Europe, governments andacademic theorists have tended to viewdiversity as a good thing needing strongpolicy encouragement. The implicit as-sumption behind this approach has beenthe endemically powerful university sec-tor with considerable autonomy, capableof acting (or not acting) quite effectivelyto defend certain traditional uniformiza-tion schemata of higher education. Underthe former communist regimes of centraland eastern Europe, this autonomy waseffectively suppressed, and governmentshad a free hand to impose their ownideas. As a broad generalization, theseschemes reflected

`an idea of vocationalization and man-power planning. The inherited institu-tional pattern is already very diverse withmany small specialized schools and insti-tutes of different levels co-existing withl a rg e r, multi-sectoral universities andpolytechnics. The research mission wasl a rgely split off into specialized in-stitutes. From the experience of the ad-visory missions within the legislativereform project of the Council of Europe,the main structural problems are seen asones of rebuilding coherence from frag-mentation, rather than of creating diver-sity from uniformity.

The argument for diversity is simpleand intuitively very positive. It is thathigher education now has to deal withthree expansions:

- in numbers (from one in twenty toone in two of the age group); thestudents are increasingly moreheterogeneous in terms of ability,skills, and interests;

- in the range of skills called for bythe labour market (consider thenumber of different professionsspawned by computing);

- in the body of knowledge, par-ticularly in but not limited to thenatural sciences and technology.

The secretariat of the Council ofEurope is not aware of any significantbody of informed opinion that questionsthe need to meet these challenges by abroader range of programmes in highereducation. Another value emphasized bythis organization is the richness of thecultural diversity of Europe, its lan-guages, literatures, and others expres-sions. The room for debate arises notover the ineluctable trend towards diver-sity of provision, but on whether itshould be enthusiastically supported orreluctantly accepted and guided into

- 12 -

DIVERSITY OF STRUCTURES

channels that preserve as much as pos-sible of valued traditions.

There are a number of respectable ar-guments for restricting diversity as wellas countervailing trends towards unifor-mity that deserve respect from policy-makers:

- the internationalization of scienceand, increasingly, of the economy;

- the need for quality control in rela-tion to international scientific stan-dards and the international labourmarket (professional accreditationis a force for standardization in theUSA);

- the information costs of diversityand the need for transparency andaccountability; uncoordinateddiversity can lead to a loss of flexi-bility and choice;

- the difficulty in steering a verydiverse system and very diverseinstitutions, unless long-r a n g edevelopment is handed overentirely to market forces;

- costs: the economics of scale fromstandardization, and the transition-al costs of change and re-organiza-tion;

- finally, the battered but still livingidea of a liberal education, ofequipping students for the full lifeof a citizen of an advanced demo-cracy, in both political, professio-nal, and civic dimensions.

At the same time, market driven diver-sity can be about as perverse as the cen-trally planned variety. Undifferentiatedproducts (whether detergents or educatio-nal courses) may be given gimmickylabels that conceal their essential unifor-

mity. More seriously, f diversity mayrespond more to the interests ofproducers (the research and careers agen-das of academics) than to the educationalneeds of customers (students).

Diversity, it is suggested, is best un-derstood not as a one-dimensional goodthing but as one of a set of central valuesor concerns of the higher education poli-cy-makers in a democracy along withquality, efficiency, autonomy, and fair-ness. Often a balance has to be struck.The laws of European countries are clear-ly designed to establish the co-ordinationof provision and uniformity of standards,as much as to provide innovation anddiversity. Appropriate diversity is refer-red to below as the aim of policymakers.

The discussions in this workshopshould attempt to focus on two essentialquestions. First, where should diversitybe located? That is to say, what dictatesthe choice between diversity of institu-tional types as determined by the struc-ture of a higher education system, anddiversity of programmes and types ofstudy as determined by diversity withininstitutions, and, when is a combinationof the two a warranted option? Secondly,how can diversity be assured and en-couraged?

THE QUESTIONS

Where Should Diversity Be Located?

The bottom line on diversity in highereducation should be the need for diver-sity of educational opportunities for in-dividuals and professional qualificationsfor society. Institutional diversity wouldseem to be sustainable only within a sys-tem structurally defined and maintainedby law or governmental intervention. Thequestion to be considered is whether ornot institutional diversity is necessary.The phenomenon of academic drift

- 13 -


along with the exponential increase ofprogramme diversity over the past deca-de seems to be proof that diversity occursin an evolutionary manner, in spite ofstructural constraints and restrictionsimposed by a binary system. Along withthe fact that nominal integration on a sys-tems level can often hide a very wideinternal programmatic diversity, one isjustified in asking if effective diversity isactually attained under a strictly structu-red system of external diversity.

How Is Diversity Best Encouraged?

Increased governmental guidance canimpose diversity, but can it adapt tomaintain relevance or to avoid institu-tional drift? A free-market type of institu-tional behaviour may lead to diversifica-tion of institutional offerings, or, to anincreasing similarity of such offeringscopy cat style. State organized institutio-nal or sectoral diversity maintains an out-ward differentiation, but does the compa-rison of like institutions (universitieswith universities and so on) give a pictu-re of diversity?

It would seem that like institutions in astrictly binary system are more similarthan different. There are university stu-dies and non-university studies. BurtonClark, in a study of discipline areas inAmerican universities, found that in-ternal differentiation was expandingrapidly, therefore leading to an institu-tional variety within the realm of like ins-titutions, this, of course, within a systemlittle regulated by governmental bodies.Does this situation have an implicationfor European national higher educationsystems?

In the American higher education sys-tem, the market would seem to be adiversifying influence, competition forscarce resources and effort to reach desi-red

clientele obliging adaptation and rene-wal. Another reaction to the m a r k e t ,however, is the emulation of successfulmodels. This reaction could lead tohomogenization as institutions strive toimitate successful institutions. Frans VanVught has posited that institutions sub-ject to the same environment tend to actalike; therefore, a system will becomemore homogeneous. In this type of situa-tion, he suggests, it is the governmentwhich, in creating varying environmentsfor different institutions, provides for dif-ferentiation. Another view might be thatin attempting to imitate successfulmodels, some institutions will certainlyfail, thereby creating diversity in spite ofthemselves (systemic diversity as a resultof institutional failure).

THE TOPICS

For a practical understanding of how toemploy diversification to best suit na-tional circumstances, four approaches tothe subject are taken.

History, Geography, and Economy:Elemental Influences on HigherEducation Policy Decisions

Higher education structures reflect therole and value of higher education ingiven societies and cultures. T h e s evalues evolve over time and are in-fluenced by all the same factors whichmake a society what it is. History, geog-raphy, and economy are perhaps the mostimportant influences on higher educationstructures, although certainly not the onlyones or even the most apparent ones in agiven society. Religion, language, anddemography, to name a few, are otherdetermining factors.

Some questions could also be posed asto the future of higher education policyand diversity. In a period of change,

- 14 -


adaptation, and transition, how shouldsocietal influences be interpreted? Howshould cultural and educational values betranslated into policy decisions regardingthe structure and role in society of highereducation? Can the instability of one orof several influencing factors lead toinstability in the educational structure?Should higher education structures begoverned by policy seeking to respond toperceived traditions or by policy seekingto reconstruct or reinterpret tradition? Isthe higher education structure a means toachieve social, economic, and politicalreform?

Policy Goals for the Future

The current rethinking and reformulationof European higher education systemshas been accompanied by revised highereducation policy that seeks to set a newcourse for higher education into the futu-re. If higher education clearly has a cen-tral role in the evolution of society, thenany policy affecting its direction may beof capital importance for the nature of thesocial transformations which will occur.What should the guiding principles ofsuch policy be? How much of a roleshould government have in guiding or insteering the future of higher education?How much policy formulation should beleft to the institutions themselves? or tothe market?

Legal Construction of HigherEducation Structures

This topic seeks to clarify legal defini-tions and formulae for structural diversi-ty. Structural change in higher educationsystems in Europe is usually carried outthrough law. Systemic or external diver-sity is set out in legal definitions of thesectors, their functions, their limits, theirfinancing their responsibilities, and their

organization. Legal regulation of struc-tural change in higher education has afundamental role to play in prescribingthe types and limits of structural diversi-ty and in influencing the degree to whichb o t t o m - u p diversification is possible.Private funding and international co-ope-ration may offset the effects of legalregulation, but current and future legisla-tive reforms of higher education struc-tures should take into account the dyna-mic force of programmatic, internaldiversification within institutions.

Managing Change

This topic is meant tobe a practicaldiscussion of the means and processes ofturning policy decisions and new lawsinto functioning systems.Implementation of structural changes in ahigher education system may implymodifications in the very conceptions ofthe role of higher education, of universi-ties, and of disciplines, not to mentionchanges in financial structures, teachingmethods, enrollment procedures, and soon. In short, implementation of an impor-tant structural change presents a largenumber of challenges both for thegovernment and for the institutions.

A NOTE ON INTERNATIONALIZA-TION

The structures of higher education areoverwhelmingly a matter of nationalp o l i c y. It is, however, no longer possibleto treat the international and Europeandimensions as marginal or as decorative.The appropriate internationalization ofhigher education is a recognized goal ofmost national systems for several rea-sons: the universal character of science,the growing economic and politicalinterdependence of states, and the moreintense process of European integration.It is supported even more strongly bythose institutions which see

- 15 -


international alliances as the way of rais-ing their quality and status. The large-scale mobility of academic staff and stu-dents and the intense co-operation be-tween institutions can hardly fail to havea structural impact. Are the diverse na-tional systems of higher education inEurope fated to converge to form arecognizable European system or familyof systems?

This question can be asked both at thelevel of programmes and at that of in-stitutions. The work of the CC-P U(Standing Conference on UniversityProblems) of the Council of Europe andon a large scale, the programmes of theEuropean Union such as ERASMUS, areintended to promote bottom-up mutuallearning and the diffusion of good educa-tional practice between as well as acrossnational systems, primarily at the level ofprogrammes within institutions. Will thiswork lead towards convergence, by emu-lation of the best or most popular, there-by decreasing overall diversity? T h i spossibility exists but is not the only pos-sible outcome, for a market-driven pro-cess can also, as was noted above in thenational context, lead to competitive dif-ferentiation and increased diversity; theparadigm of the market is after all spe-cialization by comparative advantage.

At the level of institutional structures,international effects are less visible.Looking back on the original diversifica-tions of the 1960’s and 1970’s in westernEurope, the latter were largely neglected,each country inventing its own system ofnon-university higher education. At thetime it was expected that the non-univer-sity sector would respond to purely na-tional or regional needs leaving interna-tional co-operation to the universities.This expectation has been proved wrong;the Fachhochschulen in Germany, for

example, have vigorously sought interna-tional links, for the same reasons and insimilar ways to the universities. The mis-matches between institutional types ind i fferent countries presumably createadditional barriers to international co-operation. When basic reforms of institu-tional structure are under consideration,it would be reasonable to take into ac-count the need for all institutions to beopen to appropriate international co-operation and for the system as a wholeto be reasonably transparent to all itsclients, including foreign ones.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This workshop is part of a project onlegislative reform in higher educationpartly intended to help the new memberand partner states of the Council ofEurope. One of the key issues all thesecountries have to face is that of the struc-tures of non-university higher education:binary (Fachhochschulen or polytech-nics), special provision within universi-ties(IUT’s,Escuelas Universitarias), inte-grated with market differentiation (newBritish universities)? This question is dif-ficult not only in practice, under theconstraints of money and the past, but alsod i fficult in principle, as there is no outstan-ding model to follow. Contrast, forexample, the restoration of autonomy toinstitutions of higher education and of aresearch function to the universities, whichmay be very difficult in practice, but regar-ding which the principles are generallyaccepted. The experience of the westerncountries is at first sight very confusingand divergent. The effects of internationalc o-operation and the implications forhigher education in the European UnionMaastricht Treaty are still to be seen andremain an undefined variable in the equa-tion. Diversity is clearly necessary inorder to ensure future growth, develop-ment, and competitivity in all

- 16 -


fields of activity of any higher educationsystem; however, will educationaladaptation and differentiation be a part ofthe remedy to the current economic cri-sis, or merely a reaction to it? This work-shop will try to shed light on these hardproblems by going back to first prin-ciples. What is the purpose of diversity inhigher education? Where is diversityimportant? And how and by whom can itbe brought into being?

Finally, it may be recalled that the ob-jects of a discussion such as this, the in-stitutions of higher education, and thecourses they provide are only means tothe educational enrichment and em-powerment of the lives of their students.In the end, the only diversity which isinherently important is the widening ofindividual opportunity; the only unifor-mity that matters is equal rights of accessto this opportunity.

- 17 -


• Confronted with the rapid development of highereducation in this century but particularly over thelast twenty years, the author identifies a number offactors influencing this development and estimatestheir relative importance. The factors which helists includes economic and technological factors,demographic factors, geographical factors, histori-cal and political factors, and cultural and religiousfactors. The interplay of these factors over timeand space leads to the diversification of higher

” The adult must be a productive factor insociety rather than the product of thatsociety” (Council of Europe, 1980).

INTRODUCTION

The following survey takes as its startingpoint the widely held view that the quali-ty of higher education has become a prio-rity of education policy as a whole andthat this level of education plays animportant role in cultural, social, and pro-fessional development.

H o w e v e r, the study of higher educa-tion is extremely complex since it re-quires both an inter- and an intra-d i s-ciplinary approach. It is worth mentio-ning here the many different names usedto describe this type of education. T h eadjective, p o s t-s e c o n d a ry, is often usedin the United States of America and inCanada, while the term, f u rther educa -tion, is current in the United Kingdom.The expression, higher education, isalso used, and in some countries, t e rt i a -ry education. In France, higher educa-tion is known as e n s e i g n e m e n t

education which in turn raises the major question ofhow diversification is to be regulated . This majorquestion then leads to more specific questions relatedto the funding of higher education, the developmentof such forms as adult and continuing education, theguarantee of equal opportunity, the mobility of stu-dents and teachers, the link between higher educationand employment, and the ways in which higher edu-cation can influence actors in the political arena to actin its favour.

superieur (higher education) or as thirdcycle education. In general terms, thislevel of education covers all educationand training which the relevant authori-ties regard as forming part of tertiaryeducation and which can be provided invarious types of institutions, both univer-sities and other kinds of bodies, as part ofdistance teaching programmes or ofvarious other types of training pro-grammes (Burn, 1977, pp. 969-977).

In both the developed and the develo-ping countries, many different ap-proaches, varying widely from the in-stitutional, structural, pedagogical, ands o c i o-economic points of view, havebeen tried.

In general terms, there have been threemajor stages in the development ofhigher education from the beginning ofthis century up to the 1950’s. At first, thiskind of education was used to train a par-ticular elite among civil servants.Subsequently, up to the 1970’s, it wasalso used to meet the needs of industry.Finally, over the last twenty years, the

- 18 -


THE IMPACT OF HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND THE ECO-NOMY ON HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY:A COMPARATIVE SURVEY

Raymond SAYEGH

relations between higher education gra-duates and the world of work have deve-loped so as to encompass a much greatervariety of opportunities. It has becomemore and more obvious that higher edu-cation is in a constant state of interactionwith the various sectors of society, there-by transforming the ideas that used to beheld of the proper functions of highereducation. Limited for years to the rolesof teaching, training, and research, highereducation has now broadened its scope soas to take on other functions, howeverwithout, of course, turning its back on itsbasic roles.

Higher education is acquiring increas-ing importance in most countries as aninstrument of economic, social, and cuI-tural development at both the regionaland national levels and also as a means ofbringing about change in the communityof which it forms a part.

There is often, however, a feeling offrustration because of the perception thathigher education establishments do nothelp, as they should, to solve the concre-te problems of the communities in whichthey are situated (OECD, 1983, p. 87).Problems become more and more fre-quent and accumulate: social change, thedemocratization of education, increasingstudent numbers, the impact of scientificand technological progress, youth un-employment, graduate underemploy-ment, poor co-ordination between train-ing and employment, formal and non-for-mal education, etc.

, . .

Despite the need to forge increasinglyclose links with the community that itintends to serve, higher education oftenseems to be out of step with social chan-ge. To express the problem metaphorical-ly, how are we to prevent society fromadvancing, like a moving walkway under

our feet, more rapidlythan the educational system (Statementby Italy, 1989, p. 6).

As a result of the rapid changes produ-ced by technological progress, the uni-versities are attempting to redefine theirobjectives, their roles, and their func-tions. Educational systems in generalneed to become much more relevant so asto be in perfect harmony with their local,national, and international environments.While it is obvious that long-term objec-tives should reflect the universal natureof higher education (Abiyad, 1988, p. 34)in its approach to world problems as defi-ned by UNESCO (1983, p. 126), (peace,human rights, environmental protection,the control of science and technology bysociety, etc.), it is also important that theimmediate objectives be clear. Oneauthor points out that a university isnothing more than an exotic plant if it hasno roots in the history, philosophy, andculture of its country and if its teachingand its research programmes, its lecturesand its reference materials, do not drawtheir examples from the local environ-ment (Goel, 1983; Abiyad, 1988, p. 34).

Subject to many different interests atseveral levels (local, regional, interna-tional), higher education is confrontedby both present realities and the need forchange. However, the question arises asto whether it is possible to devise futureapproaches without fully understandingthe multi-dimensional factors that affectand shape higher education. We need toknow the impact of these factors onhigher education policies, taking accountof actual experience and regional dif-ferences.

The influences mentioned below maybe described as general in nature, but findexpression depending on circumstancesin a local context (Mialaret, 1988, p.39).

- 19 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

THE FA C TORS INFLUENCINGHIGHER EDUCATION

The increasing openness of higher educa-tion towards business and industry sincethe end of the Second World War clearlyproves the influence of economic factorson the direction and development of ter-tiary education. ;

Economic and TechnologicalFactors

Substantial changes in working condi-tions, the need for high-level training,and the training of management staff forbusiness and industrial life have, by rein-forcing the links between universitiesand the: world of work, affected institu-tional structures and Curricula. The ob-jective is to match training more effecti-vely with employment.

The economy itself, however, is sub-ject to fluctuations that directly influencethe development of higher education,hold back its efforts to diversify its struc-tures, affect resources, delay the intro-duction of the necessary equipment, slowdown research, and force cutbacks in stu-dent numbers. This situation affects notonly the developed countries, but aboveall, the developing ones which requireadditional material and financialresources if they are to obtain a greaternumber of more highly trained manage-rial staff. It is clear that establishments ofhigher education are closely linked withthe regional socio-economic develop-ment that such education promotes andby which it is at the same time re-shaped(Reply to the Questionnaire: France,1989, p.24).

The difficulties encountered by highereducation in Poland Care the result of theunfavourable economic situations toge-ther with demographic factors andinvestment problems (Ministry of Na-

tional Education, 1988, p. 115). In manycountries, poor economic performancehas led to cutbacks in university fundingto such an extent that universities havebeen forced to seek financial supportelsewhere. In fact, higher education ismainly financed from public funds andonly incidentally through contributionsfrom industry, enrollment fees, dona-tions, etc. Education in Bulgaria, for ex-ample, has been financed from the Statebudget by funds channelled through it(National Report: Bulgaria, 1989, p. 6).

Quantitative changes (increases in stu-dent numbers) have led to required qua-litative changes. Considerable demandfor higher qualifications by an increasingpart of the working population has alsoinfluenced the structures of higher edu-cation. Thus, in certain countries, for ins-tance Canada, industrialization led in the1960’s to the engagement of highly qua-lified workers from abroad, before itsown university structures could be broa-dened and adapted so as to respond to thenew socio-economic circumstances.

The introduction of new technologiesinto different sectors of the economy andtheir applications in varied fields havebeen variable factors that have en-couraged and forced education to diver-sify, expand the number of areas of study,and create additional disciplines in orderto satisfy the ever increasing needs ofstudents who in the aggregate have hadtheir perspectives broadened through theaddition of a new category of students,adult or mature students.

Demographic Factors

Access to post-secondary educationhas become much more widely avail-able and has led to structural reformsand the establishment of new institu-tions, such as distance universities,

- 20 -

IMPACT OF HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND THE ECONOMY

open universities, weekend universities,evening courses, etc.

”Students make up a massive andchanging population. By their very num-bers, they have an increasingly powerfulimpact on society. However, because oftheir constant turnover, they present amoving picture whose true features aredifficult to identify (Le Monde, 8/2/90, p.13). A survey carried out in Francereveals that students place their hopes ineducation and a degree as offering someprotection against unemployment, whichthey perceive as a great threat (LeMonde, 8/2/90, p. 13). The attraction ofwhat may be seen as a panacea increasesstudent numbers, especially in countriesin which numbers in the eighteen twen-ty-five-year-old age-group are very high.

In Japan, 44% of young people havehigher education qualifications (Bloch,1988, p. 73). In 1987 in France, morethan 350,000 people were enrolled incontinuing education courses and werereceiving 1.7 million hours of teaching. Astudy published by OECD states that92% of students in France are mature, ascompared with 16.7% in the UnitedKingdom, 24% in the United States ofAmerica, and 54.6% in Sweden (CERI,1987, p. 34).:

Between 1975 and 1986, the number Ofstudents in the world rose by 18.4 mil-lion: 4.5 million in the industrializedcountries (i.e., an increase of 17%) and13.9 million in the developing countries(i.e., a rise of 109%) (Mayor, 1989, pp.34).

Paced with the challenge of thesesecond chance students and with demo-graphic growth, the universities havehad to respond by introducing structu-ral reforms, since establishments of ter-tiary education need to remain

receptive to feedback from the world ofwork.

Another by no means unimportant fac-tor to be added to those listed above is thegeographical factor which influences thedevelopment of higher education struc-tures.

The Geographical Factor

The geographical circumstances of acountry, together with its resources, aretaken into account in the various ap-proaches followed. Thus, ‘Peru, whichdepends on the mining industry, or SaudiArabia, which depends on the oil indus-try, need to educate large parts of theirstudent population so that they can learnto manage this industry or work in it andthus ensure the economic prosperity ofthe country” (Faraj,1988, p. 155).Specific types of institutes have appearedin the Philippines and in Japan ”whereuniversity colleges have been establishedfor fishing,forestry, and marine sciences”(Faraj,1988, p.1583. Institutes of tou-rism, fishing, and textiles have begun tooperate in Tunisia, and an agriculturalcollege has been established in the fertileplains in eastern Lebanon. A country withan agricultural structure will develop thehorticultural sciences.

All countries seek to make better use oftheir own resources in order to stimulatesocioeconomic development in theregions. In Romania, higher education isdirecting its attention towards the train-ing of managerial staff in the basic eco-nomic sectors such as mining, the oili n d u s t r y, geology, machine construction,agriculture, etc. There is also ”a trendfor higher education establishments tomake an ever increasing contribution tothe economic, social, and cultural deve-lopment of the areas where they arelocated and to the development of thegeographical regions where they

- 21 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

are situated, which leads them to adapttheir programmes to the employment re-quirements of the respective regions”(Ministry of Education and Instruction,1988, p. 16). A similar approach has alsobeen pursued by France and Germanythrough the establishment of the Franco-German Advanced Institute for Technol-ogy and Economics (Le Monde,28/10/1988, p. 26).

Higher education is also called uponto deal with regional disparities. In Por-tugal and in Sweden, recognition of thisproblem ”has had considerable influenceon government policies in the field ofhigher education” (Council of Europe,1984, p. 175),

In the Republic of Korea, the post-secondary education system helps toachieve a better balance between thetowns and the countryside. The Univer-sity of Tromso in the extreme north ofNorway is intended to reduce inequalitiesbetween the northern and southernregions of the country (Cerych, 1987, pp.8-9). The provinces in Canada have takena number of measures intended to reachindividuals or small establishments loca-ted in isolated areas.... Distance educa-tion is regarded as one of the most impor-tant components of the strategy of conti-nuing education....” (Education inCanada, 1989, p. 14). In a country as vastas the United States of America, geogra-phy determines the administration andthe financing of the various systems ofeducation. Australia has to deal with theproblem of a population widely scatteredthroughout its territory. The objective isto provide university education for adultsprevented by circumstances of geogra-phy or employment from attendingcourses.

In addition to the geographical back-ground which clearly influences the edu-cational system as a result of the obliga-tion to respond to the needs of local com-

munities and of the regions, there areother factors arising from the administra-tive and political systems of differentcountries.

Historical and Political Factors

The objectives and policies pursued byuniversities are linked to the fact that”each society produces its own system ofeducation with its own structures, systemof financing, and administrative rules ofoperation” (Mialaret,1988, p.36) T h u scountries with a federal or a confederalstructure, like the United States ofAmerica or Switzerland, clearly showthat central government action is reducedto a minimum. There are dozens of diffe-rent education systems in the first coun-try mentioned above, while Swiss univer-sity structures depend on the policies ela-borated by the cantons in which thehigher education institutions are located.

Whether a state is unitary or federal,centralized or decentralized, free marketor socialist, democratic or authoritarian,a young country or a country with a longuniversity tradition; the political andideological system to a greater or lesserdegree sets the course for education poli-cy as regards formal or non-formal edu-cation. In fact, the central role of the statein the formulation of higher educationpolicies is shown by the fact that the exe-cutive and legislative authorities areinvolved in the process of drafting educa-tion legislation. The ministries of finan-ce, planning, education, and socialaffairs, together with other bodies if re-quired (ministries of agriculture, health,industry, etc.) participate in this process.

We also need to take into account theinfluence of the political parties in poweron the process of educational develop-ment. Thus, in the United States of

- 22 -


America, the Democratic Party and theRepublican Party have different views,the former favouring federal governmentaction, while the latter seeks to reducethe influence of the federal government.The same is true in France in which thelaws on higher education frequently bearthe name of the minister in office andvary depending on which party is inpower. ”In short, education cannot ignorepolitics and it would be impossible toclaim that an educational system is everautonomous or entirely free from politi-cal influences” (Faraj, 1988, p. 162).

Furthermore, political conflicts maymodify or even overturn existing univer-sity structures. Such was the case withthe war in Lebanon. The LebaneseUniversity, concentrated in the capital,was forced to split up and establishnumerous faculties and institutes throu-ghout the country in order to be dose tocommunities that could only movewithin restricted areas. This diver-sification of structures was also salutaryto the extent that it stimulated varioussocio-economic sectors (banks, clinics,etc.).

Thus, ”any educational policy isdirectly influenced by the existing politi-cal, economic, and social conditions”,but ”it is primarily, for each people, theproducts of their own history and cul-ture” (Landsheere, 1992, p. 8). :

Cultural and Religious Factors

History shows that cultural models havealways played a fundamental role. ”Theearly universities were a reflection of thefeudal cultures of which they were part,and they were regarded as being respon-sible for transmitting the culture of thetime rather than creating new knowled-ge...” (Altbach, 1980, p. 6). The universi-ties of Paris and Bologna, on the

one hand, and of Oxford and Cambridge,on the other hand, served respectively asmodels for European and NorthAmerican universities. In the last century,German universities were pioneers inresearch and inspired universities inAmerica, Japan, and the rest of Europe.The universities of the colonial powersinspired and even served as examples foruniversities in third world countries(Altbach, 1980, p. 6). The universities ofthe former Soviet Union have also actedas models for a large number of EasternEuropean countries. It is also a wellknown fact that the integrated model es-tablished in Sweden (the creation ofstrong links between training and practi-cal work experience) has also served asan example, while the United States hasfavoured a diversified approach in whichthe traditional educational system fortraining elites is combined with anexpansion of the tertiary sector (Abiyad,1988, pp.168-169). However, a new kindof university is now being developed inthat country. These ”business univer-sities”, which have begun to have an in-fluence in France, consist of advancedtraining institutions established by com-panies themselves outside the traditionaluniversity system. The emergence of thisnew pattern of education has given rise toconflicting opinions: some support theirdevelopment on the grounds that ”com-panies constitute an entirely separate sys-tem with their own values, knowledge,and symbols”, while others take the view”that it is scandalous that a kind of edu-cation that comes entirely within the pro-vince of the university is provided bycompanies and is falsely labelled asbeing of university standard” (Le Monde,1/12/1988, p. 15).

In addition, the existence of many dif-ferent cultural and linguistic groupswithin a heterogeneous society influencethe objectives of educational policy. Thus

- 23 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

in Africa in particular, tribal languagesexist side by side with European lan-guages. The development of universitiesreveals the close links that exist betweenculture and religion. Thus Christianity inall its many different forms, and Islamdirectly or indirectly, influence the desi-gn, approach, and choice or programmes.

One writer has pointed out that a num-ber of Arab countries have adoptedaspects of western educational systemsand that ”such features... have created aconflict with traditional Islamic educa-tion”. However, ”despite this conflict, thedesire for education still predominates inthe Arab world” (Faraj, 1988, pp.168-169). The overwhelming impact ofwestern technology on some countrieshas shaken some ancient customs and tra-ditions, overturning some value systems.Thus, ways have had to be found to makethe necessary changes so as to live har-moniously within a new technologicalsociety.

However, whatever the existing cul-tural model, certain factors remain con-stant and provide, in varying degrees, thebasis for a general analysis.

THE IMPACT OF THESE FACTORSON HIGHER EDUCATION

The most obvious signs of the diver-sification of tertiary education are theestablishment of new institutions (uni-versities and post-secondary technicaland technological colleges, trainingcentres, open universities, distance uni-versities, etc.) and the appearance of newcourses. Inter- and intra-disciplinary pro-grammes are increasing. This diversity”is taking place in the computer sciences,engineering micro-electronics, biotech-nology, hydraulics, and the nutritionalsciences. Artificial intelligence andlaser technologies are developing. Medi-

cal technologies are improving...”(Sayegh, 1989, p. 51).

Thus, efforts to adapt higher educa-tion to the changing needs of society andof the productive sector require greatersacrifices on the part of countries, espe-cially those possessing limited budgetaryresources. Financial difficulties increaseas governments are forced to makechoices and to decide on priorities in dif-ferent fields: education, health, defense,etc. Projects are begun and then cut short.Plans for providing equipment and facili-ties or for the recruitment of teachingstaff may be affected by the shortage ofresources.

Furthermore, the solution of one prob-lem may create new ones. Thus, invest-ment in universities has not necessarilyled to the training of qualified teachingstaff, as certain African countries unfor-tunately know to their cost. In order tomake up for the shortage of qualifiedstaff they are forced to call upon foreignteachers. Moreover, the situation is ag-gravated by the brain drain, which isharmful to these same countries.

A lack of planning (quantitative train-ing that is too rapid or too slow, the rapidgrowth of student numbers, the balancebetween science and arts courses) com-plicates the situation. Failure to matchthe training provided with the real needsof the economy, together with deficien-cies in relations with the economic en-vironment, continue to be a major sourceof concern for higher education.

Despite the vital importance ofstudying the workings of the labourmarket, the long-term forecasting ofemployment needs is a thorny problemwith which any attempt at planning mustgrapple. Despite the differences ob-served between education systems in the

- 24 -


developed countries and the developingcountries, they have a certain number ofdifficulties in common. A delegate to oneinternational conference observed that ”ifwe are to win the employment battle, weneed to win the training battler(Statement by France, 1989, p.25).

Moreover, resistance to change andinnovation is to be deplored. The Direc-tor-General of UNESCO pointed out that”change in post-secondary education is adifficult process that must overcome theinertia of deeply rooted traditions”(Mayor, 1989, p. 4).

In general terms, it seems that risingstudent numbers and greater financialdifficulties have induced decisionrnakersto seek other sources of finance and toturn increasingly to the private sector, toindustry, and to local communities.

Most educational systems display agreater or a lesser degree of diversity asrevealed by the different kinds of estab-lishments and the various objectives pur-sued. If we are to believe one author, ”thepurpose of diversification is to serve amore varied clientele. Tertiary educa-tional systems must serve both the youngand the older generations, full time andpart-time students, students with no workexperience, as well as students who havesuccessfully completed their generalsecondary education and those who havefailed to complete it...” (de Moor, 1980,pp. 1-26).

There remains the dramatic and com-plex problem of unemployment. The rea-sons put forward to explain it include thestagnation of economic growth and theinadequate interaction between the sec-tors of production and of higher educa-tion. Is the latter responsible for unem-ployment and underemployment because

it fails to supply the labourmarket with qualified personnel havings u fficient knowledge of technologicalprogress or should we rather blame thesectors of the economy that consequentlyfail to provide jobs?

Higher education establishments areforced to modify their curricula and toadapt them so as to take account of theemployment situation and scientific ad-vances. The idea is gaining ground thatthis kind of education is no longer thesole responsibility of the public authori-ties and that participation by the commu-n i t y, industry, and firms is required,although without in any way restrictingthe role of higher education itself.Arrangements for coordinating actionbetween the public and the private sec-tors have been made with a view to sha-ring the costs between the state, com-panies, and the local and regional autho-rities. Some programmes may be finan-ced by the private sector (scholarships,i n-firm training courses, equipment),which allows its facilities and equipmentto be used. In response to the increasingand varied demands of students, someuniversities in Europe have establishedmodular courses with a view to providingbetter preparation for working life. Suchcourses, without being widespread, havebeen of particular benefit to new catego-ries of students, such as adults who arealready working. Even young people,who decide to interrupt their studies forseveral years, find them useful. Thus,France has introduced a modular system(credits) in many courses of the first andsecond cycles. Effective co-o r d i n a t i o nbetween tertiary education and the worldof workman only be improved throughsuch action.

Proper structures must be put in placein order to encourage co-operation be-tween the universities and organizations

- 25 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

playing a central role in economic life(e.g., professional bodies), in order todevise particular training programmes.Co-operative arrangements of this kindoperate and are widespread in the coun-tries of western Europe. For manyyears now in the United States ofAmerica, co-operation between the uni-versities and business has been com-monplace, to such an extent that co-or-dinating units even operate within uni-versities and are responsible for dis-seminating the know-how of teachersand research workers. Over 50% ofcompanies provide regular assistanceto the post-secondary sector. In easternEurope, contractual relationships areformed between industry, private com-panies, and higher education estab-lishments for the implementation ofprojects, joint training the granting ofscholarships, on-the-job training etc.

As far as participation in educationalactivities is concerned, in Romania spe-cialists from the business sector may beengaged on a temporary basis. In Bul-garia, some practical courses may begiven either by a teacher or by a specia-list -from a scientific medical, or othersuch milieu (Reply to the Questionnaire:Bulgaria, 1989, p. 19). In Hungary andformer Yugoslavia, diplomas obtained bypart-time students possess the same vali-dity as those awarded to full-time stu-dents. On the other hand, in Romaniaadults attending training courses outsidehigher education establishments ” are notawarded diplomas which are the equiva-lent of university degrees” (Reply to theQuestionnaire: Romania, 1989, p. 18).

A process to provide much wider ac-cess to higher education, involving grea-ter equality of opportunities and equalitybetween the sexes, has begun. The edu-cational landscape is being

transformed through the development ofdistance universities and open univer-sities. Distance teaching is taking root inseveral countries. Some communities arebeyond the reach of normal educationalactivities on account of geographical fac-tors or the lack of resources. The com-munication media may provide some res-ponse to their needs through distanceeducation involving the use of printedtexts, correspondence, audio cassettes,radio, television, the telephone, etc. InUkraine since the 1960’s, student num-bers in higher education evening coursesand correspondence courses have dou-bled (Reply to the Questionnaire:Ukraine, 1989, p. 74).

With the ever increasing involvementof universities in continuing education,postgraduate and specialized trainingprogrammes are changing and are likelyto be organized in the form modulesrather than as complete courses. Adultswho are engaged in professional ac-tivities must be able to undergo furthertraining specialize in a particular area, orretrain for a different occupation.

The dichotomy between initial train-ing and work no longer applies when theindividual is an adult who is constantlylearning. Continuing or recurrent educa-tion, seen as an overall process ofeducation beginning with primary edu-cation and pursued throughout life, isbeginning to spread to many countries.Continuing education is coming moreand more to the fore as a driving force atthe interface where economic, social,and cultural structures come into contactwith the productive and reproductiveforces of society. It finds its justificationin attempting to solve the equation: ”permanent innovation/ permanentobsolescence equals permanent change/permanent education” (Besnard andLietard, 1990, pp.17-18). In particular, it

- 26 -


provides a number of responses to rapiddevelopment, social and industrialchanges in society, recession, andunemployment. It may have a role as ametasocial regulator having the benefi-cial effects (the integration of thoseliving on the margins of society, theattempts to combat unemployment,etc.) mentioned by experts.

Thus, the interest in permanent educa-tion can be explained by a number of fac-tors: much broader access to education(on the basis of the principle of equalityof opportunities at different levels:social, sexual, geographical), economicexpansion in the case of some (furtherqualifications for professional advance-ment) or underemployment in the case ofothers (continuing their studies whiletrying to find employment). The result ofsuch interest is an influx of students intohigher education.

”In Europe, the hour of higher educa-tion for all has come” (Massit-Follea andEpinette, 1992, p. 172). However, ”despi-te common degrees, European universi-ties still have common problems...; that isthe paradox of the universities of Europewhich were united throughout the MiddleAges by a common culture and language(Latin), mixing together students andscholars without regard to national fron-tiers and anticipating by more than 500years the economic and political integra-tion of Europe (Le Monde, 17/9/1992, p.20). It is worth recalling that education,absent from the Treaty of Rome, is givena place in the Treaty of Maastricht, whichstates that community action shall beaimed at developing the Europeandimension in education ...”, at fostering”co-operation with third countries andthe competent international organizationsin the field of education, in particular theCouncil of

Europe” (Treaty of Maastricht, Chap. 3,

Art. 126 et seqq., 1992).

Experiments involving mobility onthe part of teachers and students havebeen tried out in both Africa and Europe.Transfrontier co-operation, whether on abilateral or a multilateral basis, has deve-loped, e.g., the course programmes bet-ween Luxembourg, Belgium, andSwitzerland (J. Charpentier, in Philip,1989, p. 55). Other experiments havetaken place in countries belonging to dif-ferent regions. Cameroon is linked withthe University of Leiden (Netherlands)through agreements concerning cur-riculum design, the training of researchworkers, and the exchanges of expertsand students (National Report:Cameroon, 1989, p.41).

Finally, at a somewhat higher level,there is also a determination to increasec o-operation with international or-ganizations. Burundi provides a strikingexample of the development of relationswith countries of widely differing politi-cal structures in different regions, such asAlgeria, Canada, China, Germany, etc.(National Report: Burundi, 1989, pp.46-48). Fundamental changes have been ob-served in Bulgaria in the educationalfield in order to bring about co-operationwith other countries and internationalorganizations (Reply to the Question-naire: Bulgaria, 1989, p. 41).

There is an increasingly clear recogni-tion on the part of states of the need todefine new areas of co-operation, par-ticularly on account of the budgetary res-trictions affecting some countries. Inshort, bilateral, regional, and interna-tional co-operation is becoming a state-ment of belief with a view to findingways of making higher education betterable to meet the socio-economic needs ofdifferent countries, whatever their social,economic, political, and cultural struc-

- 27 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

tures. Despite the development of highereducation establishments, the factremains that they continue to be attachedto the general education system and the-refore to the overall objectives that itsets.

However, the efforts which countriesmake depend on their capacity and deter-mination to create a less heterogeneoussociety by overcoming the longstandingsocio-economic division of society intotwo groups consisting of those who haveassimilated the new technologies andthose who are protected or assisted.

The constant adaptation of highereducation to the quantitative changescaused by socio-economic change andtechnological progress raises the ques-tion of the appropriateness of the reformsof the higher education system. In viewof their varied character, it would be wiseto display pragmatism and act on thebasis of past experience. Thus, ”reformsof higher education appear to be moresuccessful and have more far-reachingresults when they are grafted onto tradi-tional foundations and develop in harmo-ny with the whole of the educational,social, political and economic environ-ment” (From the Editors, 1987, p.3). It ison this basis, for example, that financialassistance is given in Bulgaria, in thosecases in which ”post-secondary” trainingmakes a genuine contribution to the eco-nomic, social, and cultural developmentof the various regions” (Reply to theQuestionnaire: Bulgaria, 1989, p. 21).In return for the many different forms ofassistance that those operating in econo-mic life can give higher education, thelatter provides the various economic sec-tors with high-level managers and techni-cians and thereby contributes to thesocio-economic and cultural

development of society. Alongside its tra-ditional functions relating to the fur-therance of knowledge and research aswell as education and training, highereducation would appear to have moralobligations towards the problems raisedby society regarding national and inter-national affairs and would seem to rep-resent a particularly favourable arena forthe initiation of debate and action. Afterall, a university is not only a competentand independent authority, but is alsoaware through its critical spirit of thedangers threatening world peace, and intune with such questions as the environ-ment human rights, literacy, solidaritybetween states and peoples, the newworld economic and political order, etc.Peace studies are taught in an increasingnumber of universities (over 300,institu-tions surveyed) in the form of coursesdevoted to disarmament, the peacefulsettlement of disputes, and the dangers ofnuclear war (UNESCO, 1988).

The above remarks give rise to a num-ber of questions the answers to whichmight justify further study with a view tobeing able to anticipate problems:

- How should higher educationbe funded?

- How should continuing adulteducation be established anddeveloped?

- How should equality of oppor-tunity and the participation ofwomen in the educational pro-cess be increased?

- What measures should be takento increase the mobility of tea-chers and students?

- What measures should be takento ensure that training is rele-vant to employment?

- 28 -


- How can higher education, insteadof being a passive subject, actpositively and influence politicaldecision-makers so as to developboth its traditional and less tradi-tional functions?

Attempts to answer these questions could,if need be, form a whole series of forwardlooking strategies in the complex world ofhigher education.

In the face of the obstacles raised by suchan approach and the enormous scale of thetask to be accomplished, there yet remainsone more thing to be said, which goes to thevery heart of the matter, namely that one mustnever, in any circumstances, give up hope.

REFERENCES

ABIYAD, M. ”Higher Education”, Bulletin of theInternational Bureau of Education 62 246 January-March 1988).

ALTBACH, P. G. ”Reform and Innovation in HigherEducation: Introduction, Educational Documentation,and Information”, Bulletin of the International Bureauof Education 56 223 (1980).

BESNARD, P. and B. LIETARD. La Formationcontinue. Que sais je, No.1655, 3rd ed., Paris: PUF,1990.

BLOCH, D. ”There is a Machine for the Arts:Conversation with Mr.Valo, Le Monde de 1’Education154 (November 1988).

BURNS, B.B. ”comparative Higher Education” in,The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education,vol. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. 969-977.

CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONALRESEARCH ANDINNOVATION (CERI). Adults in Higher Education.Paris: OECD, 1987.

C E RYCH, L. ”Factors of Implementation:Achievement and Failure in European Higher EducationReforms”, Higher Education in Europe 12 3 (1987):8-9.

C O U N C I L OF EUROPE. Higher Education andResearch Policies in Europe Approaching the Year2000 Results of the Proceedings of the U-2 0 0 0Conference. Strasbourg Council of Europe, 1984.

”Education in Canada”, International Conferenceon Education. 41st Session. Geneva, 1989.

FARAJ, A. H. ”Education in the World”, Interna-tional Yearbook of Education, vol. 40. Paris: UNESCO,1988.

” From the Editors”, Higher Education in Europe12 3 (1987): 3.

GOEL, J. C. Higher Education in Asia and thePacific: a Perspective Study , Papers on HigherEducation, No. 5. Paris: UNESCO, 1983.

LANDSHEERE, V. de. L’Education et la forma-tion. Paris: PUF, 1992.

MASSIT-FOLLEA, F. and F. EPINETTE. ”L’Europedes universites: I’eneignement superieur en mutation, LaDocumentation fransaise: Notes et EtudesDocumentaires (August 1992).

M AYOR, F. ”Address by Mr. Federico MayorDiredor General of UNESCO”, International Con-fewnce on Education, 41st Session. Paris: UNESCO,1989.

MIALARET, G. Les Sciences de l’education, 4thed. Que sais-je, no. 1645. Paris: PUF, 1988.

M I N I S T RY OF EDUCATION AND INSTRUC-TION. Reply to the IBE Questionnaire on Post-Secondary Education, Bucharest 1988.

M I N I S T RY OF NAT I O N A L E D U C AT I O N .Development of Education within 1986-1 9 8 8 :Problems and Difficulties.. Warsaw, 1988.

Le Monde (28 October 1988, 1 December 1988, 8February 1990, 17 September 1992).

MOOR, M. E. A. de. ”Evolution recente et problemesde la diversification de l’enseignement superieur tertiai-re dans les pays europeens”, Informations universi-taires et professionnelles internationales (July-August,1980): 1-26.

”National Report: Bulgaria”, International Con-ference on Education. 41st Session. Sofia, 1988.

”National Report: Burundi”, International Con-ference on Education. 41st Session, Geneva, 1989.

”National Report: Cameroon”, I n t e r n a t i o n a lConference on Education. 41st Session. Geneva, 1989.

O rganization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, Policies for HigherEducation in the1980’s, Paris: OECD, 1983.

PHILIP, C. L’Enseignement superieur et la dimen-sion europeenne. Paris: Ed. Economica 1989.

”Reply to the Questionnaire: Bulgaria”, Interna-tional Conference on Education. 41st Session. Geneva,1989.

- 29 -

RAYMOND SAYEGH

”Reply to the Questionnaire: France”, InternationalConference on Education. 41st Session. Geneva, 1989.

”Reply to the Questionnaire: Romania”. Interna-tional Conference on Education. 41st Session. Geneva,1989.

”Reply to the Questionnaire: Ukraine”, Interna-tional Conference on Education. 41st Session. Geneva,1989.

SAYEGH, R., ”The Diversification of Post-Secon-dary Education in Relation to Employment”, Inter-national Yearbook of Education, vol. 41. Paris: UNES-CO, 1989.

”Statement by France”, i n, International Con-ference of Education. 41st Session. Geneva, 1989.

”Statement by Italy”, in, International Conferenceon Education. 41st Session. Commission II. Geneva,1989.

Treaty of Maastricht, Chapter 3, ”Education,Vocational Training, and Youths, Art. 126, et seqq, 1992.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIEN-TIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION. SecondMedium Term Plan: 1984-1 9 8 9. Paris: UNESCO,1983.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIEN-TIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION. WorldD i re c t o ry of Peace Research and Tr a i n i n gInstitutions/Repertoire Mondial des Institutions deR e c h e rche et d’lnformation sur la Paix, 6th ed.Oxford: Berg, and Paris: UNESCO, 1988.

- 30 -


• An apercu of the reform process in higher educa-tion in the Russian Federation is given. It beginswith a statement of the objectives of reform anda listing of the laws and decrees concerning itpromulgated in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Greatweight has been placed on the set

INTRODUCTION

The higher education system of Russia isundergoing transition. Having been all butfrozen for many years, it has begun to reformitself.

The reforms are pursuing the followingmain objectives:

- expansion of access to higher educa-tion;

- decentralization of the higher educa-tion system, along with expansion ofthe autonomy of the individual institu-tions and the broadening of the acade-mic freedom of faculty members andstudents;

- emphasis in course programmes on thebasic sciences and humanities;

- deideologization of education.

The Russian higher education systemcomprises 535 higher education institutionswith a total student enrollment of about threemillion. Of the number of higher educationinstitutions, 216 are under the auspices of theState Committee for Higher Education. Therest of them are subject to the line ministriesto which their fields of specialization relate.

ting of standards and the creation of mechanisms toenforce these standards. Also, efforts are being madeto adapt certain higher education course programmesto regional needs. The article concludes with a shortdiscussion of current problems.

The legal framework of the functions ofthe higher education system is determined bythe following laws and decrees:

- Presidential Decree No. 1 on Youth(1991);

- Law of the Russian Federation onEducation (12/07/1992);

- Presidential Decree No. 768 on mea-sures to support higher education ins-titutions (09/12/1992);

- Presidential Decree No. 443 on mea-sures for the state support of [under-graduate] students and postgraduates(12/04.1993);

- Presidential Decree No. 4547-1 on thereorganization of the federal bodiesfor higher education governance(25/02/1993).

The State Committee for HigherEducation has submitted a draft law on higherand postgraduate education to theGovernment for its consideration.

STEPS IN THE REFORM PROCESS

Ensuring the diversity of higher educa-tion is one of the main concerns of thereform of Russian higher education Itgoes without saying that since the

- 31 -


REFORMING THE RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

Alexander PROKOPCHUK

country is adopting a market-oriented econo-my, education should become more flexibleand diverse than it has been, every individualbeing given an opportunity to choose thelevel and character of education which in hisor her estimate would be most adequate toenable him or her to confront the labour mar-ket.

Therefore, when the reforms began, thefollowing main objectives were set withregard to the expansion of access to highereducation under new economic conditions:

- introduction of new professional andeducational programmes which takeadequate account of the abilities andinterests of the individual; these pro-grammes will vary in terms of leveland complexity;

- expansion of opportunities to receiveeducation through external studiesdepartments, correspondence courses,and retraining centres through an inte-grated system of education;

- support for the establishment of priva-te (non-state) higher education institu-tions and the development offee-paying higher education.

Much has already been done in thedomain of external studies. The legal basisfor the functioning of external studies depart-ments has been defined, making this form ofeducation accessible to all. All kinds of limi-tations (such as the nature and length ofemployment) have been removed for thoseseeking to enroll in correspondence courses.Practical activities are being conducted toexpand the use of telecommunications ineducation, particularly for distance education

which is being developed.

For the first time in the last seventy years,more than 100 non-state higher educationinstitutions are offering educational pro-grammes, thus creating thousands of newplaces in higher education as a whole. TheLaw on Education provides equal opportuni-ties for the functioning of governmental andnon-governmental institutions, with non-governrnental higher education institutionshaving the right to engage in educational acti-vities upon receipt of a license from the StateCommittee for Higher Education.

The more than 100 institutions mentionedabove are licensed. As a rule, the educationalprogrammes offered by them are intended totrain professionals in the fields of the socialand the legal sciences, economics, manage-ment, commercial operations, journalism,banking, finance, etc. It is obvious thatdemand for these specialists is particularlygreat in the Russia of today and that the pro-grammes are usually organized as companieswith limited liability, as joint-stock compa-nies, etc. Most of these institutions fail tohave facilities of their own. Rather, they usethe facilities of the state institutions.

Proceeding from the premise that a dis-tinction must be made between external andinternal diversity, the reforms-: intended todiversify the structures of higher educationare aimed at the following:

- implementation of a multi-level struc-ture for higher education which, inparallel with the traditional 5-y e a rtraining programmes, envisages theintroduction of three other types ofeducational Programmes different incharacter and length of study:

- 32 -

RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

• one-to-four-year bachelor’s de-gree programmes which provi-de broad training in 80 sub-jects;

• t w o-t o-f o u r-year programmeswhich train specialists in par-ticular professions (the certifi-cate which a student wouldobtain upon completion of hisstudies would equal that of theb a c h e l o r’s degree but wouldcertify different subjects);

• three-to-six-year master’s levelprogrammes which run on af o u r-p l u s-t w o-year basis inwhich the four-years representthe bachelor’s degree program-me;

- establishment of a hierarchical clas-sification of the types of educationalinstitutions according to the characterand level of their missions;

- a considerable increase in the numberof educational institutions which offerprogrammes in the humanities and thesocial sciences, particularly in thefields of economics, law, and sociolo-gy.

During the 1992-1993 academic year,about 20% of the Russian higher educationinstitutions began to offer multilevel pro-grammes. The advantages of this structureinclude the fact that after two years of studiesa student can obtain an intermediate certifica-te of studies and shift to another programmeor to a higher education institution or com-plete his or her education altogether. Also, astudent may choose up to 30% of his or hersubjects inside the programme or change pro-grammes or move to a different higher edu-cation institution upon completion of the ini-tial programme. In addition to making educa-

tion programmes more flexible and responsi-ve to the student’s interests, such a system also facili-tates academic mobility, which is anotherimportant issue in the reform of the educationsystem.

The Government of the RussianFederation has approved a higher educationinstitutional statute which defines the follo-wing types of educational institutions:

- university: a higher education institution theactivities of which are aimed at the develop-ment of education, science, and culturethrough the conducting of fundamental re-search and the offering of training pro-grammes at all levels of higher, postgraduate,and continuing education in a wide range ofnatural and social sciences and the humani-ties;

- academy: a higher education institu-tion the activities of which are aimedat the development of education,science, and culture through theconducting of research and the offe-ring of training programmes at alllevels of higher, postgraduate, andcontinuing education in a single majorarea of science, technology, or culture;

- institute: an independent higher educa-tion institution or a division of a uni-versity or an academy which offersprofessional education programmes ina number of fields of science, techno-logy, and culture, and conducts resear-ch;

- c o l l e g e: an independent educationalinstitution or a division of a university,academy or, institute which off e r sincomplete and/or complete pro-grammes of higher professional edu-cation.

- 33 -

ALEXANDER PROKOPCHUK

Structural changes have occurred in thestudent body. The number of student econo-mists and lawyers has increased considerably.

All limitations, except those imposed byone’s academic record, have been removed inthe case of students wishing to transfer fromone higher education institution to another orfrom one programme to another. What is cal-led the federal component of educational pro-grammes has been instituted in each speciali-zation (about 70% of the volume of each pro-gramme) which has permitted the retention ofa single educational space in Russia and hasensured objective possibilities for studentmobility.

In order to improve the contents and theforms of higher education, the following isintended:

- an increase in fundamental com-ponents both in the natural sciencesand in the humanities;

- an upgrading of the contents of pro-grammes in the social sciences and thehumanities to bring them into com-pliance with the up-to-date level of thedevelopment of science and socialpractice;

- the broad retraining of social and poli-tical science faculty members; publi-cation of up-to-date scientific : andeducational materials;

- attention paid to regional and nationalpeculiarities in the educational pro-cess;

- inclusion of sy,stematic knowledgefrom the natural sciences into thehumanities programmes of basichigher education;

- a considerable increase in the inde-pendent work of students, as wellas the time allocated for teachers’research;

- the assurance of continuity of educa-tional programmes at all levels, fromelementary schooling through post-graduate studies;

- the bringing of the contents of the pro-fessional and educational programmesof Russian higher education institu-tions closer to the educational plans offoreign universities;

- the creation of conditions for con-tinuing education for the retraining ofprofessionals all through their careers.

The following has been accomplished: theelaboration of State Educational Standardsfor the training of bachelor’s degree holdersin all fields have been developed. The federalcomponent of these standards establishes theminimum contents of fundamental training inmathematics and natural sciences, as well asin the humanities and the socioeconomicsciences. The number of mandatory funda-mental disciplines includes mathematics,physics, chemistry, informatics, biology, andecology. These must make up a volume of atleast 30% of each programme. The cycle ofthe humanities training includes cultural stu-dies, sociology, and political science; sub-jects which were not previously included inRussian educational programme. In general,the humanities component in a typical bache-lor’s programme must have a weight of atleast 25% of the total programme.

THE SETTING OF STANDARDS

Educational standards are a means to ensurediversity while preserving a single educatio-nal space in Russia.

- 34 -


Educational standards are set by the federaland the regional authorities and by the highereducation institutions themselves.

The federal component of the educationalstandard determines: 1) the minimum volumeof educational information in the programme;2) the specific requirements for each level oftraining of graduates; 3) the maximumamount of required study time (usually 54hours per week, including 24 hours of lec-tures).

From the technical point of view, the stan-dards are prepared by the Educa-tional-Methodological Union of the HigherEducation Institutions. The Union is dividedinto 20 ScientificMethodological Councils,each of them covering an appropriate subjectlike, for instance, physics. The councilsconsist of professors, teachers, and resear-chers and are primarily responsible for wor-king out the respective standards. The stand-ard is then submitted to the State Committeefor Higher Education which approves it andmakes it a rule for all the higher educationinstitutions offering the particular subject.But the federal component also carriesweight at the level of the programme. Insidethe programme it is the prerogative of theindividual higher education institution toselect the ways in which it wishes to teachgiven subjects. These ways when codifiedconstitute the higher education institutioncomponent in the setting of the educationalstandards.

As higher education institutions are partof the socio-economic structures of theregions in which they are located, it isobvious that they should be responsive to theneeds and interests of the region when deve-loping educational programmes. This aware-ness constitutes the regional component ofeducational standards.

The State Committee has signed agree-ments on the sharing of responsibilities withthe regions of Rostov, Kemerovo, Novgorod,KabardinoBalkaria, and Saratov, to mentionseveral. The agreements deal with issues of:

- finance;

- professional specialization;

- the optimization of professional orien-tation (to avoid parallel programmes);

- social issues, etc.

Higher education institutions situated inthe regions frequently carry out so-calledRegional Development Programmes, like forinstance, the Kuzbas, the Povolzhie, theSiberian Timber, the Dalniy Vostok, and theSamara Programmes. These programmescover the industrial sector, the developmentof the infrastructure, agriculture, etc. Theyalso make educational programmes morediverse internally.

With the introduction of new educationalprogrammes and the establishment of newgovernmental and nongovernmental institu-tions, the issue of quality assurance arises. Atthe state level there are four stages of controlover the standards of the educational process:1) licensing,2) certification,3) accreditationby the state, and 4) accreditation by the gene-ral public. (For more information, see thep a p e r, The Russian Federation Law onEducation and the Unified System of Controland Evaluation of Higher EducationalInstitutions, Moscow, 1993).

CURRENT PROBLEMS

The problem that dominates the thinking ofall education officials and university admi-nistrators at the present time is the

- 35 -

ALEXANDER PROKOPCHUK

acute shortage of funds. Its solution callsfor the development of a new financialmechanism for funding higher education aswell-as a search for non-traditional sourcesof financing.

The universities have already elimina-ted their courses on Marxism and aremoving to make their curricula moreflexible. They are having difficulty in revi -sing courses and materials and in findingways to replace the courses on the historyof the Communist Party, on MarxistPolitical Economy, and on ScientificCommunism. Many old-line faculty mem-bers who used to teach these courses arestill on the payroll but are not well-prepa-red to teach other subjects.

Similar problems exist for the manyinstitutions that are trying to introduce newcourses in such fields as law and business.Law should be a burgeoning field in a new,market-oriented society but it is hard todevelop an adequate course programmegiven that there is no new RussianConstitution but that at the same time, newlegislation is coming out of Moscow everymonth, if not every week. Business pro-grammes are mushrooming, but fewRussian professors have adequate trainingto teach them. Although the universities areenlisting the aid of Western institutions, thelatter are not always knowledgeable in pic-king their partners; nor is it clear that thebusiness school materials being importedfrom the West will prove to be suitable forthe different conditions of the Russian eco-nomy.

These problems are being exacerbatedby the tendency of specialized institutesto upgrade themselves by adding new pro-grammes in economics, law, and business,even though many of them, particularly theinstitutions of applied science, have noexperience in their facilities in the teachingof the new subjects which they are adding.

Another issue of concern stems fromthe fact that all the institutions of higherlearning in Russia were differentiated byfunction. Classical universities emphasizedthe basic disciplines; polytechnics concen-trated on applied science; and institutesfocused on professional training. Today,institutions of all kinds tend increasingly toresemble one another. Universities areorienting themselves to more applied andprofessional education and investigationbecause the available jobs and the contractresearch fall heavily in these areas.Institutes are introducing programmes inbusiness and law for similar reasons andare also trying to transform themselves intouniversities, now that universities havebeen accorded the highest status and presti-ge in the Russian hierarchy of education.The implementation of the statute layingdown clear criteria to be met for assumingthe title of university will obviously put anend to this spontaneous changing of names.

Another grave problem is the lack offoreign books and periodicals, a matter ofacute concern to faculty members, espe-cially at a time when they badly needWestern materials to help them developadequate teaching programmes in business,law, and the social sciences.

- 36 -


• Part of what has given higher education its remark-able stability in recent years has been its diversity.From the point of view of policy, there are threekinds of diversity in higher education: systemic,programmatic, and structural. Binary higher educa-tion systems representing a form of systemic diver-sification, have evolved as a response to the massi-fication of higher education. However, because ofnumber offactors, the perceived ideal

INTRODUCTION

The literature on higher education oftenemphasizes the remarkable stability ofthe university - and its various deriva-tives - over most of its extensive history.In his oft-quoted work, Kerr, for ex-ample, observes that

About eighty-five institutions in theWestern world established by 1520 stillexist in recognizable forms, with similarfunctions and unbroken histories, in-cluding the Catholic church, the parlia-ments of the Isle of Man, of Iceland, andof Great Britain, several Swiss cantons,and seventy universities. Kings that rule,feudal lords with vassals, guilds withmonopolies are gone. These seventy uni-versities, however, are still in the samelocations with some of the same buil-dings, with professors and students doingmuch the same things, and with gover-nance carried on in much the same ways(1982, p. 152).

In so far, then, as diverse means ”un-like in nature or qualities; varied; chan

remains the traditional university. The non-university components of binary systems tend in-creasingly to resemble universities through pro-cesses of academic drift. To prevent these pro-cesses which in fact negate many of the intentionsof planned diversification, social esteem and pres-tige must be built into all sectors which will thenhave an interest in preserving their individualidentities.

geful” (Oxford English Dictionary), whatrelevance does the concept of diversityhave for higher education?

A number of authors have argued thatit is the very diversity of higher educationthat provides its stability. The thesis isthat the division of labour in higher edu-cation based on professional knowledgeand professional expertise producesdiversity and structural disintegration,which in turn protect the equilibrium ofthe whole. A national system of highereducation can also be regarded as a set ofdisciplines and professions, but each iso-lated from the other, and with its ownparticular culture and set of norms andvalues.1 Even more to the point is thefact that pressures and conflicts produ-ced by increasing professionalism andspecialization in higher education havebeen met with increasing diff e r e n t i a t i o n ,not unification. The idea that groups inpotential or actual competition with oneanother create boundaries betweenthemselves in order to avoid directconflict and possible defeat is a central

- 37 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE. Vol. XIX, No. 4, 1994

PYRAMIDS, PRISONS, AND PICTURESQUE HOUSING:A DISCUSSION ON DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Leo C. J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. Lynn MEEK

1 For an excellent and elaborate treatment of this position, see Clark, 19983, in particular pp. 1s15,and 219.

sociological construct (Cf., Durkheim’stheory of the division of labour inmodern society).

As has also been noted in the workingdocument prepared for this workshop,Universities, Colleges, and Others:Diversity of Stru c t u res for HigherEducation: A Discussion of Themes, theissue of diversity is important for a num-ber of reasons, one of which concerns thewish to optimize the responsiveness ofhigher education systems to societalneeds. Changes in government policytowards higher education often have thestated intention of creating higher educa-tion systems that are more flexible, adap-tive, and responsive to community needsand economic priorities. Complex socie-ties and differentiated economic marketsdisplay a wide variety of needs that, sup-posedly, cannot be fulfilled by a singletype of higher education institution.Hence the need to diversify. Systems thatare more diversified are better able torespond to a wide variety of needs. In thisrespect, it is often claimed that thestrength of the American system ofhigher education lies in its diversity.According to the Carnegie Council, ”we[the USA] celebrate the diversity, ack-nowledging that our system of highereducation is the envy of the world....”Although not everyone is as lyrical aboutthe American system as is suggested bythis passage, there is no denying that thissystem is diverse indeed, even though itincorporates components that in othersystems would not be considered to beparts of higher education.

Some of the reasons for the continuedattention given to diversity in manyhigher education policy debates aroundthe world are the inherent goods as-sociated with the notion. As a starting

point for the present discussion, it mayhelp to list a few (Stadtman, 1980):

- diversity increases the range ofchoices available to learners;

- it makes higher education avai-lable to virtually everyone;

- it matches education to the needsand abilities of individual students;

- it enables institutions to selecttheir own missions and to confinetheir activities;

- it responds to the pressures of asociety (complex and diversifiedin itself);

- it becomes a precondition for col-lege and university freedom andautonomy.

Some of these benefits overlap withthe reasons just mentioned. Others seemto be elaborations of the arguments interms of responsiveness and stability.Whether or not Stadtman’s presumedbenefits of diversity are achieved in rea-lity is an empirical question. Buto b v i o u s l y, diversity is a fairly broadconcept, Quite possibly, this breadth isone of the reasons why the debate ondiversity tends to have a somewhatconfusing nature. Let us therefore brieflyelaborate on the ways in which diversityis defined.

THE CONCEPT OF DIVERSITY2

For purposes of discussing the policyproblems associated with diversity, weshall approach the issue according tothree particular interpretations: systemic,programmatic, and structural diversity.

- 38 -

DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2 Both the approach to diversity taken here as well as the examples used are dealt with in moredetail in Goedegebuure, et. al., 1993.

Systemic diversity: This form ofdiversity refers to differences betweenand among institutions as regards theirtasks, their sizes, and the ways in whichthey are controlled (Birnbaum, 1983, p.45). Higher education systems showremarkable differences with respect totheir systemic diversity. Some countriesare experiencing a fundamental transfor-mation of their higher education systems,Australia and the United Kingdom in par-t i c u l a r, which has important conse-quences for the nature of their systemicd i v e r s i t y. Over the last decade, othercountries, like Sweden and theNetherlands, have experienced quite ex-tensive reforms of their higher educationsystems, which in the near future mayhave far-reaching impacts on their sys-temic diversity. Still other systems, suchas that of Ontario, Canada, seem to havebeen remarkably stable over the lastdecade.

Programmatic diversity: This form ofdiversity concerns institutional differen-ces in the supply of educational and re-search programmes and service ac-tivities. Clearly there is a c lose interrela-tionship between programmatic diversityand systemic diversity. Within a highereducation system, various types of highereducation institutions can exist, withthese different types offering similar edu-cational programmes. Such appears tohave been the case in, for example, theAustralian and the British systems justprior to the recent reforms. In contrast,formally unified systems can contain ins-titutions doing quite different things-withrespect to both teaching and research.This form of programmatic diversity isquite apparent in certain private sectorsof higher education, such as in the UnitedStates. While institutions may share pri -vateness in common - and the relatedauthority structures that derive frombelonging to the private sector - there is

great diversity of level and type of edu-cational programmes between institu-tions. In California, for example, theClairmont Colleges (except for theClairmont Graduate School) concentratetheir teaching at the undergraduate leveland do not attempt to compete with otherprivate institutions, such as StanfordUniversity or the California Institute ofTechnology for research programmes andfunding.

S t ructural diversity: This form ofdiversity has to do with differences in thelegal foundations of institutions, forexample, external structural factors, aswell as with differences in their gover-nance structures, for example, internalaspects. There are immense differencesamongst countries in the types of legisla-tion that apply to higher education andhow legislation is used to steer highereducation systems. One of the clearexamples is the way in which the distinc-tion between public and private institu-tions is both perceived and implementedin different countries. As the idea of pri -vate higher education is often associatedwith the working of some sort of marketmechanism, and since the notion of mar -kets is high on the agenda in many of theformer eastern European countries, per-haps some observations on this issue arein order.

First, there is no such thing as trulypri -vatehighereducation. Government and thepublic sector intervene in private highereducation in a number of ways. Manyprivate institutions receive a substantialproportion of their funding from thepublic sector. Research activities atStanford, for example, are heavily de-pendent on federal government researchfunds. Also, as is the case in California,the State usually plays some role in thelicensing/accreditation of private in-s t i t u t i o n s . In Japan, private institutions

- 39 -

LEO C.J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. LYNN MEEK

have recently been placed under the su-pervision of the minister of education.This transfer implies that each institution,private as well as public, must be charte-red by the minister after review by theUniversity Chartering Commission.

Second, in dual public/private sys-tems like in California, the most pres-tigious of the private institutions mayhold equal esteem with the most pres-tigious of the public institutions. How-ever, rarely, if ever, do private institutionsuniformly enjoy more prestige thanpublic institutions. For example, whileJapan has an extensive private sector ofhigher education, the older public univer-sities form the top of the status hierarchy.

Third, there appears to be a greatervariety of institutional type and par-ticularly of institutional quality in the pri-vate than in the public sector. BothCalifornia and Japan express significantdoubts about the quality of some of theirprivate higher education institutions.Somewhat paradoxically, however, a cer-tain range in quality amongst somehigher education institutions can serve toprotect both the quality and the diversityof the system as a whole (Cf.,Trow,1974).

Significant private sectors have theirroots in the historical development ofparticular systems of higher education.Privatization (taken here to mean thegrowth of privateness within publichigher education) and market-like com-petition, however, have arisen on thehigher education agenda of many coun-tries, whether primarily public or withdual public/private sectors. Also, shifts inpublic/private relationships have chan-ged in many spheres, not only withinhigher education. Changing socio-econo-mic relationships in central and easternEurope, for example, point to a signifi-cant push towards privatization on a

grand scale. With respect to higher edu-cation, as Levy notes,

privateness is... seen as providingmore incentives for efficiencies for actorsfrom students to administrators. Sup-porters of privatization find vindicationin the trends of the last fifteen years or so.In the most developed countries, thismarks a striking reversal of the decreas-ing privateness of post-war decades.Thus, the public universities of Europehave come to look much more favourab-ly on private finance to augment resour-ces, offset lost government funds, andprovide energizing competition (1991, p.7).

Privatization is being embraced as anideology in its own right and as a reactionto what is perceived as public failure.Behind many of the changes in the rela-tionships between governments andhigher education institutions is the philo-sophy of economic rationalism, a beliefthat market forces, rather than state inter-vention, will make institutions morec o s t-e ffective and better managed, aswell as making higher education systemsmore fluid and responsive to client needsand demands. The market competition”is posed as the solution to good govern-ment, the condition for a healthy econo-my, and the chance for a better educa-tion” (Perkins, 1987, p.1).

The conference Working Documenthas raised this point as well. At the sametime, questions have been raised as to itsoverall viability. It is to this issue that wewant to shift the debate, as one of theprincipal questions to be addressed ishow diversity is best encouraged, next tothe question of where diversity should belocated. These are by no means easyquestions, but a description and analysisof some recent developments in binaryand other systems that are formally dif-ferentiated as to the types and roles of

- 40 -


institutions (i.e., systemic diversity) mayprovide some useful insights. The ex-ample of binary systems in particular isused, because it very clearly portrays themajor difficulties associated with steer-ing, control, and encouragement of diver-sity

B I N A RY SYSTEMS: OBJECTIVESAND ARRANGEMENTS

To the extent that sound generalizationscan be made with respect to higher edu-cation, the argument can be made that therise of binary systems is closely related tothe development from elite to masshigher education - a statement that is par-ticularly true for those higher educationsystems residing in the Anglo-Saxon andContinental traditions.

Here, throughout the centuries, a rela-tively limited number of students, predo-minantly from the higher social classes,was educated in the traditional ways ofthe university3. As has been stated moreeloquently elsewhere (Tr o w, 1974),demand for higher education rose sharplyafter the Second World War, the result ofeconomic and social developments, ademand that could not be met within theexisting systems. First, the availablecapacity within the universities was sim-ply insufficient to cater to the increasingnumber of students. Second, large bodiesof students were and still are at odds withthe established university philosophiesregarding higher education. And third,meeting this demand within the universi-ty systems would have implied extremebudgetary pressures under ceteris Paribusconditions. Therefore, in a number ofcountries, the solution was sought increating new sectors next to the universi-ty. Examples of this solution are the poly-

technics in the United Kingdom, the col-leges of avanced education (CAE) inAustralia, the Fachhochschulen i nGermany, and the vocational educationsector (HBO) in the Netherlands.

The objectives for these new types ofhigher education are remarkably similaracross these countries and can be sum-marized as follows:

- to offer more professionally orien-ted, and vocational-ly/economically relevant types ofeducation;

- to cater to non-traditional groupsof students in a more innovativemanner, including an emphasis onpart-time education;

- to be primarily teaching oriented,with at best a derived attention toapplied research; and to deal withthe capacity problem without sub-stantially increasing the govern-mental expenditure for higher edu-cation.

To an extent, the creation of these newtypes can therefore been seen as an at-tempt at innovating the higher educationsystem in the face of new environmentalconditions. At the same time, it shouldnot be forgotten that it also implied safe-guarding existing university practicesand traditions, a fact that has beenexpressed by some of the architects of thenon-university sectors at that time. Forexample, Sir Leslie Martin, in estab-lishing the Australian binary system,based it on his essentialist ideas of what auniversity should do, namely researchand the training of researchers, in com

- 41 -

LEO C.J. COEDECEBUURE and V. LYNN MEEK

3 This is not to say that the emphasis in both models has been the same, for evidently there arebasic differences between what has been labelled the Newman and the Humboldt philosophies onhigher education.

bination with a clear perception of thedifferent intellectual capacities of stu-dents - the well- and lesser endowed stu-dents: ”Implicit in this distinction, ac-cording to intellectual capabilities, is thecreation of two types of institutions”4.Similar expressions of sentiment weremade by Anthony Crossland, the personwho was politically responsible for theBritish binary policy: ”We are preservinga privileged position for the universitiesby deliberately trying to create inferiorinstitutions outside”5 .

In view of the above, it is remarkablethat for at least three of the four examplesintroduced above, namely the Australian,the British, and the Dutch systems, thebinary policy has been cast in the ”equalbut different” dogma6. From a staticpolitical perspective on higher education,this view can be understood. It is easierto sell a policy to Parliament and toconstituencies if the veil of equality iscast. However, looking at the destinies ofthese systems, some doubts arise as to theviability of this philosophy.

EQUALBUT DIFFERENT:THE NEGATION OFSTATUS

In Australia, the binary system lastedsome twenty-five years. Although duringthat period it contributed to the growthand development of higher education, theconclusion reached was that its objec-tives had not been attained:

[...] it became difficult to attach to thesector a clear educational philosophyand to distinguish its functions fromthose of the

universities. [...] The bulk of the stu-dent demand was for courses in thehumanities, business studies, andsocial sciences, not in technologies.[...] In their search for equal statuswith the universities, the collegeseither dropped or upgraded diplomasin favour of degrees, and college staffachieved parity of salary with univer-sity staff. In order to teach degreecourses, the colleges recruited staffwith higher degrees and a record ofresearch publications, the same sort ofstaff that were employed by universi-ties (Meek and Goedegebuure, 1989,pp. 18-19).

Also, the CAE’s proved not to be asinexpensive as an alternative as had beenexpected at their inception. Over theyears, the Australian system has becomemore homogeneous instead of morediverse, this to some extent because ofthe occurrence of academic drift in thenon-university sector. The result was anew higher education policy imple-mented in 1988. The binary system wasabolished and replaced by the UnifiedNational System. No longer will the ran-dom location of an institution in a par-ticular sector be the reference point forhigher education policy, but the institu-tional function:

The new arrangements will promotegreater diversity in higher educationrather than any artificial equalization ofinstitutional roles. Institutions that at-tempt to cover all areas of teaching andresearch compromise their ability toidentify, and build on, areas of particular

- 42 -


4 As expressed in a speech in 1961, quoted in Davies.,1989,p.55.

5 Woolwich speech, 27 April 1965. This position was refined in the second founding speech of thebinary system of Lancaster, 20 January 1967.

6 This notion is less explicit in the German system and policy.

strength and the achievement of genuineexcellence. The ultimate goal Is a balancedsystem of high quality institutions, eachwith its particular areas of strength and spe-cialization... (Higher Education: a PolicyStatement, 1988, p.

A comparable development regardingthe fate of the binary system is evidencedby the British case. Here, the polytechnicshave steadily expanded their target groupsand functions since 1966 in the direction ofthe universities. According to Scott, theBritish binary policy has been surroundedby ambiguity. Not only can the policy itselfbe considered a rationalization of historicalcoincidences, it also embodies a separationof institutions on the basis of bureaucraticcontrol which only remotely relates to theeducational objectives and nature of thedifferent institutions:

...the most important distinctionswithin British higher education canno longer be drawn between sectors.They must be drawn between insti-tutions within these sectors, andeven between departments withinthese institutions. Perhaps the mostunfortunate aspect of the ‘binarypolicy’is that it obscures the diversi-ty of institutions by allocating themto stereotyped sectors (Scott,1989,p. 300).

In the perception of another observer,the collapse of the British binary system isclosely related to the ”equal but different”philosophy on which it was based:

As for the polytechnics’ having adistinctive character, it was clearfrom the beginning that having been

promised parity-of esteem, the statethen had to provide them roughequality of academic standard, andof cost as well. And thus we haveseen a steady convergence in theircharacter, mission, governance, andautonomy (Trow, 1988, p.16).

This argument appears intuitively plau-sible since the Australian example alsoshows that formal equality within a frame-work of unequal distribution of resourcesand prestige results in substantial tensionwithin the system and gradual erosion oforiginally established objectives. In practi-ce, a binary system seems to have the oppo-site effect of its rationale. Differences bet-ween sectors become blurred while increa-sed differences within sectors are restrai-ned because of the policy necessity to treatall institutions in the same manner.

Despite the plausibility of this argu-ment, one should note that rather differentperceptions exist as to the success of abinary system. Rather quickly, a number ofanalysts placed the banner of failure overthe binary policy. Pratt and Burgess pointedout that the polytechnics quite soon startedreplacing the nontraditional courses, suchas sub-degree and part-time courses, infavour of the traditional higher level degreecourses offered by the universities (Prattand Burgess, 1474), a development theylabelled academic drift. However, in subse-quent analyses, this perspective on thebinary system has been somewhat altered.Scott points out that in fact the polytech-nics were left little choice as to their deve-lopment path because of the environmentalpressures of the overall further educationsystem:

- 43 -

LEO C.J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. LYNNMEEK

7 For a more detailed account of the development of this system and its rationale, seeCoedegebuure,1992.

The polytechnics, after all, canhardly be expected to buck thewider trends that have affected allfurther education... [which] wassubject to broad secular trends, thebias towards full-time study em-bodied in the mandatory grant sys-tem, the growing unwillingness ofemployers to release theiremployees, the encroachment ofdegrees on professional qualifica-tions and so on, which affectedadvanced courses as much or morethan non-advanced courses (Scott,1984, pp.178-179).

His conclusion therefore is that manyof the objectives of the original binarypolicy have been fulfilled, such as thecounteracting of the dominance of theuniversity sector, the introduction ofvocationally relevant courses, and of thepromotion of participation from thelower social classes. Nevertheless, thefact remains that the binary system withrespect to the university-polytechnic dis-tinction has ceased to exist. Throughexpansion of the research function, a fur-ther concentration on the more presti-gious degrees, and incorporation of tradi-tional academics into the polytechnicstaff, the institutional distinction becamemore and more fiction rather than reality.In 1991, the White Paper heralded theend of the binary system by offering,amongst other things, the opportunity forthe polytechnics to use the name, univer-sity. That the possibility has been takenup by the majority of polytechnics sug-

gests that the label, university, is morethan just a name.

THE IMPORTANCE OFDIFFERENCES

The above discussion suggests that bi-nary systems have an inherent self-des -tructive capacity, if the Australian andBritish examples are taken as yardsticks.However, there are other examples thatmodify this perspective. For example, theAmerican situation shows that it is pos-sible to maintain a viable system inwhich strict demarcation exists, not onlybetween individual institutions, but alsobetween sectors.

Perhaps the California system is thebest known example. The higher educa-tion system of California consists of threeseparate sectors: the University ofCalifornia system (UC), which includesthe typical research and doctorate gran-ting institutions, the California StateUniversity system (CSU), which containsthe non-doctoral degree granting institu-tions, and the Community College sys-tem9. In particular, the separation of theUCCSU system is guaranteed by the so-called Master Plan, which regulates thesystem through government steering, anddefines the boundaries between the sec-tors. Noteworthy is the fact that theseboundaries are not based on the ”equalbut different philosophy. The sectors aredifferent and not equal, which, as isargued later, can perhaps explain the factthat the system still exists and works.

- 44 -


8 See,for example,Kogan,1991;Brennan and Shah,1993 .One should note that pressure was puton the of the binary system not only by the developments in the polytecnic sector.The nature of theBritish universities changed as well as a result of highly intrusive government policies in the 1980’sin combination with financial pressures.9One could, in fact, consider the private higher education institutions in California as consulting afourth sector.

Nonetheless, in this situation acade-mic drift also exists. As Clark (1990)states:

...there is a steady, unrelentingpressure [from the CSU system] toevolve into full university stature.[...] and, Master Plan or not, thecampuses, at different rates and todifferent degrees, develop a re-search capability.

His prediction is that around the year2000 some of the CSU institutions willhave acquired the right to grant doctoraldegrees and will have evolved, far morethan at present, into research universities.

If the California systems exhibit someunderlying tensions, these appear absentin the Ontario (Canada) system. Here, abinary system has existed since 1965,separating universities and Colleges ofApplied Arts and Technology (CAAT’s).Also in this case one can make the argu-ment that clear guidelines exist regardingthe activities that institutions within thesectors can and cannot undertake Cones,1991).

Can we therefore conclude that ratherstrict government control is a possiblesolution to the previously noted pheno-menon of institutional drift and the gra-dual expansion and loosening of originalmissions? Before answering this ques-tion, it would be worthwhile to discussinstitutional relations within higher edu-cation systems and the role and influenceof classifications.

STRATIFICATIONS AND DYNAMICS

Distinguishing institutional types, whe-

ther through binary, trinary, or x-narylines, ultimately has to do with diversity,as has been indicated above. In particu-lar, it relates to external diversity, i.e., thedifferences between institutions, formali-zed in systemic diversity. In general,classifications - of which systemic diver-sity is an example - distinguish like fromunlike, often with the side-effect of animplicit indication of complexity andquality. According to Trow, the highereducation system is a

stratified system of institutions,graded formally or informally instatus and prestige, in wealth,power, and influence of variouskinds (Trow, 1984, p.132).

In other words whatever the type ofhigher education system, there will al-ways be distinctions between institutions.The effects of those distinctions are lessclear, especially in the case of explicitsectors created by governments. Neave(1983) takes the position that all highereducation systems have an inherent ten-dency for integration. Irrespective of thefact that government policy might beaimed at maintaining separate sectors,there exists

an undisputable move towards inte-gration, even though from the poli-c y-m a k e r s ’ perspective, it consti-tutes a regression towards the prio-rities, values, and practices foundin the ”noble” [university] sectored

But different perspectives exist as well inthe literature on higher education. Also in1983 Clark acknowledged the

- 45 -

LEO C.J. COEDEGEBUURE AND V. LYNN MEEK

10 The term ”noble sector” was introduced in the OECD report Short-Cycle Higher Education: ASearch for Identity, 1973

problem of integration in formally separatedsystems by stating that ”...national systemsstill actively seek a way to de-differentiate.The label of ‘university’is generously passedaround... 11. However, his overall conclusionis contrary to Neave’s:

Explicit sectors [...] seem to be thechief answer to the macro-o r-ganization of an evermore extendeddivision of academic labour. The cru-cial process of change from implicit toexplicit is the legitimation of roles fordifferent types of institutions... (1983,p.195).

Indeed the crucial question is not one ofintegration or of differentiation as such, butof legitimating different functions of institu-tions. The legitimation of functions impliessocietal esteem, rewards, and thus prestige.We are thus brought back to the basic notionsand assumptions that underlie the differentmethods of classification. It is a fact of lifethat institutional hierarchies will alwaysexist, in which institutions at the bottom ofthe status ladder will try to emulate those atthe top. The problem therefore is not so muchone of how to avoid this behaviour, for it isvirtually impossible to avoid, but one of howto channel it to prevent de-differentiation andwastage of scarce resources at the systemlevel.

From various disciplines it has been

argued and demonstrated that organizationsin general - by definition including highereducation institutions:

- strive for maximization of resources,profits, and utility;

- that power and prestige are crucialvariables in explaining organizationalbehaviour; and

- that incentive-disincentive types ofsteering and control through the han-ding out and the withholding ofvalued resources can be very effective

Any government policy on diversity andstructural arrangements regarding the highereducation system should take these basicnotions into account. Failure to do so willultimately result in the demise of structuralarrangements through the dynamics of insti-tutional behaviour. It has often been arguedthat if institutions are left free to determinetheir own actions and course of events, thatis, maximizing diversity - they will seek theirown niches, thereby maximizing diversity -an approach that is solidly based on mar-k e t-philosophies and evolutionary analo-gies13.

Even though these arguments appearattractive to proponents of the marketand are reinforced by the apparent failu-re of many government induced restruc-turing operations and the inadequaciesof public policy14, empirical realitydoes fully support such a persec-

- 46 -


11 Here, Clark discussed in particular the creation of the comprehensive university. Around that time,this was a rather popular concept of a new type of university m which different forms of higher edu-cation, both strictly academic as well as mow vocationally oriented, were brought together.It wouldoffer students the ultimate possibility to choose courses most suited to their interests and intel-lectual capabilities. In the United States, this type of institution still exists, but in western Europeit has never taken hold, as is indicated by the experiment with the German Gesamthochschule.See, for example Cerych and Sabatier, 1986.

12 See, for example, Bacharach and Lawler, 1980, Benson, 1975; Cyert and March, 1963, DiMaggioarid Powell, 1983; Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Levine, 1980; Niskanen, 1971; and Pfeffer andSalancik, 1978.

13 For a critique, see, for example, Goedegebuure, 1992; and Meek and O’Neill 1993.14 For some examples, see Cerych and Sabatier, 1986; also, Van Vught, 1989.

tive. In the American system, which pro-bably is the most market-oriented systemexisting to date even though it is notexempt from government regulation,these conditions do not lead to an in-crease in diversity. As Birnbaum (1983)has shown, diversity is in effect decreas-ing. Another example might be the Dutchcase, where after the introduction of asteering philosophy aimed at increasinginstitutional autonomy, both the universi-ties and the non-university institutionsappear not to differentiate throughn i c h e-seeking and distinctive profiles,but rather portray imitation behaviour(Goedegebuure, 1992). And forAustralia, it has been argued that up untilnow there appears to be little evidence tosupport the proposition implied in theUnified National System that institutionsare actively pursuing ways to differentia-te (Meek and O’Neill,1993).

We seem to be faced with a substan-tial dilemma. Having taken the binarysystems in a number of countries as ex-amples, it looks as if a system of govern-ment controlled sectors is inherently uns-table and, through its underlying philoso-phy and institutional actions, contains theseeds of its own destruction. On the otherhand, absence of governmental controland increased institutional autonomydoes not appear to result in increaseddiversity. But, as is often the case, it isnot a question of either-or. In our pers-pective, a combination of control andautonomy could well result in a workablesystem which to an extent might limitde-differentiating behaviour through ins-titutional drift. The outlines of such a sys-tem are presented in the last section ofthis article.

DIVERSITY THROUGH CONTROLAND AUTONOMY

Higher education systems are often por-trayed as pyramids, with universities atthe top and other types of institutions -lower types - residing below. As hasalready been indicated, such systemscontain conditions that very likely willlead to imitative behaviour because of ther e s o u r c e- and prestige pattern that isinherent in such steep and open hierar-chies. Close-structured systems, such asbinary ones, are often depicted as pri-sons, placing unnecessary constraints onthe innovative and adaptive capacity ofinstitutions through uniform resourcepatterns, uniform regulation, and, again,sharp prestige distinctions. Also in thesesystems, emulation occurs because ofthese underlying conditions, and institu-tions find the files to cut the bars that areconstraining them in their figurative pri-sons - a situation that again does not cor-respond with the perceived need to eithermaintain or to increase systemic diversi-ty.

One of the well-known aspects ofAmsterdam are its canals and the diver-sity in rooftops of the houses on thebanks. With some imagination, we canpicture a higher education system alongthose lines. Again we have separate sec-tors (the individual houses) with ratherclearly defined missions or objectives.These are quite formally laid down inregulations, much along the lines of theCalifornia Master Plan. However, withinthe realm of these sectoral objectives,there is substantial autonomy for in-dividual institutions. Thus, hierarchiescan, and quite possibly should, existwithin the sectors, providing institutionsfull possibility to expand into any areathey consider necessary, under the con-dition that they do not cross the external-ly established boundaries. Of course, this

- 47 -

LEO C.J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. LYNNMEEK

hierarchical ordering does not preventemulation within sectors. With respect tothe American system, the argument hasbeen made that it is exactly this emula -tion that leads to progress in the system,because institutions at the top of thehierarchy, through their advanced posi-tions, will continue to develop and tomove forward. Others will take up theirprevious positions, and the system as awhole will progress to a higher plane15.Under the condition that this behaviour iscontained within sectors, however, thereis little danger of decreasing systemicdiversity.

But, in order for such a system towork, societal esteem and prestige haveto exist for all sectors. Only if institutionscan find prestige within their sectors thatis comparable to that in others will therebe an incentive to try and move from onesegment of the system to the other. Thisnotion strongly relates to that of the legi-timate roles identified above. While reco-gnizing the fact that this type of prestigecannot be prescribed through externalregulation but has to be generated fromwithin society at large, its essential ingre-dient is diversity. There is no theoreticalreason why different activities cannothave comparable levels of esteem. Nor isthere any reason why universities in par-ticular should hold the highest levels ofprestige. The French system with itsGrandes Ecoles (non-university types ofinstitutions) is a good example here. Butan absolute precondition is the creationof environmental conditions that enablediverse notions of prestige to develop.

And here, a major and difficult task forgovernment exists.

Since

- most higher education systems to alarge extent are public systems,depending on public funds, and

- resource distributions to a verylarge extent determine institutionalbehaviour, as indicated above,

a differentiated system for the provisionof resources should be created that,through incentives and disincentives,rewards institutions for attainmentswithin their sectoral spheres, andpunishes them for activities outside theirdirect realm. Such a system would bevastly different from many of the presentday higher education systems in whichgovernments create uniform environ-mental conditions under which institu-tions must function. And followingnotions of adaptation and resource de-pendence, such uniform conditionswould lead to uniform, and thus de-dif-ferentiating behaviour by institutions16.

CONCLUSION

The proposal embodied in this article isbut a rough outline of a structure and itsconditions, one that has to be specifiedand refined to a far greater extent thanhas been done here. However, for pur-poses of stimulating discussion and pro-viding a different perspective to the

- 48 -


15 A notion presented by Riesman, known as the ”academic processions and regularly portrayed asa snake-like movement; it should again be emphasized that this notion of progress cannot be tra-ced back to evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory in essence concerns adaptation to environ-mental circumstances and has nothing to do with the notion of prowess or of more highly valuedstates. Both of the latter were posited through Social Darwinism, for which normative reasoningwas paramount Evolutionary theory has also been heavily criticized for this shift from the originalparadigm.

16 With respect to higher education systems, this line of reasoning was first explored byGoedezebuure in 1992. It was more recently refined by Van Ought 1993. See also Meek,1991,and Meek and O’Reill,1993.

debate on diversity than what normally is the case, thepresent contribution may be of use. Whether or not theconcept of ”picturesque housing” will evolve beyond thestage of an embryonic theoretical notion remains an openquestion. But too often debates on higher education poli-cy and structures remain within the realm of strict highereducation research and literature, without drawing on thewider pool of the social sciences, and in particular onworks dealing with political and organization-sociologythat may provide insights into the dynamics of highereducation systems.

REFERENCES

BACHARACH, S. B., and E. J. LAWLER. Powerand Politics in Organizations. San Francisco: Jos-sey-Bass, 1980.

BENSON, J. K ‘’The Interorganizational Network asa Political Economy”, Administrative Science quarter-ly 20 (1975): 229-249.

BIRNBAUM, R. Maintaining Diversity in HigherEducation. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 1983.

BRENNAN, J., and T. SHAH, ”Hochschulpolitik inGrossbritannien’’, in, L. C. J. Goedegebuure, et. al.,Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Ve r g l e i c h ,Gutersloh: Verlag bertelsmann Stiftung 1993, pp.162-193.

CERYCH, L., and P. SABATIER. Great Expecta-tions and Mixed Performance. S t o k e-o n-Tr e n t :European Institute of Education and SocialPolicy/Trentham Books, 1986.

CLARK, B. R. The Higher Education SystemBerkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

CLARK, B. R., Is California the Model for OECDFutures?, paper presented at the OECD SeminarBerkeley, 1990.

CYERT, R. M., and J. G. MARCH. A BehaviouralTheory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren-tice-Hall, 1963.

D AVIES, S., The Martin Committee and theB i n a ry Policy of Higher Education in A u s t r a l i a .Ashburton: Ashwood House, 1989.

DiMAGGIO, P. J., and W. W. POWELL. ‘’The IronCage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism andCollectiveRationality in Organizational Fields”, A m e r i c a nSociological Review 48 (1983): 147-160.

GOEDEGEBUURE, L. C. J. Mergers in HigherEducation: A Comparative Perspective. Utrecht:

Lemma, 1992.

GOEDEGEBUURE, L. C. J., F. KAISER, P. A. M.MAASSEN, V. L. MEEK, F. A. VAN VUGHT, and E.DE WEERT, eds. Hochschulpolitik im internationalenVergleich. Gutersloh: Verlag bertelsmann Stiftung,1993.

HANNAN, M.T. and J. FREEMAN. OrganizationalEcology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

JONES, G. A. ”Modest Modifications and StructuralStability: Higher Education in Ontario’’, HigherEducation 214 (1991): 573-588.

KERR, C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1982.

KOGAN, M. Crosland, Polytechnics, and BritishExperiments with Binary Systems, paper presented at theUniversity of New England, Australia, 1991.

LEVINE, A. Why Innovations Fail. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1980.

LEVY, D. C., Problems of Privatization, paper pre-sented at the World Bank Worldwide Seminar onInnovation and Improvement of Higher Education inDeveloping Countries, Kuala Lumpur,1991.

MEEK, V.L. ‘’The Transformation of A u s t r a l i a nHigher Education: From Binary to Unitary System’’,Higher Education 21 4 (1991): 11-43.

MEEK, V. L., and L. C. J. GOEDEGEBUURE.Higher Education: A Report. Armidale: University ofNew England, 1989.

MEEK, V. L., and A. O’NEILL, Diversity andD i fferentiation in the Australian Unified NationalSystem of Higher Education, paper presented at the 2ndPolicy Change in Higher Education Conference,University of Turku, Finland, 1993.

N E AVE, G. ”The Dynamics of Integration inN o n-lntegrated Systems of Higher Education inE u r o p e ’’, in, H. Hermanns et. al., The CompleatUniversity. Cambridge: Schenkman, 1983, pp.263-276.

NISKANEN, W. A. B u reaucracy and Repre-sentative Government. Chicago: A l d i n e-A t h e r t o n ,1971.

PERKINS, ]. A., ”Privatization”, Newsletter of theInternational Council for Educational Development(November, 1987).

- 49 -

LEO C.J. GOEDEGEBUURE and V. LYNN MEEK

PFEFFER, J., and G. SALANCIK. The ExternalControl of Organizations. New York: Harper and Row,1978.

P R AT T, J., and T. BURGESS. Polytechnics: AReport. London: Pitman, 1974.

SCOTT, P. The Crisis of the University. London:Croom Helm, 1984.

SCOTT, P. ‘’The British Universities’ Response toInstitutional Diversification”, H i g h e r E d u c a t i o nManagement 1 3 (1989).

S TADTMAN, V. A. Academic A d a p t a t i o n s:HigherEducation Prepares forthe 1980’s and 1990’s.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

TROW, M. a Problems in the Transition from Eliteto Mass Higher Education, ins ORGANIZATION FORECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND

DEVELOPMENT. Policies for Higher Education.Paris: OECD, 1974.

TROW, M. ‘’The Analysis of Status”, in, B. R.CLARK, ed., Perspectives on Higher E d u c a t i o nBerkeley: University of California Press, 1984, pp.132-164.

TROW, M., The Robbins Trap: British Attitudes andthe Limits of Expansion, paper presented at theUniversity of Sussex, 4 July 1988.

VUGHT, F. A. van, ed. Governmental Strategiesand Innovation in Higher Education. London: JessicaKingsley Publishers, 1989.

VUGHT, F. A. van, Diversity in Higher Education:A Theoretical Perspective, paper presented at the 2ndPolicy Change in Higher Education Conference,University of Turku, Finland, 1993.

- 50 -


• The article begins with an overview of the historyof the importance given by European systems ofhigher education to the twin questions of the pro-per structures of higher education and the link bet-ween higher education and employment. From themid-1950’s to the present, the debates on the twoquestions have sometimes been closely linked andsometimes barely linked at all. The point is thatthe link between increased employment andhigher education is very complex and that signalsare unclear. There is no proof, for instance, thatover the

STRUCTURES AND RELATIONSHIPS TOEMPLOYMENT: TWO CURRENT ISSUESOFHIGHER EDUCATION

In identifying current issues of higher educationwhich are the focus of consideration, debate, andpossible concern among politicians, representa-tives of higher education systems, researchers onhigher education, as well as other experts in thisarea, it is necessary to begin by defining structuresof higher education systems as well as relation-ships between higher education and employment.

The question of structures appearedon the agenda in Europe from the early1960’s to the mid-1970’s. From the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s, however, theywere hardly an issue at all, and very fewchanges were implemented in this res-pect. In the late 1980’s, again, the majo-rity of European counties became invol-ved in debates about needs for diversityand the re-structuring of higher educa-tion. Regarding the link between highereducation and employment, a

long-term, graduates of non-university higher educa-tion institutions will be better protected againstunemployment than graduates of traditional universi-ties, particularly those from nontraditional and diver-

sified programmes within these universities. Still anon-hierarchical diversity of institutions and pro-grammes seems best suited to the long-term employ-ment prospects of students. Also, information sourceson higher education and employment must be made

more accurate and more comprehensive.

similar historical pattern can be observed.Substantial attention was paid to this theme for acertain time during the 1960’s and 1970’s .Although it lost momentum in the late 1970’s, it isnow back on the agenda.

One might be inclined to assume aclose link between the two debates overtime. As is well known, the re-structuringof higher education was viewed in thepast as a strategy for ensuring a closermatch between the output of higher edu-cation and the demands of the employ-ment system. Therefore, it would be mostnatural to assume that the concurrentre-ernergence of both these issues wasdue to this link. A closer view, however,reveals a less clear interrelationship.

As this article will demonstrate, cur-rent debates on structures of higher edu-cation are no longer as closely linked toissues of higher education and employ-ment as they once were. A lesson that hasprobably been learned from themid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s is that the

- 51 -


HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT:CHANGING CONDITIONS FOR DIVERSIFIED STRUCTURES OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Ulrich TEICHLER

structural development of higher educationis only to a limited extent shaped by highere d u c a t i o n-employment relationships, andthat structural policies are not a verypowerful tool in changing the relationshipsbetween higher education and employ-ment. The two issues have remained inter-related, but in a much more complex waythan was the case two or three decades ago.

CHANGING VIEWS AND DEBATESFROM THE 1950’S TO T H EMID-1970’S

From the late 1950’s until about the mid-1 9 7 0 ’s, the relationship between highereducation and employment was one of themost central issues in higher educationpolicy in most industrialized societies.Around 1960, the belief became wides-pread that the expansion of higher educa-tion was indispensable for economic grow-th. However, by the 1970’s, many politi-cians, employers, and labour marketexperts were claiming that expansion hadled to substantial overeducation at a timewhen unemployment in general had increa-sed (Cf., the summary of the debates inTeichler, Hartung and Nuthmann, 1980;Fulton, Gordon, and Williams, 1982).

In many countries, policies in favour ofthe expansion of higher education wereembedded in efforts to restructure it.During the late 1950’s, the community col-leges in the United States were the mostrapidly expanding sector of higher educa-tion. The establishment of polytechnics inthe United Kingdom and of instituts uni-versitaires de technologie in France in the1 9 6 0 ’s were among the best knownexamples of diversified institutional struc-tures of higher education.

Around 1970, it became conventionalwisdom that diversified structures werenecessary in order to protect elite educa-tion and to offer suitable learning en-

vironments for the motivations, capabili-ties, and employment prospects of the new,previously disadvantaged or non-traditio-nal students (see OECD,1973; Trow,1974;OECD,1974; de Moor,1978). What remai-ned controversial was not diversification assuch, but rather the principals and struc-tures of differentiation or diversification.

During the 1970’s, many employers,politicians, and experts claimed that theexpansion of higher education was goingbeyond the demands of the employmentsectors thus causing a growing mismatchbetween the competencies of graduates andtheir future tasks. According to theseviews, graduate unemployment and theu n d e r-utilization of competencies werelikely to increase dramatically. In addition,the growing unemployment in We s t e r nEurope since 1973 was also affecting gra-duates from institutions of higher educa-tion.

Increased concern regarding theemployability of graduates triggeredwidespread responses in higher educationin at least three respects. Stronger emphasiswas placed on fields of study closely linkedto specific careers, on institutions aiming toimpart skills immediately useful on the job,and on curricular revisions aimed at chan-ging the qualitative content of higher edu-cation in a way likely to increase highereducation course programmes consideredappropriate in various countries,.assumingthat those completing short programmeswere unlikely to harbour ambitious careergoals.

The wording, emphasis was pla -c e d, was chosen with care. For aswill be discussed below, the actualdevelopments were by far less cohe-rent and consistent in those respectsthan the prevailing rhetoric. Ef f o r t sin the mid- and late 1970’s in favour

- 52 -

HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

of diversifying the structures of highereducation were undoubtedly reinforcedby the growing employment problems.Note should be taken of the fact thatthose efforts by no means addressed ex-clusively the employability of gra-duates but were much broader in theirintent.

RECENT ISSUES

Leaving aside, for a moment, the deve-lopments which occurred from the late1970’s to about the mid-1980’s, onecan note that after a period of almostcomplete silence, renewed efforts, inrecent years, to improve the structuresof the higher education system arevisible in a surprisingly large numberof European countries. Recent policiesin favour of restructuring, however, areby no means similar in all countries sofar as the causes addressed and themodels suggested are concerned (seeNeave, 1989; OECD,1991;Gellert,1993; Teichler, 1993).

Four different major debates havingone element in common can be disen-tangled. This element, issues pertainingto the relationship of higher educationwith other sectors, is only conceived asone of the many issues involved, but notas the major driving force of the debate.

The restructuring of higher educationfirst became a priority issue in most ofthe countries known for the extraordina-rily long duration of the study periodsleading to the award of a first degree.Restructuring thus took place in Spain,Denmark, Finland, and Italy. It is in theprocess of implementation in Austria andis a major issue in Germany andSwitzerland. The long duration of studycame to be viewed as intolerable formany reasons. Among them, mismatchesbetween higher education and employ-

ment are evoked but are not necessarilyconsidered to be the most serious pro-blem. One notes with interest that thestructural models actually chosen werequite different. In Spain, the interim stageof three years of successful completion ofhigher education was transformed into adegree level (a bachelor’s degree). InI t a l y, separate university departmentswere established to provide very shortcourse programmes (up to two years). InFinland and Austria, new types of institu-tions of higher education were expectedto provide course programmes leading toa degree equivalent to a bachelor’s butbeing more vocational in emphasis (simi-lar to the degrees awarded by the GermanFachhochschulen and the Dutch Hoges-cholen).

Second, the so-called binary structurein the United Kingdom (and also inAustralia) was discontinued. This struc-ture in the United Kingdom was differentfrom the other two types of institutionalor multi-institutional structures in otherEuropean countries in one respect. Allkey structural elements, such as entrylevel, duration of studies, and types ofdegrees varied only gradually in theUnited Kingdom in terms of quality leveland reputation, not however, in years oflearning or of formal character (cf.,OECD, 1973). One might argue retros-pectively that the softest structural diffe-rentiation between universities and thenon-university sector, which for manyyears ensured the relatively high reputa-tion of the non-university sector, even-tually turned out to be the least stableone. Polytechnics became universitiesand are very likely to become similar totraditional universities, even thoughclaims are made that higher educationshould be more responsive to employ-ment demands - one of the rationales,given in the past, for the establishment of

- 53 -

ULRICH TEICHLER

polytechnics as distinct from universities.

Third, the structures of higher educa-tion are under scrutiny in various centraland eastern European countries. After thepolitical transformations of 1990, theestablishment of short and possibly morevocational course programmes in an-ticipation of expanded enrollments wasstrongly advocated by many experts. Insome countries, steps are already beingundertaken in this direction, whereas inother countries, decisions are still pend-ing. Graduate employment is one of thearguments in the debate, but by and large,the crux of the debate is a search for amodern structure for higher education ingeneral.

Fourth, in December 1988, theEuropean Community called for theequivalence of all three-year program-mes in higher education in its MemberStates in terms of providing the basicentry qualification to highly qualified oc-cupations (cf., the Commission of theEuropean Communities, 1991). T h i spolicy is the most clearly employment-related one referred to in this context, butit is also the most vague, structurallyspeaking As structural convergence be-tween higher education systems inEurope did not exist previously and wasnot considered desirable for the future,the duration of the study period remainedthe only possible criteria for measuringthe quality and the character of study.

A renewed debate on the relationshipsbetween higher education and employ-ment has been underway in manyEuropean countries since about 1990, asa recent OECD study (1991) emphasizes.However, no single dominant issue hasemerged nor any clearly dominant moodaccompanying it. Rather, considerationisbeing given to a ranging set of causes andcontexts.

First, many experts are pointing outthat the changing work tasks in jobs thatgraduates have held in the past call for areconsideration of curricula, teaching,and learning in higher education. Newtechnologies, for instance, are having atremendous impact on many occupations.Closer links between scientific and tech-nological knowledge, on the one handsand economic and social knowledge, onthe other hand, are on the agenda in manyoccupations. Last but not least, manyemployers are calling for stronger effortson the part of higher education to fostergeneral knowledge, problem-s o l v i n gcompetencies, as well as social and com-munication skills.

Second, there is growing unemploy-ment in many industrialized societies. Itis not yet clear whether this phenomenonis short-term or whether a new stage ofgrowth in unemployment quotas hasemerged in general similar to the stagesof growing unemployment in 1973-1975and again in the early 1980’s.

Third, enrollment quotas are againrising more substantially in variousEuropean countries than they did fromthe mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s. Thus,the range of motivations, abilities, andemployment prospects of graduates islikely to expand.

Fourth, government higher educationpolicies in various European countriesmoved, during the 1980’s, from macro-societal planning and detailed steering ofhigher education institutions towards anincrease in the responsibility of the in-dividual institution of higher education.De-regulation, increased autonomy, andsimilar slogans were used for describingthe reduction of the procedural control ofinstitutions of higher education along

- 54 -


with growing emphasis on evaluation andoutput related funding. Thus, the individualinstitutions of higher education becamemore concerned about the whereabouts ofgraduates as an important output or outco-me variable.

In addition, some experts point to agrowing internationalization of the pro-fessional labour market as well as theincreasing importance of continuing edu-cation, both for graduates from in-stitutions of higher education and fornon-graduates possibly served by highereducation institutions. It is less clear,h o w e v e r, whether these observationsrefer to actual trends or whether they areexpressions of wishful thinking.

In discussing ways to improve theemployment prospects of graduates ofinstitutions of higher education, a broadrange of measures tends to addressed.The restructuring of types of institutionsand of course programmes is among themeasures recommended, but the em-phasis being placed on structural changesin favour of employability is less pro-nounced now than it was until themid-1970’s. In order to explain this morecautious reference to structural measures,experiences acquired from themid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s must betaken into consideration.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THEMID-1970’S TO THE MID-1980’S

As already noted above, the efforts infavour of changing institutional structuresbegan to lose momentum as of the’mid-1970’s. There seemed, more-or-less, tobe a consensus emerging that the diversifi-cation of higher education was needed, butfar-reaching steps were rarely taken duringthis period. According to a study publishedby the Council of Europe in 1988 (Teichler,1988b), the Netherlands was the only coun-

try taking formal steps in the mid-1980’s,but this action can be viewed as a relative-ly late legal step already preceded by aninformal upgrading of the h o g e rberoepsonderwijs around 1970.

To explain the stagnation of therestructuring of higher education duringthat period, one must take the followingobservations into account. They ob-viously overlap, and they might not besufficient to explain the development inall European countries, but they certainlyplayed a role in many cases.

First, the restructuring undertakenfrom the late 1950’s to the mid-1970’swas very costly because either newinstitutions were established or institu-tions previously not considered part ofhigher education were upgraded. As ofthe mid1970’s, however, various westernEuropean governments were no longerprepared to increase expenses for highereducation or at least not in proportionwith the rise in student numbers. Also,resistance on the part of the universitiesagainst downgrading was fierce (it onlyoccurred in a few cases in eastern Ger-many in the early 1990’s under the speci-fic circumstances of German re-unification). Thus, although governmentsin various European countries pleadedpublicly for restructuring, they rarelytook any action.

The second consideration is closelylinked to the first. Even if governmentswere determined to take action, they didnot necessarily succeed in doing so.During the 1970’s, planning ceased to bea key word of higher education policy,and implementation became a commonphrase, indicating difficulties and thewatering down of original plans. As waspointed out in a comparative study on theimplementation of major higher educa-tion reform efforts in Europe

- 55 -

ULRICH TEICHLER

during the 1970’s, plans were most likelyto be implemented if the founding ofcompletely new institutions of highereducation were to be the outcome, andleast likely if already established univer-sities feared a loss of status (Cerych andSabatier, 1986).

Third, the need for diversification wasinitially viewed to be part of an interna-tionally convergent trend of both expan-sion and structural development ofhigher education. In the late 1970’s andduring the 1980’s, however, most expertsagreed that the speed of expansion remai-ned strikingly diverse and that a bewilde-ring variety of patterns in higher educa-tion systems had emerged (Cf., Trow,1974; Teichler, 1988a; Teichler, 1988b).Thus, faith in the irreversibility and irre-sistibility of certain structural models ofthe higher education system vanished.

Fourth, the debate about structures ofhigher education in terms of distincttypes of higher education institutions ortypes of course programmes lost relevan-ce once more diversity among individualuniversities was advocated. As variousEuropean governments, during the1980’s, began to emphasize the evalua-tion of the quality of individual institu-tions and departments as well as compe-tition between individual institutions anddepartments, the structural debate wasbound to lose priority.

Fifth and most importantly, signalsabout the structure of higher educationdesired by the employment systemremained vague and ambiguous. Invarious European countries, one couldobserve claims by employers that a sub-stantial increase of graduates from tradi-tional universities was not desirable andthat a diversification of higher educationwould reduce the mismatch between

higher education and the labour market.If we turn to actual graduate employ-ment, however, the message turned out tobe less clear.

If one tries to summarize the ex-perience regarding graduate employmentacquired in western European since thelate 1970’s relevant to structures ofhigher education (cf., the overview inTeichler 1988c), one can point out fivemajor observations, even though theavailable statistical data and researchresults concerning the relationships be-tween higher education and employmentare less suitable for providing clear ans-wers in this respect than one might wish.

To begin with, the employment pro-blems of graduates from institutions ofhigher education turned out to be lessdramatic than the pessimistic predictionsof the mid-1970’s had suggested. On theone hand, the developing trends of upgra-ding and vertical substitution were quitepronounced. On the other hand, problemsdid not centre around a central issue, butspread themselves widely, Some youngpeople abandoned their intentions tostudy. Some students moved to fields ofstudy promising better careers. Some stu-dents prolonged their studies. Graduateunemployment increased somewhat.Some graduates ended up in jobs clearlynot requiring a degree. This state ofaffairs reduced the pressure in favour ofreallocating the flow of students and ofreshaping the structures of higher educa-tion according to the presumed demandsof the employment system more thanmany experts had previously expected.

Second, realignment affected fields ofstudy more strongly than types of highereducation institutions or types of pro-grammes. By and large, those graduates inWestern Europe who faced relatively bet-

- 56 -


ter employment opportunities were enrol-led in fields clearly linked to occupatio-nal areas. It should be borne in mind,h o w e v e r, that shortages, on the onehand, and oversupplies of graduates, o nthe other hand, varied among Europeancountries by far more than conventionalwisdom suggested.

Third, non-university higher educa-tion might more successfully ensure rela-tively high ranking positions and careersfor their graduates in those countries andin those sectors in which specializedhigher education is clearly linked to spe-cialized occupations. This principlemight explain in turn why the polytech-nics sector was eventually absorbed bythe university sector in the UnitedKingdom - a country in which institu-tions of higher education were tradition-ally expected to train the mind rather thanto train specialists.

Fourth, even in countries emphasizingclear links between higher education andprofessional work tasks, the employmentprospects of students choosing not toenroll at traditional universities but ratherin other sectors of the higher educationsystem turned out to be less favourablethan expected. For example, a survey ofpersons graduating from German univer-sities and Fachhochschulen in themid-1980’s demonstrates that universitygraduates in engineering, in economics,and in business had fewer problems infinding employment and considered theirwork tasks during the first five years aftergraduation more clearly linked to thecompetencies which they had acquiredduring their courses of study than didtheir fellow graduates fromFachhochschulen (Teichler, Schomburgand Winkler, 1992). The claim of brightemployment prospects for graduatesfrom non-university higher educationseems frequently to be based on a com-parison of different composi-

tions of fields of study provided byuniversities, on the one hand, and bynon-university institutions of higher edu-cation, on the other hand.

Fifth, there has been a definite shift onthe part of employers in many Europeancountries since the 1980’s so far as thecompetencies which they consider desi-rable are concerned. More emphasis isplaced on cross-disciplinary knowledge,problem-solving abilities, ability to learn,personality, flexibility, social and com-munication skills, ability to act in inter-national settings, transferable skills, etc.This shift of criteria for the recruitmentof graduates turned out to be disadvanta-geous for graduates from those institu-tions and course programmes whichhoped to provide improved employmentprospects by fostering a v o c a t i o n a lapproach.

This summary of experiences doesnot mean to suggest that policies infavour of diversification in Europe havenot been successful and have not in manycases led to reductions in the number ofpossible mismatches on the labour mar-ket. One can only note that graduatesfrom traditional universities have faredless badly than frequently predicted.Also, one notes that the employment sys-tem in most European countries did notgive clear signals as regards the desireddiversity of higher education. Thus, it isnot surprising to-observe that many stu-dents continue to choose the traditionallymost prestigious institutions, making use,however, of diversified study provisions.

SOME TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONSFOR THE 1 990’S

Activities in favour of a restructuring ofhigher education in European countriesin the 1990’s can no longer be carriedalong by the optimism that they cancount on very precise support by theemployment system. They can no longer be

- 57 -

ULRICH TEICHLER

based on the hope that re-structuring willbe extraordinarily successful in alleviatingproblems regarding the relationships bet-ween higher education and employment.There is no hope for a magic wand in thisrespect.

There is no intention, however, tosuggest that changing the structures ofhigher education is a futile effort so far asthe relationships between higher educa-tion and employment are concerned. Adiversity of higher education provisionssupported by different types of highereducation institutions and/or by differenttypes of course programmes seems toserve the motivations, capabilities, andoccupational prospects of students betterthan a homogeneous higher educationsystem or a hierarchy of provisions clear-ly geared to the norms prevailing at theapex. In the European context, a diversi-ty of types does not seem sustainablewithout governmental support for then o n-elite sectors, because the normsamong academics and within researchseem to favour a hierarchy geared to thenorms prevailing at the top and becausethe signals sent by the employment sys-tem are too vague and too ambivalent.

Given these signals, one should not besurprised to note, first, that problems ofthe relationships between higher educa-tion and employment are not the majordriving force for a reconsideration of thestructures of higher education; rather, thedriving force is a bundle of diverse consi-derations including issues of the relation-ships between higher education andemployment. This perception of the pro-blem is certainly appropriate in that thestructure of the higher education systemhas to serve various purposes and shouldthus not be primarily determined bylabour market considerations. Oneshould also not be surprised to note thatlabour market considerations are referredto not only in support of a single structu-

ral model but also in support of quite dif-ferent options.

The most suitable structural diversityof higher education certainly might varyfrom one European country to another,for traditions regarding the strengths andweaknesses of higher education pro-grammes and institutions vary as to thenotions regarding the links betweenhigher education and employment. Thequestion also becomes political if it be-comes one of deciding whether diversityshould entail substantial differences ofquality or should keep quality differencesin bounds.

The search for the most suitable struc-ture of higher education might be eased ifthe relevant information base were im-proved. Notably, regarding its implica-tions for the relationships between highereducation and employment, one canobserve an abundance of shaky in-formation as well as deliberate misinfor-mation. Again, an improved informationbase will most likely not favour anysingle structural model, but it might behelpful in exploring a more rational rangeof options.

REFERENCES

C E RYCH, L., and P. SABATIER. G re a tExpectations and Mixed Performance: T h eImplementation of Higher Education Reformsin Europe. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham, 1986.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COM-MUNITIES, TASK FORCE HUMANRESOURCES, EDUCATION, TRAINING, ANDYOUTH. Memorandum on Higher Educationin the European Community. Brussels, 1991.

F U LTON, O., A. GORDON, and G.WILLIAMS. Higher Education and ManpowerPlanning. Geneva: International Labour Of fice,1982.

- 58 -


GELLERT, C., ed. Higher Education in Europe.London and Philadelphia: J. Kingsley, 1993.

MOOR, R. A. de, ed. Changing Te rt i a ryEducation in Modern European Society,Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1978.

N E AVE, G. ”Foundation or Roof? T h eQuantitative, Structural, and InstitutionalDimensions in the Study of Higher Education”.European Journal of Education 24 3 (1989):211-222.

O R G A N I Z ATIONS FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, ed. Short-Cycle Higher Education: A Search for Identity.Paris: OECD, 1973.

O R G A N I Z ATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-O P E R ATION AND DEVELOPMENT, ed.Policies for Higher Education. Paris: OECD,1974.

O R G A N I Z ATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-O P E R ATION AND DEVELOPMENT, ed.Alternatives to Universities. Paris: OECD, 1991.

TEICHLER, U. Changing Patterns of theHigher Education System. London: Kingsley,1988a.

TEICHLER, U. Convergence or GrowingVariety: The Changing Organization of

Studies in Euro p e. Strasbourg: Council ofEurope, 1988b.

TEICHLER, U. Higher Education and Work inEurope, in, J. C. SMART, ed. H i g h e r

Education: Handbook of Theory and Practice.Volume IV. New York: Agathon Press, 1988c, pp.109-182.

TEICHLER, U. ”Structures of HigherEducation Systems in Europe”, in, C. GELLERT,ed. Higher Education in Europe. London andPhiladelphia: J. Kingsley, 1993, pp. 23-36.

TEICHLER, U., D. HARTUNG, and R. NUTHMANN. Higher Education and the Needs ofSociety. Windsor: NFER Publishing Co., 1980.

TEICHLER, U., H. SCHOMBURG, and H.W I N K L E R. Studium und Berufsweg von

H o c h s c h u l a b s o l v e n t e n. Bonn: Bundes-ministerium fur Bildung und Wissenschaft 1992.

TROW, M. ”Problems in the Transition fromElite to Mass Higher Education”, in, OECD, ed.Policies for Higher Education. Paris: OECD,1974, pp. 51-101

- 59 -

ULRICH TEICHLER

• In focussing on the legal basis for the diversifica-tion of higher education, the authors argue that themain focus when analyzing education laws fordiversity or coherence should be on maintainingthe proper balance between the rights of indivi-duals and the needs of society. Thus, the funda-mental role of regulation is to guarantee a

INTRODUCTION

The working paper for this workshop,Universities, Colleges, and Others:Diversity of Structures for HigherEducation: Discussion of Themes, statesfor this topic that ”it seeks to clarify legaldefinitions and formulae for structuraldiversity”. There is greater importance inanalyzing the dynamics behind all legaldefinitions and formulae. Do legal defini-tions really influence what goes on insociety? Or does the societal realityinfluence legal definitions? It is impos-sible to highlight these questions rapidlyfor all countries involved. A later paperwill analyze in greater detail the newconstitutions of the central and easternEuropean countries in relation to the for-mal legal criteria for modern legislationin the field of education.

In order to stimulate discussion, wewant first to put forward a challengingthesis. Afterwards, we shall develop amore concrete illustration of the dyna-mics behind higher education reform,based upon the Belgian experience. Toconclude, we shall return to fundamentalrules that have to be set out as laws.

flexible adaptation to changing needs. The evolution ofthe legal basis of Belgian, specifically Flemish, highereducation, from 1970 to the present is examinedfrom this perspective. Ways of adapting lessonslearned from the Belgian experience to the reali-ties of eastern and central Europe are proposed.

D E M O C R A C Y: LAW AND STAT EP O W E R

Perhaps the main focus when analyzingeducational laws for diversity or cohe-rence should be on the possibility ofmaintaining a creative and dynamicbalance between the rights of individualsand the needs of society or between con-trol and evolution, not on the structuresthemselves. This standpoint is related toa concept of what a democratic society isor should be.

In all modern democratic societies,governments play a very important rolein maintaining and promoting welfareand well being. On the one hand, demo-cracy implies the need to circumscribethe power of government; however, onthe other hand, democracy implies a tran-sition in the legitimization of state powerfrom normative ideas on how things aresupposed to be to ensuring the quality ofhow things are.

What does this rather cryptic state-ment mean? The foundation of a demo-cratic society is no longer a well definedjudgment on right and wrong, on good orbad. This judgment is subject to a demo-cratic dialogue among all citizens.

- 60 -


THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHEREDUCATION STRUCTURES

Johan L. VANDERHOEVEN and Jan de GROOF

The focus of power in a democracy,says the French philosopher Lefort, is anempty place. He uses this metaphor toexplain that governors, societal groups, oreven individuals no longer have the right toappropriate power or to embody it. Thecore of democracy lies in the ongoing dia-logue between competing and creativeforces, summed up as ”the market”, but ofcourse, this dynamism also touches onother societal, cultural, and moral values.This foundation of a democratic society hasto be safeguarded by a number of procedu-ral rules which are given the force of law.These rules must guarantee equal rights toall to participate in societal life, including -of course - education.

To a certain extent we doubt that thestatement in the working paper to the effectthat ”legal regulation of structural changein higher education has a fundamental roleto play in prescribing the types of structuraldiversity and in influencing the degree towhich ‘bottom-up’ diversification is pos-sible” is entirely correct. Perhaps the fun-damental role of regulation is to guaranteea flexible adaptation to changing needswithout damaging the rights of all.

LEGAL DEFINITIONS AND SOCIE-TALDYNAMISM: THE BELGIAN CASE

When examining the internal functioningand the organizational patterns of teachingand learning in Belgian higher education(universities and other institutions), one isconfronted with a paradox. On the onehand, as in other countries, the evolution ofthe role and function of higher educationhas been subjected to dramatic changesover the last three decades. But on the otherhand, the organization of teaching and lear-ning remained rather traditional. For abouttwenty years, real in-depth change

seemed to be hampered by a framework setout in a law that was once called” e p o c h-making”. Only recently did ex-ogenous pressures become important andstrong enough to lead to decisive changes.An analysis of those tendencies leading tochange in the near future therefore is linkedto an analysis of external developmentsthemselves.

For the first time in Belgium, higher educa-tion was organized within a general legaland comprehensive framework by the Lawdated 7 July 1970, relating to the generalstructure of higher education. This lawgrouped together almost all forms of edu-cation which followed secondary school.Shortly thereafter, teacher training wasintegrated into this framework. The Lawclassified all educational forms accordingto the organization of studies and their ulti-mate qualification.. Thus at the dawn of the1970’s, only three types of higher educa-tion were to be found in Belgium: universi-ties, higher technical (mainly training pro-grammes for graduate engineers and inter-p r e t e r-translators), and arts education(including architecture) and teacher trai-ning Based upon two leading principles, afundamental change of policy was underta-ken. First, there was a strong commitmentto the democratization of education, espe-cially higher education. Secondly, majorshifts in labour market requirements beca-me apparent. Both principles reinforcedeach’other.

Democratisation

Access to all forms of higher education wasmade entirely free of any restrictions, thanksto a deliberate policy on the part of theauthorities which were seeking to promoteby means of the Omn ivatentiewet/Loi d‘ O m n i v a l e n c e (Omnivalence Law) of 1964 atrue democratization of higher education. A sa consequence of this Law, all secondary

- 61 -

JOHAN L. VANDERHOEVEN and JAN DE GROOF

school leavers have, in reality, free accessto nearly all types of higher education.Admission to short-term higher educa-tion requires a C e rtificate of HigherSecondary Education awarded on com-pletion of a full cycle of secondary edu-cation or since 1984 of a seventh year ofvocational education (on a full timebasis). Entry into long-term higher oruniversity education requires the HigherEducation Admission Diploma, which isnow awarded almost automaticallyduring the same examination period asthe Certificate of Higher SecondaryEducation (with the exclusion of vocatio-nal education). Because of this formalis-tic awarding procedure, the FlemishCommunity decided, after the transfor-mation of Belgium into a federal state in1989, to abolish this admission diploma.Only in a few limited cases is access tohigher education subject to an entranceexamination (in the cases of the Facultyof Applied Science, Civil EngineeringTraining, and the Royal Military School).

Although the studies that have beencarried out indicate a reduced concern inthe Flemish Community regarding equaleducational opportunities and the demo-cratizing of university education as com-pared to concern expressed by the FrenchCommunity, there is still a large numberof eighteen-year-olds who choose to goon for higher education. Some forty-fiveper cent of all young people aged eigh-teen in the Flemish Community andfifty-five per cent in the French-languageCommunity enrolled for some form ofhigher education in 1988, and roughlyeighteen per cent of young people agedeighteen and over manage to qualify for ahigher education diploma.

For most of the disciplines, no provi-sions exist for a numerus clausus in thestrict sense of the term and for constraintson taking up or dropping studies.

Information campaigns to guide youngpeople, particularly young women,towards disciplines offering good futureperspectives (chiefly at the level ofsecondary education) permit the correc-tion of certain imbalances. In recentyears, certain groups have called forstricter conditions of access to highereducation and for the introduction of sui-table selection procedures. T h eFrench-language Community has not sofar echoed this call. European-wide pres-sure for change in this area is becomingincreasingly manifest.

Labour Market Requirements

The working population represents ap-proximately thirty-eight percent of thepopulation (3.75 million people). As inall other western industrialized countries- and at this point there are striking diffe-rences among the different parts ofEurope - the tertiary sector has continuedto gain in importance at the expense ofother sectors. In Belgium nowadays,seventy percent of the working popula-tion is to be found in the tertiary sector,the highest such figure in Europe.Therefore a high enrollment rate inhigher education is of vital importance.Reference is made to the comparablefigures for France (63%) and forGermany (56%).

Structural Consequences

As a consequence of the policy to in-tegrate, as much as possible, all kinds ofprogrammes into the new establishedsystem of higher education, the full-timepost-secondary sector for eighteen-year-old school leavers (following the end of atwelve-year period of compulsory educa-tion in Belgium) became very small.

The trail-blazing integration of nearlyall full-time education for eighteen-year

- 62 -

LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES

olds in part explains why Belgium, likeFrance and Germany, adopted a specialistm o d e l, according to Neave’s definition(1992), rather than a multipurpose or a bina-ry structure for its higher education. Thistypology is based on two criteria: the structu-re of the educational programmes and theorganizational structure and management ofthe higher education institutes.

In a recent study, Jallade (1992) develo-ped a different framework for classification( b i n a r y, unitary, and fragmented systems)based only on the general structures of theeducational programmes. According to thisclassification, Belgium belongs to the binarysystems. For purposes of the argument to bedeveloped below, the organizational aspectsas well are included.

The option for a specialist model impliedthe creation of a type of higher educationorganized somewhat independently of theuniversity. Its newly organized courses, onthe balance, tend to be vocational and termi-nal in nature. The range of programmes isrelatively limited, covering a few genericallyor occupationally related sectors (teachertraining, elementary engineering, preschoolteacher training social work, accounting, andsecretarial studies). Recently, all these so-cal-led short-term higher education programmesadopted a three-year structure according tothe definitions of the European Guideline of12 December 1988.

Most of the traditional forms of highertechnical and arts education mentioned abovebecame integrated in an in-between structure,long-term higher education having at leastf o u r-year programmes. According to theBelgian Law, short- and long-term highereducation used to be considered first asnon-university higher education, and later as

highereducation outside the university. In bothcases, however, the distinction between thetwo sectors was expressed in nega tive terms(non or outside). Contrary to what happenedin the United Kingdomand the Netherlands,the system did not reach a real binary or mul-tipurpose status, even though transitions fromone type to another were possible de facto. Ingeneral, however, distinctions remained (andremain) rather important in different ways. Atany rate, higher education outside the univer -sity grew literally out of secondary education,without the stimulus of much legislation.Even now, the links between secondary andhigher(especially short term) education arestriking.

In terms of its tradition of dominant curricu-la, Belgium belongs to what Mc Lean (1990)calls The Encyclopedic Heartlands. Typicalof this tradition is theidea that all studentshave to acquire as much knowledge as pos-sible about valid (rational) subjects. All stu-dents will more-or-less follow the same curriculum, organized along a rather strong ideaabout the hierarchy of topics and disciplines.But it must be understood that this traditionhas a strong orienta tion to utility. All humanactivities are supposed to become more effi-cient by the application of rational proce-dures. Therefore, even vocational studies, atany level, should begin with rational scienti-fic ideas. The power of this ideol ogy lies inits capacity to survive con tinuous pressuresfor differentiation which have been posed bythe democratization of lower secondaryschooling and the diversification of uppersecondary education, on one hand, and by theever changing demands of the labour market,on the other hand.

As a consequence, in all forms of higher edu-cation there remains a strong tendency

- 63 -

JOHAN L. VANDERHOEVEN ANDJAN DE GROOF

to organize all programmes according tothe same principles. Every year, a more-or-less fixed programme is set starting withbroad, general, and theory-oriented intro-ductions to given disciplines. Later, thegeneral knowledge thus acquired will beapplied to more concrete problems. Everyyear, each student must pass a fixed num-ber of formal examinations. This procedureexplains to a large extent the ongoing resis-tance in higher education to modular orcredit systems.

The same is true for programmes basedon only one subject or on learning bydoing. For example, in teacher trainingamong a number of teacher trainers, thereis still strong loyalty to the idea that tea-ching practice should embody the ap-plication of principles learned in theoreticalcourses. The same situation can be found inother disciplines as well. As a consequence,the interaction between the labour marketand education programmes (initial trainingand in-service training) is not always opti-mal. It must be admitted, however, thatlabour market requirements are sometimesrather unstable or badly defined.

Change Under Pressure

Until recently, the teaching and learningclimate in Belgian higher education, espe-cially in the short-term programmes,remained closely linked to the traditionalpatterns of schooling at the primary andsecondary school. The university, by tradi-tion, has always been characterized by ano-ther cultural climate. But even here thereremains a very strong sense of the encyclo-pedic tradition (formal curricula, examina-tions, broad spectrum programmes, etc.).The long-term type remained in-betweenbut more closely resembled- the university.

Until 1989, the authorities did not takeany explicit measures either to improve theinternal effectiveness of the individual edu-cation institutions or to bring them moredirectly into line with the actual needs ofthe labour market. They only tried toinfluence the funding of higher educationin general and of scientific research in par-t i c u l a r. Certain statements issuing fromacademic and political circles give theimpression that marketability and econo-mic competitiveness have gained in impor-tance among the criteria used for assessingthe quality of research and education. TheBelgian authorities, however, did notconsider that it was up to them to take mea-sures to exert a direct influence on deve-lopments in this area. The authorities refer-red to experiences in other countries relati-ve to the evaluation of the quality of indi-vidual institutions through such measuresas accreditation procedures, certain typesof inspection, and the like, for Belgium hasno yardsticks for measuring the performan-ce of higher education establishments as abasis for determining and awarding finan-cial resources.

One could say that Belgian policy usedto be a perfect example of demanded poli -cy. At a certain moment in the mid-1980’s,h o w e v e r, higher education policy itselfbecame a victim of the demand-led ideas.According to Neave, the erosion ofdemand-led policies for higher educationmay be seen as symptomatic of the aban-doning of the stance that governed theexpansion of higher education as of theearly 1960’s (Neave, 1984 p. 114). At leastin the Flemish Community as of 1989 (withthe federalization of the Belgian state) thistendency - and the replacement of ademand-led policy by a more expendi-ture-driven one - became- gradually ap-parent.

- 64 -


Although some of these tendencies arenoticeable in the French and German lan-guage communities as well, only in theFlemish Community has a real shift in poli-cy strategy been launched. In the FlemishC o m m u n i t y, it has become possible toovercome the hindrances to the ability ofthe government to move to a more expen-diture-driven policy. Those old constraints- being partly a function of the highly seg-mented nature of Belgian society and alsobeing a function of the political power thatvarious segments can wield against thegovernment - are still influential in the fieldof education policy, especially in theFrench Community of Belgium (Hecquet,1984).

The pressures in favour of change arethreefold: the consequences of ad e m a n d-led policy, shifts in the labourmarket, and the internationalization ofhigher education. Note should be taken ofthe fact that the first and second factorscorrespond perfectly with the two leadingprinciples of the expansion of higher edu-cation in the 1960’s.

New Principles for Teaching andLearning in the Flemish Community

After several attempts to change the legis-lation on higher education under the natio-nal government, the Flemish Communitytook up the challenge on its own immedia-tely after gaining its educational autonomyin 1989. Modifications of the higher educa-tion system led to a new discussion aboutits triple structure.

In June 1991, two Acts were passedaiming at a fundamental reorganization ofacademic education (that is, universityeducation). First, new relations were es-tablished between the universities and theauthorities based on more autonomy andlocal financial responsibility. From then on,

universities were to be financed up to fiftypercent according to the number of stu-dents enrolled as of February of the pre-vious academic year. The other fifty per-cent is fixed and varies according to theindex of consumer prices and wage costs.Thus, spending is made more stable andfinancial long-term planning, easier. Noperfect solution for rationalizing the educa-tional offer of the different universities hasyet been found. Rationalization and pro-gramming standards were set up for pur-poses of funding (a shift towards an expen-diture driven policy).

The former system of ex-ante super-vision by the authorities has been replacedby an ex-post system. It is based on the ideathat universities are capable of independentmanagement. However, as part of the res-ponsibility of the education system tosociety, a general form of quality controland supervision of educational offerings isbeing introduced by means of visitationcommittees for peer review.

The academic education field wasreclassified into eighteen branches ofstudy, including an overall number of abouteighty acknowledged training programmes(academic degrees and diplomas).Postgraduate programmes were structuredas well.

In October 1991, another Act relating tolong-term higher education was passed.Although the programmes in question willnot be integrated into the universities, theyprovide education of an academic level. Ingeneral, long-term higher educationobserves the same rules as academic edu-cation. The main new element is the muchlarger autonomy of long-term institutions,backed up - first and foremost - by overallpackage financing.

The above-mentioned Acts also em-bodied attempts at the autonomous

- 65 -

JOHAN L. VANDERHOEVEN ANDJAN DE GROOF

definition of the different higher educationforms in a positive way. One should keep inmind that research remains the privilege ofuniversities, but that institutions offeringlong-term higher education can participatein applied research through co-operationagreements with universities.

The new rules also introduce a moreflexible system for transfers between thedifferent levels of training. While respec-ting a number of very general principles,the actual responsibility for day-t o-d a yoperations is in the hands of the institutionsthemselves. Soon, a new Act will be adop-ted in order to open the possibility of doc-toral training at universities to studentswho have completed the long-term type ofnon-university higher education.

The Education Department has justlaunched an overall plan aiming at the reor-ganization of short- and long-term non-uni-versity higher education. The financingmechanism will be adapted to encourageinstitutes to create larger multitechnic highschools. The authorities want to separates h o r t-term higher education completelyfrom secondary schooling. At the sametime, an economy of scale will help rein-force the basis for quality development inteaching and learning as well as controlover the higher education budget in thefuture.

Teaching and learning in Belgian highereducation underwent almost no dramaticchanges over the last thirty years. A nepoch-making law on integrating the highereducation system was not efficient enoughto revitalize the system in relation to itsenvironment. The successful expansion ofthe system and the demand-led policy sus-taining it contributed in the end to thereplacement of traditional policies byexpenditure driven decisions (at least in the

Flemish Community).

It should be understood that the govern-ment limited itself to safeguarding thesimple functioning of the system. For thisreason, a more proactive policy was laun-ched in 1989. New procedural rules havebeen or will soon be elaborated. However,the question which remains is whether ornot Belgium, compared to other Europeancountries, has scored in a negative way as aconsequence of non-action or because ofincrementalism in higher education policy.Perhaps in Belgium many decisions lead torelatively good outcomes without needingdeliberate and synoptic policy (as in otherEuropean countries), thanks to the inherentbut active forces in society. If so, the circlecan be closed.

So far as higher education policy in cen-tral and eastern Europe is concerned, oneof the main dilemmas can be defined: willthe respective governments be able to limitthemselves to their core tasks in a demo-c r a c y, even though they will perhapsremain the only agents which can provideguidelines and incentives and be able tocoordinate the overall desirable develop-ment in society. In this context, the quota-tion by Bronislav Geremek is relevant: ”thepath to freedom is open, but that to demo-cracy is uncertain”.

THE FOCUS ON LEGISLATION

Given the Belgian example of dynamicevolution which at first sight does notseem very innovative, and taking intoaccount the Belgian position in the deba-te on democracy, initial questions raisedin this article on the role of laws in defi-ning education structures should be reo-riented towards a more fundamental one:the role of legislation in the movement

- 66 -


towards democratization in which educa -tion is,one of the key-actors.

It would seem opportune for the newdemocracies to set out the general politicalobjectives of their (higher) educationreform plans within a legal framework,more specifically as regards state actionwith respect to education and the content ofeducation. (This proposition is made not-withstanding the fact that it is not orthodox- normally objectives cannot be treated asenforceable legal standards). All educatio-nal institutions thus immediately becomepartners in the movement towards demo-cratization and liberalization which thestate wishes to establish. However, thestate assumes the role of both initiator andexecutor of this operation, which immedia-tely exposes one weakness: the reform ofeducation will only be carried out if thestate is actually capable of performing thischallenging task.

Hence the State must prevent a situationfrom arising whereby the era of Statemonopoly and bureaucracy gives way to aperiod during which the material facilitieswhich the Law obliges the state to providecannot be offered, or during which theauthorities do not achieve the implementa-tion arrangements set down in the Law. Theformer discretionary competence of theGovernment must not be replaced by alegal vacuum; otherwise it will become dif-ficult to achieve the aim of all education. Itis not clear whether the law in central andeastern Europe at present should focus pri-marily on structuring external or internald i v e r s i t y. Maybe a demand-led policycould provoke a much more efficient struc-ture in line with local cultural traditionsand economic needs?

In order to achieve an effective right toeducation as demanded by all those infavour of democracy, the law should gua-rantee the financing of educational institu-

tions. For this purpose, State and municipalfinancing should be provided, as well as amechanism for the indexation of operatio-nal subsidies. From this point on, manyquestions concerning evaluation can be rai-sed:

- Are financing norms based on statedor proven needs?

- Are the procedures for registration,attestation, and accreditation clearlydefined?

- To what extent is demand-led deve-lopment of educational non-stateinfrastructure possible?

In some central and eastern Europeancountries, state educational standards havebeen developed, without any legally out-lined consultation procedure with thosepersons actually involved in education.Sometimes these standards are referred toas minimum norms, but at the same time,they may be called models, which are thenapplied independently by the educationalinstitutions. In some legislative models forhigher education such norms are only men-tioned in an appendix to the education law,but they are nevertheless made subsequent-ly enforceable.

Such procedures are questionable. Theymust either be detailed in the Law itself, orthey must be based on a clear legal delega-tion. Moreover, the regulation must notconflict with the principle of autonomywhich should be included in the Law as anexpression of democratic options.

CONCLUSION

The right to education is both a freedom(rejection of excessive government inter-vention) and a right (entitlement to positiveintervention on the part of the

- 67 -

JOHAN L. VANDERHOEVEN ANDJAN DE CROOF

government), an individual right (basedon the development of the individual),and a collective right (the right of agroup, whether or not it is based on anideology, philosophy, or a pedagogicalconcept); a political and ideologicalright, with consideration being given tothe compatibility of the right to educationwith other rights (freedom of worshipand belief, freedom of speech and as-sembly); and a socio-cultural right theexercise of which is necessary in the con-text of training and the three aspects ofthe latter (personal development, socialtraining, and preliminary vocational trai-ning or continuing training). Taking thesefactors into account, we conclude the fol-lowing. The adoption of a lawmakingtechnique prescribing less and guaran-teeing more is for central and, easternEurope more fundamental than a concre-

te option for a certain educational diver-sity. Otherwise, ”bottom up” diversifica-tion will remain impossible.

REFERENCES

HECQUET, I.’’ Prospects for Revitalizing theBelgian University System”, European Journalof Education 19 2 (1984):131-149.

JALLADE, J. P. ‘’Undergraduate HigherEducation in Europe: Towards a ComparativePerspective’’, European Journal of Education171-2 (1992): 121-144.

McLEAN, M. Britain and a Single MarketEurope: Prospects for a Common School Cur-r i c u l u m. The Bedford Way Series. London:Kogan Page, 1990.

NEAVE, G. ‘’On the Road to Silicon Valley?The Changing Relationship between HigherEducation and Government in Western Europe’’.European Journal of Education 19 2 (1984):111-129.

- 68 -


• Conscious diversity of provision within and bet-ween institutions of higher education is desirable.Diversity is a necessary feature of all evolving sys-tems. In higher education, student choice among awide range of educational and training options isthe surest way to persuade

SUBJECT DIVERSITY AND FLEXI-BILITY

Diversity is a biological necessity: it al-lows ecological systems and even singlespecies to respond to changing cir-cumstances. Diversity is at the root ofchange, particularly painless evolution-ary change. Frontal assaults on culturalbastions invariably fail. On the otherhand, the gentle outflanking of the con-servative majority by groups of com-mitted reformers is a sure and even rever-sible way of achieving change.

Diversity is also a virtue in highereducation. It is the vehicle of change, andcoupled with enhanced student choice, itis bringing about large and welcomechanges to the structures and methodolo-gies of higher education. This possibilityis particularly important as universitiesconfront the prospect of mass higher edu-cation as opposed to that of a small,already well-educated elite.

The much larger numbers of studentsalso have a much wider range than befo-re of expectations and aspirations. Theprovision of higher education will increa-singly need to reflect this reality.

The range of subject options, the waysin which the subjects are offered, and the

levels at which they are offered will con-tinue to extend as more and more stu-universities to adapt to modern needs. The key tosuccess lies in the modularization of all coursecontents on a standard basis and in removing bar-riers to choice and interdisciplinary studies of allkinds.

dents see themselves as paying customersrather than as grateful acolytes. Althoughmarket forces as such are unlikely to pre-vail, the pressures of the job market, ofthe increasing costs of education andresearch, and not the least the personalambitions of students will all impose pro-found changes on otherwise conservativeinstitutions.

Academics are conservative by na-ture. Their knowledge makes them so. Inthe past they have paid more attention tosatisfying their internal needs of scholar-ship, specialization, and research than tothe educational needs of their students.Among the forces of change is the ex-plosion of the knowledge base, the frag-mentation of knowledge, and thedemands of the knowledge base by thenew technologies.

Fragmentation is not the same asdiversity, even if the two are related. Theone frequently gives rise to the other. Itfollows that specialization and the com-partmentalization of knowledge is oftenfirst the child and then the enemy ofdiversity. Science is already fragmentedinto a myriad of isolated boxes whichhave difficulty in communicating withone another, for example, chemistry withphysics, or mathematics with computerscience. since change invariably occurs

- 69 -


D I V E R S I T Y IN HIGHER EDUCAT I O N :AUNITED KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE

sir Graham HILLS

at the boundaries of knowledge, speciali-zation at all levels of education can beself-limiting and inhibiting.

The academic pursuit of specializedknowledge for its own sake is thereforeunlikely to encourage diversity of provi-sion and diversity of structures. T h eUnited Kingdom is an example of an aca-demically inclined country which placesmuch emphasis on knowledge and less

on skills. The concentration of universi-ties on knowledge for its ownsake and the lack of comparable institu-tions with other, diverse goals have haddamaging effects on the ability of theUnited Kingdom to develop new tech-nologies. It is here that the lack of institu-tional diversity has been most felt.

The vocabulary of this aspect of highereducation is described in Figure 1. The

- 70 -

A UNITED KlNGDOM PERSPECTIVE

Figure 1. The Main Components of Tertiary Education, Research, Design,and Development

THE KNOWLEDGE BASE,

- the know-what, the facts, the theories once in the brain, now in the com-puter memory

THE SKILLS BASE,

- the do-how, the human domain of the senses, the arts, crafts, and prac-tices

THE TECHNOLOGY BASE

- the know-how, the application of knowledge by the use of skills.

Figure 2. The Dinamic Components of Tertiary Education

KNOWLEDGE

SKILLS

TECHNOLOGY

Creation of New Knowledge

Transfer, storage, Accessing,Repackaging of Existing Knowledge

Creation of New Skills

Transfer of Existing Skills, the Acquisition ofNew and Existing Skills

Creation of New Technology by the Applicationof New Knowledge or New Skills

The Transfer of Existing or New Technology toNew circumstances

dynamic characteristics of these compo-nents of higher education and the realitiesbetween them are shown in Figure 2.

Universities will be forced to considerall these aspects of education and training.This task alone will evoke new goals, newattitudes, and new organizational arrange-ments. A great diversity of educational andtraining options will need to be consideredwhich may well require a diversity of insti-tutions to deliver them.

To accommodate the variety of newsubjects and subject mixes, it was foundconvenient to disaggregate subjects intosmaller, coherent segments or modules.The modularization of underg r a d u a t ecourses has led to an almost limitless rangeof new subject combinations and newdegree courses. It, more than anything else,has introduced an undreamt of degree ofdiversity and also of flexibility.

Student choice has imposed continuouschange on reluctant universities. It arose inthe smaller, less well-endowed institutionssuch as the polytechnics which had more togain and less to lose from the changes. Inthe United Kingdom, these institutionshave done well and have challenged theuniversities to introduce similar flexibili-ties into an otherwise hierarchical system.

Modular structures and student choicehave, in the best tradition of evolutionarydiversity, been the major factor in persua-ding universities to look outward to theneeds of society, of industry and, of course,of the students themselves. Modularcourses were also the precursor to anotherimportant educational development, name-ly that of open learning, whereby the stu-dent exercises considerable control overthe choice of subject and of learning proce-dures. Its success has confounded its cri-

tics. It is highly motivating and a veryeffective way of accommodating the newelectronic communications systems intothe educational framework.

Modularization is therefore an impor-tant aspect of diversity, but its greateststrength lies in its flexibility. It facilitatesthe diversification of subject matter, but italso facilitates the re-integration of diversesubject matter into coherent new disci-plines, for example, information en-gineering, molecular biology, materialsscience, facilities management, and pro-cess design.

Subject diversity is therefore a naturalstate of knowledge and needs no en-couragement. It readily leads to frag-mentation and to over-specialization, tocultural polarization, and an attitude ofnot-invented-here. It also leads to schismsbetween arts and science, science and tech-nology, etc. These adverse features arearguments for delaying specialization andencouraging integration, for example, bydesign methodologies, by case-studies, andby project work.

The flexibility made possible by modu-larization is universally valuable. Once inplace, it facilitates the transnational inter-change of students, staff, and therefore ofideas. It would be even more helpful ifthere were also standardization of theessential elements of the new modularstructures, leading to standardization of thesize of the modules, of the length of courseunits, and of the value of course credits.

Such a process of standardization mightbe so difficult as to seem impossible but, aswith electronic components and communi-cation frequencies, it will have to be done -the sooner then the better.

- 71 -

GRAHAM HILLS

RIGIDITIES IN HIGHER EDUCA-TION

Obstacles to change and to diversity arewidespread in higher education. Becausethey have resisted change, universities arethe longest surviving feature of civiliza-tion, easily outliving national governments,political structures, and even religious ins-titutions. This situation arises because civi-lization itself is a knowledge-based activityto which universities are central. Even so,the accretion of knowledge can have astultifying effect which can inhibit evolu-tion and diversity.

If we consider knowledge itself, it isevident that for centuries its value lay in itsscarcity and its exclusiveness. This qualityhas changed, and in the last twenty years,the knowledge base has exploded. For thefirst time, universities face the threat of toomuch knowledge. A knowledge base can beexhaustively expensive to maintain. To theindividual, the knowledge mountain caninduce knowledge blocks (obsession) andknowledge sedimentation (prejudice).Excess theoretical knowledge is the mostdangerous, conditioning as it does futureoptions and constructs. Too much spe-cialized knowledge leads to orthodoxy,especially in political and religious matters.Diversity is then a form of heresy.

It is therefore essential that we imbueour students with the belief that knowledgeis now universal, freely available, and freeflowing. It cannot be owned, and attemptsto possess it should be resisted. Flexiblelearning procedures and open-learning arethe means of encouraging intellectual flexi-bility and intellectual mobility and discou-raging rote learning and memory habits.

In every subject, the knowledge base isalready overwhelmingly large. The growth

of new knowledge and the decay of oldknowledge questions the value of posses-sing and owning knowledge. The idea thata student will acquire knowledge to last alifetime is now absurd. Only a minority ofgraduates go on to build their careers on theknowledge base acquired at the university.Most will change their jobs and their pro-fessions several times. The intellectual toolkit of the future is therefore not onecomprising mainly or even largely know-ledge but rather a range of intellectualskills, technologies, and other skills whichcan be used over a wide range of disci-plines, existing and yet to come.

In the United Kingdom, the wordskilled carries less prestige than words suchas educated or knowledgeable. It is wellknown that the Hellenic traditions of allEuropean universities have led to a venera-tion of the intellect and to the downgradingof skills and of the training necessary toacquire them.

The clash or schism between the acade-mic values of the knowledge base and thehuman and vocational values of the skillsbase has been a painful issue which theUnited Kingdom has yet to resolve. Allexaminations in Britain are knowledgebased, whereas all professions are skillsbased. Only medicine and the law havemanaged to bridge this gap and to givesocial value to skills.

This conflict between education andtraining has been damaging to the tech-nological capacity of the United Kingdom.It is a form of diversity not to be welcomedor to be encouraged. On the other hand,diversity of outlook, of subject matter, ofprofessions, etc., is quite acceptable and isreadily compatible with the continuousintegration of knowledge-based learningand skills based training.

- 72 -

A UNITED KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE

THE MANAGEMENTO FD I V E R S I T Y

The proper model of higher education istherefore one of controlled or organizeddiversity within institutions and betweeninstitutions. As in the United states, theEuropean student body will increasinglyexpect a wide range of choices. Theirchoices are as good a guide to our futureas the inclinations of professors andothers with a vested interest in the statusquo.

C o m p u t e r-based teaching methodswill facilitate the operation of this widerange of diversity and choice. The grea-test change in the delivery of higher edu-cation will occur as the knowledge-trans-fer process becomes largely automated,c o m p u t e r-based, and also under thecontrol of the student. The role of theprofessor and teacher will then be that oftutor, mentor, and friend. The new vir-tuous circle of attainment will be thatshown in Figure 3.

- 73 -

GRAHAM HILLS

The knowledge base was until recent-ly the province of the professor. Thissituation will change as the knowledgeplatform for each subject also becomesstandardized and universal. This stand-ardization will greatly improve the effec-tiveness of universities whilst also rais-ing considerably the quality of the tea-ching and learning materials. By 2001,(say), all course contents for the first de-gree will be in standardized CD-ROMformat, delivered on hard-disk. Stand-ardization has always led to higher pro-duct quality. The room for diversity bet-ween countries will be small, but the

scope for each in packaging the knowled-ge base for specific purposes will beconsiderable.

INTERNAL DIVERSITIES ANDEXTERNAL STANDARDIZATION

It has been argued here that the benefitsof transnational standardization are sogreat that in most basic subjects greaterdiversity between countries should not beencouraged. There is no Italian chemis-try, no British electronics.

The same is true for degree structuresand course organiz a t i o n . I n d e e d , i t

would be helpful also to standardize thelevels of the first degree, of the profes-sional degree, and of the doctoral re-search degree. Then students would findit easier to move from one national sys-tem to another.

since most European countries are ente-ring, for the first time, the era of masshigher education, the level of the firstdegree should not be too high. To make itreadily attainable, it should take the form

of the first degree as offered in the UnitedStates, the only country to have alreadyintroduced mass higher education. Thatfirst degree is the result of a deliberatelybroad foundation course designed as abasis for citizenship as well as for theprofessional studies subsequently to betaken by a smaller proportion of the agegroup.

It would therefore be helpful also toattempt a transnational standardization ofthe vertical diversity of attainment, the

- 74 -

A UNITED KINGDOM PERSPECTIVE

Figure 4. International Ladder of Attainment in Higher Education

so-called ladder of attainment shown inFigure 4, and onto which (and off ofwhich) students of all ages and all coun-tries can step as circumstances or needsdictate.

Each of these steps should be cohe-rent and self-contained. Each could betaken sequentially in one institution butpreferably in more than one country andwith work experience intervals as ap-propriate.Given this range of options, theinternal and external diversity open to thestudent is now very large. The structuraldiversities inside each country would bethose of:

- a wide range of subject mixes;

- a conscious progression towardsone or more specialisms;

- a wide range of mixes of knowled-ge (academic) and skills (vocatio-nal);

- a wide range of entry and exitpoints on the ladder of attainment.

This internal diversity would then beaccompanied by deliberate stand-ardization of this diversity between na-tions and countries. A common pattern of

higher education would be of benefit toall students, allowing them to maximizethe extent of their informed choice andtherefore of their mobility. This wouldrequire the standardization of all differentlevels of qualification, a process nowunderway in the European Union.Bridges could then be built between in-stitutions and between countries. Inter-national credit transfer already exists inthe European Union, and it should beextended.

CONCLUSION

All countries are engaged in the sametasks. Their institutions of higher educa-tion share a single purpose, that of or-ganizing and of repackaging the univer-sal knowledge base in ways suitable forthe needs of their students and of theircountries. To search for common goals isto seek standardization in ways that arecompatible with a wide range of internaldiversity.

Deliberate international diversity isnot helpful, except perhaps to politiciansand historians.

- 75 -

GRAHAM HILLS

. Diversification, like many aspects of French

higher education, has been kept under a strongdegree of state control. Diversification variesaccording to whether it concerns Level 3 or

Until recent years, the French higher edu-cation system was centred around twoprincipal graduation levels:

Level 3 (baccalaureat + 2 years),represented by the instituts univer -sitaires de technologie (universitypolytechnic institutes), and thesections de techniciens superieurs(senior technician sections), whicho ffer training in the industrial,agricultural, and tertiary sectors;

Level 1 (baccalaureat + 5 years),representing graduation from uni-versities, engineering schools, andmanagement training programmes.These levels correspond to theo rganization of course pro-grammes and diplomas as well asto entry levels in the labour mar-ket, qualifications and salariesbeing defined by collective agree-ments, which set the level of remu-neration as per the type of diplomaobtained.

The diversification of training occurs dif-ferently according to these two levels.

DIVERSIFICATION AT LEVELS 3AND 1

At Level 3, the diversification of the con-tents of training is external, imposed onthe system as a whole by the specialized

Level 1 of higher education. Different types of ins-

titutions and programmes at both levels, resulting

from conscious attempts at diversification, are

described.

ministries which are supported by ad-visory boards composed of repre-sentatives of the professions, the teachingstaff, and the administrative personnel.For each specialty, the contents of courseprogrammes and the organization ofcourses are defined by a central authori-ty, as is also the type of terminal diplomato be awarded. Change in these arrange-ments occurs rather slowly and is moti-vated more by a need to adopt and alignthe contents of education so that itmatches the evolution of technologiesand of professional practice than by anydesire to create, ex nihilo, new types oftraining or new branches.

Nevertheless, the use that the studentshave made of these structures, whichwere set up institutionally to provide thelabour market with technicians, havingtwo more years of training beyond thebaccalaureat, has upset these plans. In-deed, students have imposed de factodiversification by continuing their stu-dies, especially following graduationfrom the instituts universitaires de tech -nologie. More than half of such graduatesare enrolling in long-cycle studies in en-gineering schools and in university licen -ce programmes.

At Level 1, the situation varies great-ly depending on whether schools (ecoles)or universities are considered.

- 76 -


LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONSTRUCTURES: THE FRENCH CASE

Renée RIBIER

So far as the schools are concerned,the creation of a new training branch canbe envisaged and organized by an institu-tion seeking diversification or by acade-mics (one or more of them) who havecommitted themselves to the creation of anew institution.

The contents of education, meaningthe teaching programmes, are evaluatedby bodies which are independent of theconcerned ministry, such as the Commis -sion des titres d’ingenieur (Commissionfor Engineering Qualifications), and theFederation Nationale des ecoles de ges -tion (the National Federation of Schoolsof Managements These commissionsevaluate projects and approve them thusauthorizing award of the title or thediploma of ingenieur, both being legallyprotected. The commissions are com-posed of representatives of the majoremployers federations, of the profes-sional branches and of school directors.The ministry confirms the recognition ofthe diplomas awarded by the provision ofemployment and of funding.

Over the last seven or eight years, agreat number of schools were createdunder the pressure of regional com-munities that attach significant interest tothen development of technical training inbranches that are profitable for them.This process has had debatable, if notnegative, consequences: a geographicalscattering of units which are overly smalland underequipped to conduct research;and an overspecialization of types of trai-ning which stress the originality of theirtechnological niches in order to attractcandidates.

The universities too have witnessed arapid diversification of training offerings,as part of a general strategy aimed at pro-fessionalization.

Professionalization is understood asthe pursuit of a closer adjustment of thetraining offered to professional require-ments. Thus training programmes haveemerged in such fields as tourism, realestate law, applied foreign languages, andthe applications of biology to theagro-food industry. As for environmentalstudies, new branches have been set upcovering geography, chemistry, biology,geology, and sociology.

This diversification is the result of aninternal process. Teams of academics areresponsible for the elaboration of trainingprojects. Each one is submitted by thegiven university to the ministry in orderto be accredited, that is, granted nationalrecognition. The ministry examines theopinions expressed by the expert com-missions which it designates, attachingparticular importance to scientific leveland quality. Afterwards, the ministerdecides whether or not to grant recogni-tion of the given diploma. He can refuseto grant recognition, even if the opinionsof the experts were positive, for reasonspertaining to the mission of the universityor because of uncertainty as to openingson the labour market. Such cases are,however, rare.

Even if the diploma is not officiallyrecognized, the university can neverthe-less decide to award it under its ownauthority by calling it a diplome d’uni -versite (university diploma).

This internal expansion led the minis-try to an external diversification of thetypes of education offered by the creationof a new component in the university sys-tem, namely the IUP’s - instituts univer -sitaires professionalises (university pro-fessional institutes).

- 77 -

RENEE RIBIER

BIRTH OF THE IUP’S

The IUP’s were the result of two realiza-tions: the internally expressed need of thesystem to bring some organization intothe diversity of professionalized diplo-mas; and the emergence of a diversifieddemand, both regarding qualificationsand the employment market for profes-sionals having qualifications of a higherlevel than those offered by Level 3 trai-ning but still not as advanced as those ofLevel 1.

The IUP’s correspond to the level ofthe baccalaureat + 4 years. In 1992, theministry decreed the creation of a newnational diploma, that of i n g e n i e u r-maitre (master engineer), changing theorganization of the course programmefrom bac + 1 to bac + 4, and definingnine branches of training for the indus-trial sector and seven branches for thetertiary sector.

The universities elaborate projectswithin each branch of study. These pro-jects are then submitted for examinationby a commission independent of theministry. The universities remain fullyresponsible for designating a status forIUP’s within their organizational chartsbut they are obliged to see to it that atleast 30% of the courses of the latter areoffered by professionals and that longinternships are made available in enter-prises.

There are, at present 122 IUP’s ofwhich 58 are linked to the industrial sec-tor and 64 to the tertiary sector. However,most of them do not represent ex nihilocreations; rather, they are the result ofchanges in status of pre-existing in-stitutes or programmes requiring the bac -calaureat + 4 years, such as the MIAG’s(maitrises d’informatique appliques a lagestion) or certain MST (maitrises desciences et techniques) or of a cross-sec-

tional regrouping of various existingspecialties to which were added otherspecialties, some of them completelynew.

Last but not least, the ministry re-quires that the annual number of gra-duates per IUP be at least 100 students inorder to avoid the scattering of overlysmall units.

Given the fact that IUP’s are fairlynew, it is too early to pass judgment as tosuitability regarding the needs of the eco-nomy and of society, the employment ofgraduates, and their recognition via col-lective agreements. This new formula hasenjoyed great success in universities, asthey have all set up at least one IUP. Theregional communities are definitelyinterested in them and have initiatednumerous requests to have them set up inthem.

CONCLUSION

This French initiative thus reflects thecomplexity of the higher education sys-tem while demonstrating its great flexibi-lity and its capacity to react rapidly to thediversity of job opportunities, tech-nological progress, and the expectationsof its socio-economic environment.

This diversification has been favouredby a political context that has consideredhigher education to be a national priorityand has provided salaries and workplacesfor significant numbers of teacher-resear-chers. Both internal and external diversi-fication have interacted through aconstant dialectic, but one which, fortu-nately, has been kept under control by theState.. The higher education system of Romania hasbeen one of the sectors of Romanian society mostdetermined to undertake drastic reform andrestructuring. The reform process, which gotunderway during the first months of 1990, is com-plex, particularly the efforts in favour of restructu-ring and diversification aimed at

- 78 -

THE FRENCH CASE

The system of higher education inRomania is currently negotiating its wayamidst a process of major restructuring.The process has been made possible bythe political changes which came about atthe end of 1989. One can maintain that inrecent years the Romanian higher educa-tion system has been one of the mostdynamic social sectors, unequivocallyexpressing its intention and deter-mination to undertake drastic reform inall spheres of academic life.

Like all other social institutions inRomania, the universities suffered great-ly during the communist dictatorship.The academic and managerial structureswere marked by bureaucracy and con-servatism. Openly or deviously, univer-sities were pushed aside. Attempts wereeven made to transform them into ordi-nary labour-force breeding units or socialrelays according to communist socialnorms. Without openly saying so, butquite obviously, the regime viewed theRomanian academic intelligentsia withsuspicion, if not with frank hostility.Universality and the critical spirit -basicacademic values - were in strong con-tradiction with communist dogma.

The structural dysfunctions of highereducation in Romania were far frombeing inherent to the academic system;

adapting Romanian higher education, both interms of national and of curricular structures, tothe realities of a market economy and liberal

democratic principles. An appropriate legal frame-work is to be provided by two new laws, the Lawon Education and the Law on Quality Assessmentand Accreditation.

they were deliberately instilled by thepolitical bureaucracy. The feeling of frus-tration experienced by professors andstudents alike was more intense than thatperceived by other social categories.Thus the longing for radical change wasmore clearly and fiercely expressed inRomanian academic circles than amongother social and professional groups.

The reform process of higher educa-tion in Romania, which began in the firstmonths of 1990, was initiated by themajor universities of the country. In mostinstances, the national coordinating in-stitutions sanctioned situations that hadalready come into being. The factualdynamics of given structures has beenand still is more rapid than legislative ornormative modifications. The reform en-deavours of the national institutions (theParliament, the Government, theMinistry of Education), initiated at thebeginning of the l990’s, were primarilycorrections of the gross errors committedduring the totalitarian regime.

Starting in 1993, the main political in-stitutions have also manifested their in-tention to radically reform and restruc-ture the higher education system. Thenew strategy is no longer concerned withrestoration by sectors, but is conceived asa medium and longer-term coherent con-cept addressing all segments of higher

- 79 -


HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES IN ROMANIA

Ioan MIHAILESCU and Lazar VLASCEANU

education. Its development, which isbeing simultaneously supervised by na-tional and international bodies and or-ganizations, is obviously a time-consum-ing process. The reform is examined atthe legislative, institutional, psychologi-cal, and social levels. Mention, however,must be made of the fact that legislativeor normative sanctioning has fallen farbehind the actual dynamics of academicinstitutions.

THE DYNAMICS OF N AT I O N A LSTRUCTURES

Study Fields

Beginning with the mid-1 9 7 0 ’s ,Romanian higher education entered aperiod of stagnation from the standpointof the number of students and professors.The numerus clausus system was strictlycontrolled by the central politicaland

administrative bodies. The anti-i n-telligentsia attitudes of the top politicalbureaucracy relegated higher educationand scientific research to the periphery,the stress being laid on developing a sortof utopian intellectual working class. In-vestments in higher education were dras-tically reduced, and, in the case of tradi-tional universities, budgets could scarce-ly cover current expenses. In spite of allrestrictions, however, the driving force toenroll in higher education grew strongerand stronger. In some cases (law, art),entrance examination competition rose toaberrant figures: fifty to sixty candidatesper place. Indeed during the 1980’s ,Romania was among the countries withthe lowest higher education enrollmentrates. As a result, a general mood of dis-satisfaction prevailed which led to theexplosive expansion of the higher educa-tion network between 1990 and 1993.

- 80 -


With regard to the type of course pro-grammes, the communist regime inRomania was characterized by an endlessly rising proportion of students whowere enrolled in evening courses and acorrespondingly falling rate of students

enrolled in day and distance learningcourses.

This trend was motivated by at leasttwo factors: a financial one: the continuous decline in the economic condi-tion of the country which entailed c u t

backs in public spending in all sectors,higher education included. Unit costs perstudent were much lower for eveningcourses than for day courses. The secondfactor was ideological. Describing itselfas the representative of the workingclass, the communist party stimulated theaccess of young workers to higher educa-tion. The occult justification was to winthe allegiance of a whole generation ofyouth whose chances of following a nor-mal academic course programme wereslim.

The aftermath of that policy was defi-nitely negative. First, it lowered the qua-lity of academic instruction. The studentswho enrolled in evening classes hadfewer possibilities to learn as comparedto day-course students. It was mandatoryfor all students enrolled in eveningcourses to give proof of their full- orpart-time employment. The amount oftime they could allocate to study during asemester was minimal. They would studysolely during examination sessions.Time-budget studies made between 1985and 1988 on sample student teams revea-led that a day-course student had fivetimes more available time for study thanan evening-course student. Under the cir-cumstances, professors were persuadedby administrative or political means to bemore lenient with the precarious amountof knowledge displayed by evening-course students. The situation was per-ceived as incongruous, since the diploma‘ gave identical rights, irrespective of thetype of study programme attended.

S e c o n d l y, this same dynamic en-couraged partiality so far as chances toenroll in higher education were con-cerned. As academic institutions werelocated in the major cities, only here andin the neighbouring areas could residentsa fford to attend them. Young peopleliving in rural areas had far fewer

chances to acquire a higher education.

The low prestige of evening coursesgave rise at the beginning of the l990’s toa strong negative reaction with regard tothat type of study. Consequently, the per-centage of day-course students increasedwhile that of evening-course studentsplunged. For the 1993-1994 academicyear, the percentage of students in eve-ning courses is estimated to have droppedconsiderably. The expansion of the uni-versity network into the field has facilita-ted the access to day courses of would bestudents residing in distant areas.

The distance-learning system of stu-dies is undergoing radical restructuring anew system of distance learning having’been conceived, based on the decentrali-zation of major universities and the set-ting up of local branches. It is estimatedthat the new system is going to be gra-dually expanded, as local communitiesincreasingly contribute (financially andlogistically) to the support of higher edu-cation and scientific research.

For the moment, however, the budgetsof local communities are limited. Theytherefore can only cover part of theexpenses for pre-academic education.The expansion of distance learningdepends on the passage of laws on admi-nistrative autonomy for local communi-ties and also on the legislative modifica-tion of local budgets.

Types of Studies

During the communist decades, highereducation in Romania was divided intoa series of independent, specialisedunits. There were only a few majoruniversities (Bucharest, Cluj, and Iai)that were permitted a more complexstructure. The rest of the higher educa-

- 81 -

IOAN MIHAILESCU AND LAZAR VLASCEANU

tion institutions were specialized in onlyone field, or in several related fields; forinstance, agronomy, economics, en-gineering, music, or sports. The or-ganizational type was mainly of Sovietinspiration. There was also a certain poli-tical motivation: to avoid the con-centration of large numbers of students inone institution only as a way of preven-ting political disturbances.

For reasons similar to those pre-viously mentioned, the permanentdecrease in the percentages of students inthe sciences and the humanities and theincrease in the percentages of students inthe technical sciences was constantlypursued. Fundamental research and thesocial and humanistic sciences were as-signed second-rate places within the lar-ger framework of communist politicalstrategies. Applicative techniques were

the only acknowledged factors respon-sible for development.

Out of the utopian ambition to achie-ve economic and technological break-throughs in all fields, the political-communist bureaucracy magnified thesize of certain economic fields as well asof the related higher education studies. Inm e t a l l u rg y, chemistry, and mechanics,oversized faculties and departments weredeveloped. At the end of the 1980’s,polytechnic education representedsixty-five percent of the total of highereducation. Conversely, studies in thehumanities and the social sciences aswell as in medicine and in the arts werepermanently fenced off, some fieldsfading away (sociology, psychology, eco-logy).

- 82 -


Beginning with 1990, the error of struc-turing academic studies according tofields of economic activity became evi-dent. The reduction of activity in certaineconomic sectors amplified the unemployment rate of specialists withhigher education qualifications. The mostaffected professions were those in metal-l u rg y, steel working, chemistry, and

mechanics.

Under the impact of change in thelabour market, and following the reas-sertion of the traditional universities, theratio of students enrolled in technicalstudies began to decrease, falling tounder fifty percent in 1992-1993. In the

years to come, the quota of this domain,is expected to decrease to approximatelythirty percent. Alternatively, the ratio ofscience and humanities has, increasedand will probably exceed fifty percent inthe following three years. The increasesin these fields are due to the larger num-bers of students enrolled in the existingfaculties and to certain emerging studyfields: social assistance, business mana-gement, political science, ecology, com-munications sciences, and journalism.Also, confessional higher education hasbeen extended.

The higher education institutions havebeen increasingly perceptive of the infor-mation supplied by industry, and, ingeneral, by the labour market. Currently,aspiring students are increasingly betterinformed as to their career opportunities.A high labour-force deficit is being regis-tered in certain professions: law, econo-mics, administration, social assistance,translation and interpreting computersciences, and pre-academic teaching.Analyses of academic entrance examina-tion rates offer interesting data regardingpublic (young applicants and theirparents) perceptions of the general stateof the labour market. Thus, for the 1993university entrance examinationcompetitions, the overall ratio of candi-dates per seat was of 20 to 1; in law, 5 to10 to 1; in psychology, sociology, history,and journalism, about the same as in law,but in engineering only 0.3 to 0.5 to 1.

The index of the entrance examina-tion pressure is a strong argument for theacceleration of the restructuring processfor higher education. Some universitieshave already begun to reassess their pro-files and have expanded or set up themore sought-after fields. Some others,mainly the polytechnics, find it difficultto adapt. Their high degrees of speciali-zation will not allow for a significant

degree of diversification.

The restructuring of study fields mayencounter various obstacles which couldhave negative effects. Responding solelyto current economic and labour marketrequirements might irremediably com-promise some study fields. Under theconditions of transition to a market eco-nomy, careers in fundamental researchare less attractive (relatively modest sala-ries, little publicity in the first years ofactivity). Nevertheless, fundamentalresearch remains an essential factor inmedium- and longer-term development.Exclusive orientation according to theimmediate needs of the economic envi-ronment may soon lead to the disappea-rance of some fields of fundamentalresearch, the re-creation of which mighttake a very long time. Therefore, it isnecessary for the reform of higher educa-tion structures to envisage the protectionof certain study and fundamental resear-ch fields, vital for the future of Romanianscience and economy.

Secondly, confronted with the rapiddecrease of student numbers in somefaculties and forced to modify their studystructures, some universities might takeup fields in which they fail to possess theproper resources: qualified professors,adequate study infrastructures, speciali-zed libraries, curricular experience. Thedanger of lowering the quality of acade-mic education due to improvisation lurksin the background. The signal is evidentin the case of the former polytechnics,which have designated themselves asuniversities in order to avail themselvesof the formal university framework andto set up new faculties.

Thirdly, the oversized technical fieldsof not so long ago have acquired largeacademic staffs the workplaces of whom

- 83 -

IOAN MIHAILESCU and LAZAR VLASCEANU

are threatened by the restructuring of studyfields. This fact could be a severeconstraint to a rapid restructuring process,for national and social policies call for anavoidance of high intellectual unemploy-ment. Reorientation towards other activi-ties is difficult and could generate a loss ofthe intellectual potential of the country.

On the one hand, there is a significantnumber of highly qualified specialists.Their reorientation towards other fieldscould cause important scientific losses inthe fields in which they have worked upuntil now. On the other hand, requalifyingthem would be even more difficult, sincethe average age of the technical higher edu-cation personnel is rather high, and requali-fication availability decreases with age andwith professional experience. A p a r t i a lsolution would be the development ofscientific research in technical higher edu-cation institutes and a higher research acti-vity ratio in the total amount of a profes-sor’s workload. A favourable argument inthis respect is the fact that during the lasttwo decades technical institutes have accu-mulated an important technical base.

The restructuring of study fields mightbe and has already been confronted with aseries of obstacles of a psychological andsocial nature.For several decades, technicalinstitutes have enjoyed a relatively privile-ged status: large numbers of students andprofessors, significant investments, andmore consistent financial allocations.Under the new circumstances, some ofthem are forced to place themselves in amore modest position. The situation mightgenerate prestige reactions and a call forobstruction on the part of fields unwillingto accept the loss of their privileged status.And if resistance is supported by a strongpolitical lobby, the result could be an unna-tural preservation of the former overdimen-sions.

Here also lie the seeds of a dormantconflict among higher education institu-tions. The possibility of setting up newstudy fields within the framework of thecomprehensive universities is hindered bylack of space. Major investments in buil-ding construction are improbable.‘ S u b s e q u e n t l y, there is competition forspace between the comprehensive and thetechnical universities. The former see in thedecline of technical studies their chance toexpand their teaching and social facilitiesfor students. The latter are not willing tosurrender any part of their managed infra-structure. While waiting for new regula-tions on public property, each categorytries to maximize that part of the infra-structure it has been managing. In theabsence of an impartial umpire, strongconflicts of interest could be triggeredamong the different categories of universi-ties which are craving space.

Temporizing or social protection solu-tions notwithstanding one thing is evident:higher education institutions are forced tosatisfy both industry and labour marketdemands’. Isolation and pursuance of theirown rationale will only drastically reducethe chances for the survival of certainfields.

As a result of deliberate decisions madeby the higher education institutions andunder the impact of a modified demand andsupply ratio, the study field structure ofhigher education in Romania is tending tobecome similar to that of the westernEuropean countries.

size of Universities

The fragmentation of Romanian highereducation into specialized, independentunits has resulted in small higher educationinstitutions.

- 84 -


Some universities are competitive. So faras size is concerned (relative to the num-bers of their students and professors),expansion is a complex problem, espe-cially under the circumstances of ex-tended academic autonomy. Thus themanagement of a higher education in-stitution tends to become increasinglycomplex and to demand special qualifi-cations as well as the ability to maintaina fair balance between a purely academicrationale and a financial one.

While undergoing growth, the manage-ment of a university increasinglyresembles that of a company, and at peaklevels of university management, econo-mic and financial rationales begin to callthe tune. The negative consequences ofthat tendency with regard to academicoperation could be prevented by restric-ting department (faculty) size and evenby multiplying horizontal functionaldivisions.

- 85 -


The rapid expansion in size of certainuniversities has generated certain mana-gerial complications. The developmentof university administrative and technicalstaffs has been slow when cast againstthe numbers of students and professors.Also, the mobility of academic staffmembers and students has increased. Theworkload of the administrative compo-nents has been diversified and multiplied.The rules andregulations concerningfinancial and accounting management,and the status of payments and invest-ments follow one another at a brisk place.All of the above has led either to theoverburdening of the operative compo-nent (personnel, accounting, supply), orhas caused adjustment problems for older

employees. Dissensions between the ope-rational and the academic componentshave arisen because academic staff mem-bers are displeased with delays in res-ponses to their requests. Administrativestaff assignments, four or five years ago,were highly standardized and repetitive.At present, increased creativity and ini-tiative are required from the very samepersonnel.

The rising level of dissension amonguniversities and the rising complexitycall for a requalified administrative per-sonnel and even for the development ofnew types of managers specialized inhigher education. Also, administrative

techniques should change and, more im-portantly, university management needsto be computerized The major univer-sities in Romania have-already achievedsignificant changes in this respect, evenif certain administrative components arereticent for fear of a reduction in workplaces or due to psychological obstaclesin adjusting to new work techniques.

Territorial Structure of the HigherEducation System

As of 1990, the territorial structure of thehigher education system in Romania hasbeen diversified. Previously, most of thehigher education institutions were con-centrated in certain large centres:Bucharest, Cluj, Iai, and Timioara. Atpresent higher education institutionsexist in 22 cities. The universities whichwere open during the 1960’s and 1970’sand closed at the end of the 1970’s andthe beginning of the 1980’s have beenreopened. In such situations, the groundsfor reopening them have been twofold:local needs and the correction of theerrors committed by the former regime.

Higher education institutions havealso been set up in cities which had never

had a higher education institution. Al-though in the latter case the hurried pro-cedure for setting up universities resultedin lower academic standards than thoseinsisted on and observed by the majoruniversities a sufficient number of quali-fied academic personnel, and a minimalstart up of infrastructure (libraries, labo-ratories, teaching and ret search equip-ment, campuses) has been possible.Under the circumstances, the large uni-versities, claiming protection for theconcept of university and feeling theneed for certain national evaluation andaccreditation criteria, have lobbied forthe establishment of a national system ofquality control. Although the qualitycontrol of higher education on a nationalscale may seem at first glance as oppo-sing the much evoked principle of acade-mic autonomy, it is actually intended torestrain or to keep in check the facile pro-liferation of higher education institutions.

The territorial expansion of highereducation units has also reduced someclear regional discrepancies which weremanifested in the 1980’s

- 86 -


*Number of seats open for the September 1993 entrance examination, per 1,000 persons aged 18 to 25.** Military higher education institutes not included.

Big cities continue to have the largestconcentration of academic activity. Forexample, 40% of the academic potential ofthe country is concentrated in Bucharest (interms of the numbers of professors and ofstudents). For this reason, the historicalregion of Muntenia (Wallachia) offers thelargest number of possibilities for localaccess to higher education: 12.2 per onethousand of people aged between eighteenand twenty-five (taking into considerationthe number of seats open for competition,in September 1993) for the first year of stu-dies in higher education. Considering thecity of Bucharest alone, the chances ofenrollment are 39.8 per one thousand ofpeople between eighteen and twenty-five.The historical region of Moldavia has thelowest density of higher education institu-tions; correspondingly, the region has thelowest rate of local access to higher educa-tion.

In the short run, the prospect of ex-panding the network of higher educationinstitutions territorially is practically nil.The only chance to concur with normalacademic standards is the expansion of thenew system of distance learning by settingup local branches of the large universities.The branches are conceived of as beingsupported by the major universities, at leastso far as the curricula, qualified academicstaff, research potential, and documentatio-nal bases are concerned. A possible solu-tion might be to take advantage of theopportunities offered by the computerizednational academic network (interconnectedhigher education institutions). It mighteven contribute to a reduction of the in-frastructural difficulties with which thel a rge universities are confronted (espe-cially with regard to student social ser-vices). In practice, such a solution is con-ditioned by the reform of curricula and bydiversified programmes and forms and

types of study.

Structure of Higher Education versusthe Legal status of its Institutions

From the standpoint of its legal statusduring the communist regime, the only.acceptable type of higher education in-stitution was a public one. Beginning in1990, the first private universities emerged.There is no precise information availableabout private universities in Romania;h o w e v e r, according to some estimates,there are around fifty or sixty private uni-versities, with over 100,000 enrolled stu-dents.

This type of university emerged in theabsence of any legal regulations on privateuniversities. They were acknowledged nei-ther by the Ministry of Education, nor byany other national institutions qualified ineducational policy matters. Thus there wasa complete absence of any legal accredita-tion of diplomas and certificates issued bythese universities. The project for a law onacademic evaluation and accreditationestablishes the conditions under whichpublic and private institutions are recog-nized, evaluated, and accredited. It alsoenvisions temporary solutions to help stu-dents enrolled in private universities, thatmay or may not be accredited, completetheir studies. The short-run intention of thelaw is to avoid social unrest which maygrow in size, but also to uphold academicstandards.

The study fields offered by private uni-versities, are, in most cases, similar tothose offered by the public universities.Some private universities have even pro-moted new fields, which do not exist inpublic universities. Their curricula are notsubstantially different from those of thepublic universities. In fact, they are

- 87 -


normally taught by the same professors(public university professors also teach atprivate universities). In addition, the pri-vate universities deliberately follow thepublic university institutional process inorder to facilitate the accreditation oftheir diplomas.

The private universities are mainly orsolely financed by the tuition fees paid bytheir students. During the 1992-1993 aca-demic year, tuition fees amounted toabout two to four average monthly sala-ries. Accordingly, there is an importantdifference between public university stu-dents who benefit from free educationand may even receive study grants (forthe 1992-1993 academic year, fifty-fivepercent of the total number of studentsreceived grants from the public budget)and the tuition-paying students of privateuniversities. The project of higher educa-tion reform to be submitted in theensuing months has reconsidered bothformula in order to find a middle waybetween no-charge (and a large numberof grants) and highly expensive educa-tion. The tuition fees paid for private ins-truction have stimulated public universi-ties to think about diversifying their waysof financing themselves and to identifyother resources in order to augmentself-financing.

In the absence of an unbiased opinionas to the condition of private universities,no fundamental statements can be for-mulated as to the quality of their pro-grammes, their research and study infra-structures, their academic staff, or theirstudents. Some studies on this subject arebeing elaborated: for objective purposes,both national and international organiza-tions are performing evaluations in paral-lel (for instance, the studies sponsored bythe World Bank on higher educationreform and scientific research inRomania).

DYNAMICS OF CURRICULARSTRUCTURE

During the communist regime, theRomanian academic curriculum was in-sufficiently diversified. There existed ashort-cycle type of higher education inthe domain of technical studies (sub-en-gineers) and in that of pedagogical stu-dies (the training of lower-s e c o n d a r yeducation teachers). The study span wasfour years in the sciences, in the humani-ties, and in economics, and five years inengineering studies. Evening course stu-dies required one more year as comparedto day course studies.

The curricula of institutes, faculties,and departments were highly special-ized,any student horizontal mobility (bet-ween study fields) being viewed only asexceptional. Student specialization beganas of. the very first academic year andwas strongly emphasized. The certifi-cates and diplomas issued would indicatenarrow specialities, restricting changes inprofessional careers. A decrease in thenumber of work places in certain sectorswould entail manifold difficulties in fin-ding other employment for those specia-lized in one field only.

As of 1990, but more evidently since1953, the curriculum has been restruc-tured. Characteristic of the restructuredcurriculum are a series of new dimen-sions:

Multilevel Studies

- Short-term studies (2-3 years),leading to the award of a studycertificate. In some domains,these studies are independent,unrelated to longer-term studies inthe field. This situation prevails infields for highly trained tech-nicians who do not need longer-term academic instruction (library

- 88 -


sciences, secretarial studies, infor-matics, etc.). In some other fields,short-term instruction is simplyone stage of long-term education.In these cases, studies can be ter-minated after two years (gra-duates receive certificates al-lowing them to practise certainprofessions), or studies can becontinued.

- Longer-term studies (total span isfour to five years). There are twovariants: the first refers to studiesorganized as units, for periods offour to five years without beingcorrelated to short-term studies inthe same field; the second variantis conceived to devote the firsttwo to three years to short-termstudies, and the following three tofour years for speciality studies.The graduates receive diplomasand can practise most of the pro-fessions requiring higher educa-tion

- In-depth studies (1-2 years).Graduates receive a master’sdiploma and can work in fields inwhich specialized higher educa-tion is required. This level couldbe instituted as a curriculum stagein choice fields (where long-termdiploma recipients in the field areaccepted) or it could be organizedthrough the agency of in-depthmulti-disciplinary study centres inwhich diploma recipients invarious fields are accepted. Forinstance, for a master’s degree inecotechnics programmes, biolo-gists, engineers, geographers,sociologists, and economistswould be accepted.

- Doctoral studies, 2-4 years, ofwhich the first two years are in-cluded in a system of courseattendance. The new structureconceives the doctorate as in-herent to academic studies and asan initiation to research activity.

- 89 -


Figure 1. structure of By-Levels of Higher Education in Romania (since 1993-1994).

Passing from one level to another isconditioned by the study certificate(diploma), performance at the immedia-tely lower level, and success on recruit-ment examinations. The level structure ispyramidal: for instance, according togenerous estimates, only forty to fiftypercent of the bachelor’s degree awar-dees will be admitted to master’s studies,and only twenty to twenty-five percent ofthe master’s degree awardees will beadmitted to doctoral studies. The quanti-tative ratio between the levels is set bythe higher education institutions, but theycan vary from field to field and from per-iod to period. The ratios refer to that por-tion of academic studies financed fromthe public budget.

Flexibility of Academic Careers

From this point of view, various purposesare designated: increases in student hori-zontal mobility between different studyfields, prevention of student failure dueto the inability to adjust to curricularrequirements in certain fields or due tomandatory extension of studies in fieldsfor which given students lack the talent.The main purpose of restructuring is tobuild b r i d g e s between different studyfields and also to enable the student toadequately shape his or her own acade-mic career.

Multilateral Education (Extensionof Multi-Disciplinary Profiles)

Difficulties in finding employment en-countered by extremely narrowly spe-cialized people have multiplied duringthe period of transition to the market eco-nomy. The signals sent by the labourmarket are clear: the new jobs, offered

especially by the private sector, requireboth broad qualifications (in increasingnumbers of fields), and at least a minimalknowledge of the handling of electronicequipment. The restructuring of cur

ricula also means taking into considera-tion the latest demands of the labour mar-ket. Those departments and faculties fai-ling to confront these realities shouldaccept responsibility for breeding un-employment. Narrow, in-depth training,ensured by master’s and doctoral levels,is to be targeted mainly towards highereducation and scientific research ac-tivities.

Linking Curricular Structure to theDynamics of Industrial and SocialActivities

Higher education has its own dynamicsand rationale. But these dimensions can-not be exclusive and cannot ignore therequests coming from industry and com-merce. The concept according to whichuniversities only know what a specialist’straining consists of, future users beingfree to accept or to refuse what a univer-sity can offer, were valid to some extentduring the period of the communist regi-me; but under the circumstances of amarket economy, such a concept mightprove catastrophic for a university.Unless they are uninterested in the careerchances of their graduates, universitiesmust adjust their curricula to the needs ofpublic and private users.

Adjustment is also a necessity forfinding new financial resources. It isquite obvious that higher education canno longer be supported from only publicfunds. Employing the financial resourcesoffered by public or private companies orother fields of activity is possible if uni-versities diversify their curricula and setup other forms of education, such asretraining courses or special training pro-grammes requested by certain users.

- 90 -


Extension of Academic Autonomyin Drawing up Curricula

During the communist era, study pro-grammes were set up at the national leveland applied ad litteram by all universitiesin the country. As of 1990, universitiesclaimed autonomy to draw up study pro-grammes, which generated great diffe-rences among the curricula of the variousuniversities. At present, a compromisehas been reached between a diversity ofstudy programmes and a national studyprogramme: certain segments of curricu-la are mandatory for all universities offe-ring courses in a certain field, whileothers are set up independently by eachuniversity. The ratio between the com-mon and the variable segments tends tofavour the variable segments, as acade-mic autonomy becomes more resoluteand as the recently established uDiversities become more experienced indrawing up their own curricula.

The requirements that some degree ofhomogeneity be assured for the cur-riculum (advanced chiefly by the Minis-try of Education) are motivated by thenational character of the diplomas andstudy certificates issued by the variousuniversities. Too great a degree of cur-ricular diversity might result in the hie-rarchical classification, at first informal,of the faculties and universities, and itmight even involve restrictions on thenational accreditation of diplomas andcertificates.

Reshaping the curricula in the direc-tions mentioned above might have posi-tive implications. It would ensure a rela-tive decrease in the public costs of highereducation; it would allow for an energeticintegration of higher education into thesocial system; and it would preventover-education (especially in fields in

which qualification can be achieved bys h o r t-term studies). Romanian highereducation would thus approach interna-tional standards (the increased mobilityof students and professors would im-prove the chances for Romanian diplo-mas to be internationally valued). Also,malfunctions in the education systems(dropouts, suspended studies) would bereduced. Students would be better able toadjust their academic careers accordingto their talents. In general, the highereducation system would be characterizedby greater flexibility and adaptability.

The restructuring of curricula facesobstacles at two levels. To begin with,one may refer to certain traditionaldepartments which are reticent or evenhostile to higher education reform en-deavours because of the lacks of psycho-social ability on the part of some profes-sors to adjust to the new political andsocial changes. Secondly, certain obs-tacles originate in some quarters of thenational institutions coordinating highereducation, mainly those that argue infavour of maintaining a centralizedcontrol on the dynamics of academicstructures. In this respect, there arenotable distinctions among higher educa-tion institutions. In general, the majoruniversities are more consistent in theirefforts to reform, while the recently esta-blished universities seem to be moreconservative.

THE RESTRUCTURING OF HIGHEREDUCATION: NORMS AND LAWS

An additional obstacle in the way of highereducation restructuring is the absence of anadequate legal framework. The factual dyna-mics of academic structures has been morerapid than its sanctioning by rules and regula-tions. The old law on education has not yetbeen invalidated (even if some clauses

- 91 -


have been suspended). In many respects,some provisions utterly contradict thelatest changes. The Ministry of Educa-tion has adopted a series of normes con-cerning both the correction of seriouserrors committed by the former regimeand some steps that could be consideredas forgoing the reform. Although onecannot yet speak of implementing a clearstrategy of reform in the field of highereducation, many of the decisions adoptedby the Ministry of Education arecongruent with such a strategy.

The main norms for legally repre-senting the basis of the reform of highereducation were formulated as a projectedlaw as early as the beginning of 1991.This early project has bloomed into theLaw on Education and the Law onQuality Assessment and Accreditation inHigher Education.

As an organic law, the general law oneducation is following a complex proce-dure in being passed by the Parliament. Itis estimated that the law will be approvedin early 1995.

The project for the Law on QualityAssessment and Accreditation is moreadvanced . The draft has been passed bythe Senate and will probably be passedby the Chamber of Deputies at the end ofSeptember or the beginning of October,1993. The project establishes the condi-tions under which higher education in-stitutions can be founded and approvalfor temporary operation, granted. It alsospells out the conditions for the setting upof quality evaluation and accreditationmechanisms.

According to the proposed law, res-ponsibility for evaluation and accredita-tion would be given to a National

Council on Academic Evaluation andAccreditation, responsible to the Parlia-ment. The temporary operation licenseand accreditation would be granted onthe basis of a self-evaluation report, of areport drawn up by the specialized com-mittees of the National Council, and of areport drawn up by the National Council.Based on those reports and on the recom-mendation of the Ministry of Education,the Government would decide to grant ornot to grant the temporary operationlicense and authorization. The draft lawalso lists the conditions under which anauthorized institute should cease activityand the terms under which its studentscould continue their education.

A much debated aspect of the Law onAccreditation concerns the criteria andstandards for academic evaluation andaccreditation. The criteria concern thebasic conditions of organization and ope-ration characteristic of higher educationinstitutions: staff, curriculum, in-frastructure, research, and financial ac-tivities. Most universities contend thatthe proposed standards are rather highand that their inflexible implementationcould severely compromise the chancesof private education to survive.

The power conferred upon the Na-tional Council and its committees is rela-tively greater in Romania than in mostwestern European countries. T h eGovernment Decisions sanctioning theevaluation and accreditation results andParliamentary control over the activity ofthe National Council are justified by theneed to ensure, as much as possible, theobjectivity of the decisions taken.

Increasing the rhythm of Romanianhigher education reform and restructur-

- 92 -


* Editor’s Note: The Law on Quality Assessment and Accreditation, No. 88/1993 was approved and wentinto effect on 17 December 1993.

ing is the aim of the recently foundedNational Council for Higher EducationReform. The council is a consultingbodyand advises the Ministry of Education onall aspects concerning the reform of theentire system of education: humanresources, financial resources, studyplans and programmes, evaluations ofinstitutes and staff, research activity,partnerships, and rules and regulations.

The National Council for HigherEducation Reform opens up to debate thefundamental concepts of educationalreform, and it identifies and analyzes theroots of obstructions, imbalances, and

dysfunctions in the process of educationreform. It recommends the introductionof rules and regulations, promotes im-plementation of programmes and sub-programmes for the institutional restruc-turing of education, and informs publicopinion on the course of reform.

Having in view the dynamics ofhigher education institutions and of thelegal rules and regulations, we anticipatethat the 1993-1994 academic year willwitness a major restructuring and reformof higher education in Romania.

- 93 -


• The article gives an apercu of the developwent of higher education in the CzechRepublic from 1990 to 1993. The HigherEducation Law of 4 May 1990 provides for thegreater democratisation of higher educationstructures and for increased institutional

DEVELOPMENTS PRIOR TO MAY1 9 9 0

Czechoslovak higher education institu-tions represented an appreciable force inthe political upheaval of November 1989.As early as the very first days of the pro-cess of political change, the higher edu-cation institutions gained considerableindependence in relation to the state andto the Communist Party, which had beenthe personification of state managementduring the preceding forty years.

During the first quarter of 1990, theindividual higher education institutionselected academic officials (rectors,deans, and other senior executives), thusexchanging nearly 90 per cent of theirpersonnel, and introduced the practice ofadmitting applicants to professional postsby selection based on publicly advertisedcompetitions. New people were recruitedas lecturers at higher education institu-tions, particularly from among those whohad been refused such appointments forvarious reasons by the previous politicalsystem.

A new spirit infused the content andthe organization of studies and courseprogrammes in the higher education sys-tem. The departments (chairs) of Mar-x i s m-Leninism were abolished, whilenew chairs and faculties were opened.autonomy. Accreditation boards have been crea-

ted. An Act of 9 July 1991 led to the creation offive new universities through the reform and amal-gamation of pre-existing institutions. Principlesfor a law setting up student tuition fees are given.

Considerable changes took place, in par-ticular, in the disciplines belonging to thesocial sciences, which had been hit hard-est by the one-sided Communist propa-ganda.

The higher education institutions in-itiated wide-scale contacts with the eco-nomically advanced Western countries.All these processes involved the activeparticipation of the students, who thussucceeded in gaining numerically Strongrepresentation in the academic senates.At the same time, the students began tobuild their own representative bodies.

Wide-scale discussions were devotedto the preparation of new higher educa-tion legislation which would replace theHigher Education Act of 1980. In the per-iod from February to April, 1990, severaldrafts of a new Higher Education Actwere considered before its adoption bythe Federal Assembly on 4 May 1990 andits entry into effect a month later on 1June.

CHARACTERISTICS OFTHE HIGHEREDUCATION ACT OF MAY 1990

The new Higher Education Act codifiedthe basic academic rights and freedoms

- 94 -


HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMIN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Jiri HOLENDA

of Czechoslovak institutions of highereducation. According to the Act, thenewly-constituted bodies competent todecide certain issues are the elected aca-demic senates of individual higher edu-cation institutions and faculties which arerepresented by teachers, researchers, stu-dents, administrators, and others.

Other important bodies functioning athigher education institutions and facul-ties are those known as S c i e n t i f i cC o u n c i l s , the members of which areappointed by the rectors or the deans,subject to the consent of the appropriateacademic senates.

The role of the Ministries ofEducation of the Czech and SlovakRepublics has been reduced to the crea-tion of the conditions necessary for thedevelopment of higher education institu-tions and of higher education in general,co-ordination of the activities of highereducation institutions, distribution of thefinancial resources earmarked for thehigher

• education sector, and the registrationof the statutes of higher education institu-tions.

The new bodies which have been es-tablished include the Councils of HigherEducation Institutions and the A c-creditation Boards.

The Councils of Higher EducationI n s t i t u t i o n s represent the institutionsvis-a-vis the Ministries of Education ofboth republics. They are entitled to advi-se the Ministries and to be consulted onmatters concerning the establishment andcomposition of the accreditation boards,the proposals of the Ministries for thedistribution of financial resources to in-dividual- higher education institutions, aswell as other issues of major importanceto higher education institutions.

The Accreditation Boards are adviso-ry bodies of the Czech and Slovakgovernments. Their members are promi-nent experts from higher education insti-tutions and from scientific and otherinstitutions. The main purpose of theaccreditation boards is to advise govern-ment authorities on the establishment,fusion, division, and abolition of highereducation institutions and faculties. Onthe basis of their recommendations, theMinistry may accord or withdraw theright of a whole higher education institu-tion or of a faculty to conduct state andpostgraduate examinations and proce-dures for the nomination of professorswithin individual disciplines.

The Act empowers the A c a d e m i cSenates of the higher education institu-tions and/or their faculties to approve ins-titutional statutes which outline the orga-nization, management, activities, opera-tion, and details of study programmesand the registration of students.

Already registered statutes indicatetwo basic approaches to the organizationand administration of higher educationinstitutions: first, a general outline of dis-ciplines and objects of administrationand, second, a more detailed approachwhich includes the formulae for manage-ment.

The Higher Education Act gives theAcademic Senates extensive powers tomake decisions on the internal affairs oftheir institutions (faculties). The Act andthe statutes of the individual higher edu-cation institutions stress democratic pro-cedures in the work of the senates.

Under the law, the rector is a repre-sentative of the higher education institu-tion. He or she administers the institu-tion, represents it, and acts on its behalf.He or she is accountable to the academicsenate of the institution and in some

- 95 -

JIRI HOLENDA

limited aspects to the Minister of Educa-tion.

The provision of the Act which givesthe rectors and deans only an advisoryvote in the academic senates is problema-tic. It greatly weakens the position of therector in the administrative hierarchy ofthe institution.

The system of self-administration ofhigher education institutions was clari-fied by the Higher Education Act of May1990. It has nevertheless proven to bevery complicated to implement. T h eexistence of two academic bodiesAcademic Senates and Scientific Coun-cils, with vague and sometimes con-tradictory professional and managerialpowers, results in a complicated andlengthy decisions making process.

Persons at different levels of thevarious higher education institutions fre-quently make critical remarks about theexcessive powers of the academicsenates.

THE ACT OF 9 JULY 1991

By means of this Act, five new Univer-sities in the Czech Republic were estab-lished. To better explain what new in thiscontext means, we shall detail the recenthistory of the University of We s tBohemia, one of the five. The other fourhave similar histories.

The Act of the Czech NationalCouncil which merged the former PilsenInstitute of Technology and the formerCollege of Education in Pilsen into theUniversity of West Bohemia came intoforce on 28 September 1991. Until then,the Pilsen Institute of Technology hadbeen the only institution of higher educa-tion in West Bohemia that prepared stu-dents for careers in Mechanical andElectrical Engineering, Computer

Science, Applied Sciences, andEconomics.

The Institute had been founded in1949 as a branch of the Czech TechnicalUniversity in Prague. In 1953, it becamean independent institution. Further grow-th led in 1960 to the establishment of twodistinct faculties: the Faculty ofMechanical Engineering and the Facultyof Electrical Engineering. Two newfaculties - the Faculty of A p p l i e dSciences and the Faculty of Economicswere established in 1990.

Throughout its existence, theInstitute. maintained’close links with theSkoda Concern - Czechoslovakia’s lar-gest heavy engineering works - and seve-ral other engineering enterprises inCzechoslovakia. Close contacts weredeveloped with a number of foreign in-stitutions of higher education. T h e yresulted in joint research projects and thedevelopment of training programmes fora new generation of electrical and mecha-nical engineers.

The research carried out at the In-stitute covered all the main areas ofMechanical and Electrical Engineering.

The College of Education, Pilsen,opened in 1948 as a Faculty of CharlesUniversity. From 1953 to 1959, it opera-ted as an independent institution ofhigher education; and from 1959 to 1964,as an Institute of Education. From 1964until the establishment of the Universityof West Bohemia it was an independentCollege of Education,, preparing primaryand secondary school teachers.

At present, the University has fivefaculties. The head of the University isthe Rector. He is assisted by four Vice-Rectors, each of whom is responsible forone of the following areas: study, re-search, future development, and foreignrelations. Decisions concerning research

- 96 -

REFORM IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

and the awarding of the academic titlesof docent (senior lecturer) and: profesor(professor) are taken by the Councilwhich consists of the Rector, the Deans,representatives of departments, and cer-tain outstanding personalities from out-side the Institutions. Election of the Rec-t o r, recommendations concerning anyapproval of educational and financialmatters as well as of the future develop-ment of the University are within thejurisdiction of the Academic Senate ofthe University. The ratio of staff/student:representation in the Senate is 2 to 1.

The faculties, which are administeredby the Deans, have their own Councilsand Senates. In educational matters, theyare relatively independent of the Univer-sity and make the final decisions concer-ning curricula.

The basic teaching and research unitsare the departments, which often providecourses not only for students enrolled atparticular faculties but for students atother faculties as well.

SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES FOR THELAW CONCERNING TUITION FEESAND THE SYSTEM OF STATEGRANTSIN HIGHER EDUCATION

Principle 1: Introduction of tuitionfees: goals. According tothis law, the tuition fee isa quantity. the amount ofwhich is approved by theDeputies of: the CzechParliament. Every stu-dent enrolled in highereducation who hasCzech citizenship has toreimburse this amountand thus take part in thedirect financing of theinstitution of higher edu-cation in which he or shestudied. The introduction

of mandatory tuition feeswill create economic sti-muli for both the stu-dents and the institutionsof higher education,which should result inthe improvement of theirwork. T h edecision-making capaci-ties of students regardingtheir higher educationduring their years ofstudy will thus be betterinformed with regard tothe economic motivesand consequences oftheir decisions. T h eintroduction of tuitionfees must not reduce theaccess of low incomesocial groups to highereducation.

Principle2: Necessity to collect tui-tion fees.

Principle 3: Necessity to pay tuitionfees.

Principle4: Student financialorganization.

Principle 5: Conditions for deferredtuition payment.

Principle6: Criteria for the.determination of tuitionfees.

Principle7: Determination of tuitionfees.

Principle 8: The contribution of thestate, to tuition pay-ments.

The following two figures representthe present way in which students finan-ce their higher education and proposedchanges. In particular,the new systemcalls for an end to the indirect financialsupport of students through subsidizedservices.

- 97 -

JIRI HOLENDA

- 98 -

REFORM IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

- 99 -

JIRI HOLENDA

• The college system of Hungary is introduced.Colleges have a long history in Hungary and ope-rate at a level similar to that of the F a c h -hochschulen of Germany. The main areas of studyand research which they cover are listed

BRIEF REVIEW

The college education system of Hun-gary is dense. The Hungarian collegesare similar to the German F a c h -hochschulen and the Dutch hogescholen.The following characteristics are typicalof such colleges everywhere in Europe:three-year fulI-time programmes (threeacademic years), practice-oriented train-ing, and significant specialization.

Some specific features of the Hun-garian colleges are their strongly special-ized profiles (e.g., mechanical engineer-ing, electronic engineering etc.), theiru n i v e r s i t y-type organization (depart-ments, grading of staff, college councils,etc.), the university-type assessment ofstudents (8 to 10 examinations in asemester, a thesis, a state examination),and their postgraduate courses.

There are two types of Hungarian col-leges: independent colleges and univer-sity colleges. The university-colleges areunits of universities, operating as univer-sity faculties. They offer similar coursesand the same diplomas as the inde-pendent colleges.

In general, Hungarian colleges havethe following specializations: Engineer-ing, Economics and Financial Account-ing, Agriculture and Horticulture, HealthStudies, Military and Police Training,

Teacher Training (for Lower as are their admission requirements. Their systemof governance is described as are also the ways inwhich they are funded. A table of facts and figureson Hungarian colleges is appended.

Primary Schools), and Teacher Training(for Upper Primary Schools).

With respect to the level of coursesand their equivalences, Hungarian col-lege diplomas correspond to the GermanFachhochschule degree and to theEnglish Polytechnic degree, the B.Engdiploma. The truth of this statement issupported by the equivalency agreementbetween Germany and Hungary (1991)and the EANI qualification of enginee-ring colleges (for the Euro-E n g i n e e rtitle).

ABOUT COLLEGE EDUCATIONIN HUNGARY

The Hungarian colleges are part of atradition which goes back more than ahundred years. The colleges of todaywere preceded by the HigherTe c h n i c i a n s ’ Schools (1870-1 9 4 9 ) ,which were reorganized after the SecondWorld War as technical, medical, andeconomics secondary schools (1950-1962). During the education boom inEurope, these institutions were develo-ped into post-secondary technicalschools (1963-1969) and some yearslater into independent colleges (theEducation Law of 1969) and universi-ty-colleges (1970 to 1975).

The types of undergraduate coursesand course programmes offered by thecolleges include the following:

- 100 -


COLLEGE EDUCATION IN HUNGARY

Imre CZINEGE

- 3-academic-year (full-time) courseprogrammes;

- 4 - a c a d e m i c-year (part-time) courseprogrammes;

- 8-week practical training courses(for full-time students);

- thesis requirements;- preparation for state examinations.

The postgraduate programmes off e radvanced training in specialized areas inthe framework of one-year part- t i m ecourses, financed partly by the governmentand partly by the students.

The colleges have a great deal of auto-nomy regarding the development of curri-cula. The curricula are supervised andaccepted by the Council of Rectors andDirectors of specific areas (e.g., theCouncil of Engineering Institutions). Thiscouncil is not an authority but a professio-nal body of experts working in the samearea.

The relative importance given to differentdisciplinary areas in a typical college curri-culum is expressed in the following per-centages: 7

- 10-15%: general studies (language,law, philosophy, etc.);

- 4 0-50%: basic subjects (mathe-matics, physics, economics, etc);

- 20-30%: specialized training- 5-10%: optional subjects;- 5-10%: preparation of a thesis.

Because science is international, thecurricula are very similar to those develo-ped in other countries.

Admission Requirements

Applicants must pass a final examination(maturity) at the completion of secondary

school as well as a unified entrance exami-nation which is the same for the universi-ties and the colleges. The maximum scoreis 120, and applicants are admitted accor-ding to the total number of points earned.The advantage of the unified system is thatif’a student is not admitted’ to his or heruniversity of first choice, he or she maystill indicate another institution where he orshe might be admitted. (Recently, this rigidsystem was softened, and admission is nowbased on secondary school achievement.) :

The structure and Management ofColleges

The College Council is the highest bodyin the governing hierarchy of a college. It ismade up of representatives of the depart-ments and of professors, assistants, and stu-dents.

The chief executive of a college is itsDirector-General who is elected by theCollege Council of the institution for threeto five years and is confirmed by theMinister of Education. He or she is respon-sible for the administration, management,education, and research work of the institu-te. Most colleges have two Directors, oneof them is responsible for research anddevelopment work; the other is for the edu-cational area. The Financial Director coor-dinates the accounting and other financialactivities in the college.

The departments are independent unitsinside the colleges. Each department has aHead. Professors, lecturers, and assistantsform the teaching staff. Naturally, the staffis assisted by nonacademic employees, forexample, clerks, technicians, etc. As of1992, the whole staff has civil service sta-tus.

- 101 -

IMRE CZINEGE

The colleges are involved in variousother activities in addition to education.Among them, research and developmentwork are the most important. Professorsare permitted to conduct research and areurged to earn advanced degrees, par-ticularly the PhD. Consultancy (mainlyin Engineering, Management, andFinance) is another general activity of thecolleges.

Research is financed by the Ministryof Education (less than 10%), by diffe-rent enterprisesSand companies (50 to60%), and from other sources (30 to40%).

Colleges offer post-secondary andother special course programmes (for ex-ample, hostess and hotel service training,accounting’and finance, managementand language courses). They organizeworkshops, short exhibitions,and meet-ings.

The international activity of the col-leges is developing rapidly. They aretaking part in PHARE and TEMPUS pro-grammes and in individual mobility pro-grammes for students and staff, etc.

Regarding international relations, themost remarkable official excursions in

1991, for example, were the CollegeDirectors’Conference Study Tour to Ger-many (Baden-Wurttemberg) and the En-gineering College Directors’ visit toBavaria. The Secretary of the Rectorsand Directors Conference org a n i z e dthree seminars for CollegeAdministrators in Budapest with the par-ticipation of experts from the stateUniversity of New York.

In 1991-1992, the main activities ofthe College Directors’Conference focus-sed on the following issues:

- the critical analysis of the Law onHungarian Higher Education andrelated legal questions;

- the development process for dif-ferent types of projects (overallconcept of the development ofhigher education, development ofthe structure of a higher educationnetwork, etc.);

- the organisation of the participa-tion of colleges in applications forgrants and funds (World Bank,PHARE programmes, etc.).

- 102 -

COLLEGE EDUCATION IN HUNGARY

SOME FACTS AND FIGURES ON HUNGARIAN COLLEGES

Full-time students (1990):Universities 41,064 53,6%Uni-Colleges 10,453 13,6%Colleges 25,084 32,8%(Total Colleges 76,601 100%

Graduate students (1990):Universities 9,747 57,0%(inch Uni-Colleges)Colleges 7,359 43,0%Total 17,106 100,0%

Lecturers (1990):Universities 10,571 72,8%Colleges 3,959 27,2%(inch Uni-Colleges)Total 14,530 100,0%

Full-time students at colleges:Engineering 7,354 20,7%Econornics and Finance 3,535 9,9%Teacher Training (L) 7,105 20,0%Teacher Training (IS) 11,221 31,6%Agriculture 1,807 5,1%Health Studies 1,430 4,0%Others 3,075 8,7%Total 35,537 100%

- 103 -

IMRE CZINEGE

• The underlying premise of this article is thatthe best way to become acquainted with highereducation in Germany is to discuss its pro-blems. Such problems as expanding enroll-ments, the role of research and teaching, thelink between higher education and futureemployment, the question of the supposed

There are several types of higher educa-tion in Germany. On the one hand, thereis the university sector: universities, tech-nical universities, teacher training col-leges (there are only a few of the latterleft because most of them were incorpo-rated into universities), and schools ofart. On the other hand, there are the Fach-hochschulen.

The main road to a Fachhochschuleleads through a school leaving examina-tion at a Fachoberschule after 12 years ofschooling. To enroll at a university, atechnical university, or a teacher trainingcollege, one must have passed the Abiturat,the end of the Gymnasium-s t u d i e safter 13years of schooling. As ofthebe-ginning of the 1980’s, the number ofentering students at Fachhochschulenholding the Abitur has been increasing.Thus entering students who would beable to attend a university are preferringto enter a Fachhochschulen. By now,approximately 50% of the entering stu-dents at Fachhochschulen hold theAbitur.

Higher education in Germany facesmany problems which are not necessarilythe result of the reunification of Ger-many. Some of them, however, have

equality of German universities, the link betweenregional development and higher education, andthe question of the duration of studies are brieflydiscussed in light of the tension between the uni-versities and the Fachhochschulen. The hint ismade that the Fachhochschulen are more success-ful pedagogically than are the universities.

simply become more serious followingreunification.

Some people say that the increasingnumber of students is the most seriousproblem which must be tackled, otherssay that the real problem is the increasingduration of studies. When referring tostudents, these people are really designa-ting university students. They would pre-fer to have more students atFachhochschulen because they believethat these problems are less serious inthese institutions. On the other hand,many university students and employerscomplain that university studies are tootheoretical, that is, that they lack much ofa practical orientation.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UNIVERSITIESAND FA C H H O C H S C H U L E N

Fachhochschulen are a type of institutionwhich is comparatively young. T h e ywere first set up in the Federal Republicof Germany at the beginning of the1970’s. In most cases, they emerged fromprofessional schools. The number ofFachhochschulen almost equals the num-ber of all other types of public institu-tions of higher learning with the excep-tion of the 43 schools of art:

- 104 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE, VOI. XIX, NO. 4, 1 994

SOME PROBLEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATIONIN GERMANY

Gotz SCHINDLER

- 132 universities (including com-prehensive universities); technicaluniversities, teacher training col-leges, and theological collegeswith approximately 1.4 millionstudents and

- 114 ”general” F a c h h o c h s c h u l e nand 28 ”public administration”F a c h h o c h s c h u l e n e n r o l l i n gapproximately 400,000 students in1991.

Fachhochschulen were established asan alternative to the university sector.The main objectives of universities are togain and enlarge scientific knowledge byresearch and to disseminate it by tea-ching. The main objectives ofF a c h h o c h s c h u l e n, on the other hand,might be summarized by the expression,orientation toward s p r a c t i c e .Fachhochschulen differ from universitiesin distinctive ways.

The objectives of Fachhochschulenwere very much influenced by the politi-cal discussions of the 1960’s. At thattime, the educational system, particularlyhigher education, was being criticizedfrom two different angles, that of theinequality of educational opportunity andthat of the fear that the number of univer-sity graduates was so small that Germanymight not be able to stand up to worldwi-de economic competition.

Today, the first angle is considered tobe completely unimportant. The secondangle is at the heart of most discussionsregarding the deficiencies of Germanuniversities.

Between 1980 and 1991, the numberof entering students at universities in-creased by 39 percent and at F a c h -hochschulen by 47 percent. The Fach-hochschulen seem to have been somew-hat more successful than the universitiesin attracting new students. Indeed, the

number of graduates of gymnasia hold-ing the Abitur and enrolling in Fach -hochschulen instead of in universities hasbeen increasing. If one analyzes the Ger-man system of higher education in termsof competition within the system, onemight conclude that:

- Fachhochschulen and universitiescompete successfully for the finan-ciaL support of the state and forbeginning students;

- there is almost no competitionamong universities.

The success of the Fachhochschulenis not only due to the particular conceptof this type of institution but also verymuch as a result of the current problemsof German universities. The problemsdid not come about as a consequence ofdeteriorating staff-student ratios in uni-versities (between 1980 and 1991 from 1to 12 to 1 to 17 teachingpersonnel)because in this respect the situation atFachhochschulen is even worse (from 1to 19 to 1 to 40). The problems of univer-sities are more-or-less home-made. Theobjectives, as stated below, which are atthe core of the i d e a of the Germanuniversity have declined in importance:

- the unity of research and teaching;- the meaning of theoretical know-

ledge for a profession to be enteredafter graduation;

- the assumption that all universitiesare equal.

THE UNITY OF RESEARCH ANDTEACHING

University professors are still appointedto do research and to teach. Moreover, intheir opinion to be a good teacher re-quires one to be active in research. Thestate shares this opinion. The funds allo-cated to universities are not earmarkedfor research or for teaching but for both.

- 105 -

GOTZ SCHINDLER

Even most professors insist on the unityof research and teaching. At the sametime, they deplore the fact that teachingtakes so much time and refuse to do theirpart in developing the personalities oftheir students.

Students too have their own opinions.For them, the obligation of professors inregard to teaching includes excellence inteaching, going beyond the boundaries oftheir fields of research, caring for thedevelopment of the personalities of theirstudents, and giving students an oppor-tunity to participate in research, at thelatest after their third year of study. Inreality, most students know from ex-perience that most professors considerteaching to be an onerous duty.Moreover, students want to be taught insmall groups, something which for finan-cial reasons is impossible.

AFTER GRADUATION?

Regarding the question of theory versustraining for afuture profession in referen-ce to university course programmes, thesituation is even more complicated. Basi-cally, there are two kinds of courses. Onthe one hand, there are the courses thatare aimed at certain professions, for in-stance, courses in teacher training, medi-cine, and law. On the other hand, thereare courses - and they are the majority -which do not prepare students for parti-cular professions Out are shaped accor-ding to the fields of research.

The latter seem to pose problems formany students. Certainly they do not ex-pect to receive professional training in auniversity of the type that they wouldreceive at a Fachhochschule. But theythink that all courses of study shouldoffer less theory and more knowledgethat is oriented towards practice, shouldbe based on professional reality, andshould give them at least a faint idea of

what a profession:one might enter aftergraduation might be.

ABOUT THE EQUALITY OFUNIVERSITIES

One must understand that the Germansystem of higher education is decentral-ized. The responsibility for higher educa-tion, as for education in general, is that ofthe L a n d e r, the federal governmenthaving little authority in this area.Nevertheless, the decisions taken on mat-ters of higher education assume that alluniversities are equal.

First, there is no difference as to thecriteria for the allocation of funds. Theseare allocated according to student enroll-ment figures and research programmes.Although quality of teaching is not takeninto account, quality of research maysometimes be. The system of budgetingand accounting has been very inflexibleand ”neverhasbeen turned into an effec-tive financial administration universitieshaving never been recognized as enter-prises or corporations.

Second, regulations for the admissionoff beginning students into course pro-grammes not having a sufficient numberof student places do not take account ofsuch things as course design and qualityof teaching. Third, even most enteringstudents care very little about differencesbetween universities; they wish to enrollin the universities which are closest totheir homes.

As a consequence of this ideology ofequality, discussions about higher educa-tion since the 1960’s have centred aroundd i fferent t y p e s of institutions (com-prehensive universities,Fachhochschulen, and teacher trainingcolleges) while discussions about diver-sity among universities only began veryrecently.

- 106 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN GERMANY

OTHER PROBLEMS

Regional Aspects

since the 1960’s, new universities andF a c h h o c h s c h u l e n have been set up inregions not having such institutions. Theintention was not only to increase the num-ber of student places but at the same time tosupport regional economic development,particularly in this case, byestablishing:Fachhochschulen in order toimprove: opportunities for higher learningby people of lower social strata.

Student Numbers, the Reform ofCourse Programmes, and stateInterference

There is no doubt that the objective ofincreasing student enrollments has beenattained. At present, almost thirty-sevenpercent of the 19-to-21-year-olds enroll ininstitutions of higher education. At thesame time, the commitment of universityprofessors to the reform of course pro-grammes has declined, no doubt the resultof the overcrowded universities. Of greaterimportance, however, is the preoccupationof professors with research and their dis-trust of state ”interference” in higher edu-cation. The distrust began to be felt in the1970’s when the Lander governments, thefederal government, and the universities setup working parties for the reform ofcourses of study at the Lander and the fede-ral levels. But also, although the universi-ties were given a chance to do somethingabout the reform of course programmes,they failed to take advantage of the oppor-tunity.

Duration of Studies

The average duration of studies has beenincreasing, especially since the beginningof the 1980’s. But there are striking diffe-

rences between universities. In biology, atthe end of the 1980’s, the difference bet-ween the university with the lowest andthat with the highest average was 5.1semesters with a median length of study of12.5 semesters. In French language andliterature, the difference was 6.5 semesters(the median being11.8 semesters).

These differences show to what an ex-tent German universities and their depart-ments are unequal. But according to politi-cians, this problem is not the main one. Forthem, university graduates are too old andnot well enough equipped for practice inorder for Germany to face worldwide eco-nomic competition successfully. Therefore,proposals which are being discussed areaimed at:

- stepping up the expansion of theFachhochschulen at the expense ofthe university sector and

- changing the structure of universitycourse programmes so that mostu n d e rgraduate programmes wouldconsist of eight semesters of profes-sional training, and for a minority ofhighly gifted students, additionalsemesters of research oriented stu-dies in order for them to earn a doc-torate.

What should be understood here is thatcutting the overall length of studies is moreimportant than reforming the curricula. Theproponents of these suggestions say thatmost universities have not been able or arenot willing to reform, so that it is necessa-ry to set a maximum study duration. Criticsinsist that a reform of curricula must be thefirst step and that no reduction of durationof studies is possible until universities canengage more teaching personnel and recei-ve more funding.

- 107 -

GOTZ SCHINDLER

CONCLUSIONS

On the whole, the aim of higher educa-tion reform in Germany can be summedup in terms of more autonomy and moreflexibility, or put in other terms, less con-trol by the state so far as funding regula-tions regarding examinations, and com-parability of course programmes areconcerned. Thus, the individual highereducation institutions, especially the uni-versities, will be given the chance to bemore flexible so far as the allocation offunds and the design of course program-mes are concerned.

In particular, flexibility of coursedesign at universities is necessary be-cause entering students are becoming in-creasingly heterogeneous. Some of themcome with job experience or vocationaltraining; some are older; others will only

be studying part-time. They all have verydifferent reasons for attending a univer-sity.

Possibly increased autonomy willenable universities to overcome theirlack of vision as to what university teach-ing is all about. Most students want morethan professional training; they also wantuniversities to support the developmentof their personalities. What makes thesituation even more difficult for universi-ties is that they will have to compete withFachhochschulen for funds and for stu-dents. At Fachhochschulen, there isalready an atmosphere of rebellion and ofawakening. For example, some of themare beginning to offer courses in fieldslike law, which has been the privilege ofuniversities, but in an atmosphere whichis not to be found at the universities.

- 108 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN GERMANY

This report discusses the Workshop as a wholeand reflects upon the points raised in thepapers presented and the resulting discussions.First the reasons for establishing non-universi-ty higher education are presented and discus-sed, and then types of diversification, particu-larly vertical diversification, are examined.The most important questions raised, however,are those of how diversification is to be esta-blished and

INTRODUCTION

At the September 1993 BucharestWorkshop on the diversification ofhigher education, the organizers formu-lated as a basic premise that ” diversifica-tion of higher education possibilities maybe the key to a society’s capacity to adaptto the process of political and economictransformation that is affecting the wholeof Europe”. The reasons for this assump-tion are quite obvious. Nations and natio-nal systems of higher education have torespond to the rapid changes in their poli-tical and economic environments, anddifferentiation in teaching programmesand institution building appears to be anobvious answer to these challenges.

In this context, however, the conceptof diversification is not in itself an ans-wer, merely a way of posing the ques-tions. Higher education systems mustchange and diversify in order to meet thechallenges of our times - but how shouldchange and diversification be achieved inpractice? What are the options in such aprocess? What is the price that might tobe paid for change and flexibility? What

by what mechanisms it is to be controlled. Theconclusions are mixed but stress that diversifica-tion should be undertaken very carefully and verydemocratically, care being taken both to recognizethe value of the university tradition which hasbeen evolving for centuries to avoid threats toflexibility and international recognition and mobi-lity.

are the pitfalls and what price should onenot be willing to pay? In order to discussthese questions, it is necessary to attemptto identify more precisely the problemswhich have come to the fore and some ofthe major models offered to solve them.Second, we shall have to consider diffe-rences in the political, economic, and cul-tural environments of the individualcountries which maybe of importance forthe choices to be made. This report willfocus mainly on the first task; however, itwill also reflect Oh some of the issuesinvolved in the latter.

THE REASONS FOR ESTABLISHINGNON-UNIVERSITY HIGHEREDUCATION

The diversification of higher educationhas been introduced as a response to awide variety of problems. There havebeen two major and separate diversifica-tion drives with quite different, if some,times somewhat overlapping, basic phi-losophies.

The nineteenth century brought the;creation of technical universities - first in

- 109 -

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE, Vol. XIX No. 4, 1994

UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES AND OTHERS: DIVERSITY OFSTRUCTURES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION - REPORT ONTHE MULTILATERAL WORKSHOP

Jan Fridthjof BERNT

Germany and subsequently in most of theindustrialized countries - in order to provi-de industry with engineers and technologi-cal research. Similarly specialized univer-sities or schools were later been set up inmost countries in fields such as businessadministration, agriculture, medicine, vete-rinary medicine, etc.

As a general rule, these institutions arebased upon the same basic philosophyregarding higher education and the rela-tionship between research and higher edu-cation. The main ways in which they aredifferent from universities is in their muchstronger ties to the professional world out-side the institution. Both research and tea-ching are, generally speaking, orientedmore towards practical application - theneeds of the sectors of society which edu-cation and research are designed to serve.But like the universities, most of these in-stitutions put heavy emphasis on researchand on the relationship between researchand teaching.

The justification for the establishmentof these institutions having been the needfor a new type of education and research, itis conceivable that they could be integratedinto a university structure at a later stagesas a professional faculty or school. Thereare, after all, no compelling reasons why itis necessary to maintain schools of busi-ness administration or engineering as sepa-rate entities, while schools of law andmedicine are not.

Whether such integration should in facttake place is another question. The answerwill depend largely on history, geography,and the administrative and educational qua-lities of the universities in question.

Secondly there is the post-S e c o n dWorld War drive towards establishing whatis dubbed a binary system, a system for

higher education in which the universitiesare supplemented by institutions with aclearly alternative general basic philosophycompared to that of the university model.

The problems or needs that these in-stitutions are designed to meet are nume-rous and complex. The most importantappear to be as follows:

Economic

The growth in demand for higher educationis placing a great strain on governmentfinances. The traditional university modelfor higher education may appear inefficientand impractical as a tool for mass educa-tion in a modern society. The obvious res-ponse in this case is to try to meet thedemand for higher education with a morecost- effective model in terms of time andmoney spent per graduate. Although thisreason in and of itself is not a very goodone for diversification, diversification mayact together with other objectives, or be theactual driving force behind other argu-ments in favour of a binary system.

The Need for a stronger TheoreticalBasis for Professional TrainingProgrammes

A number of non-university institutions ofhigher education are the result of develop-ment from a rather modest and practicallyoriented vantage point: teachers’ colleges,nursing schools, technical colleges, etc.Very few of these institutions were crea-ted as intended. alternatives to universi-ties. While they at present can be viewedas tools of diversification of higher edu-cation, they reflect to a great extent theresult of academic drift. Schools, theeducational programmes of which have apredominantly practical orientationshave responded to an increased demand

- 110 -

REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP

for a theoretical basis for their profes-sional activity by strengthening the ele-ments of theory in their educational pro-grammes.

The German Fachhochschulen seemto be interesting exceptions to this patternin as much as they are newly created ins-titutions with an explicit philosophy ofcombining practical training and theore-tical education. One major question iswhether they represent a special nationaldevelopment, created as a response to ahighly traditional and rather rigid univer-sity tradition, or whether they constitute apotent, general model for a binary struc-ture of higher education - an answer tothe shortcomings of the traditional uni-versities which are not merely temporarymalfunctions but the consequences ofinherent properties of this type of institu-tion.

In this context, one should note thatmany universities have now integratedmore practically oriented educationalprogrammes into their own curricula.Faculties and departments of social work,t e a c h e r s ’ training, nursing education,etc., can be found within the frameworksof established universities.Further resear-ch is needed to establish whether thissolution is good - in general or in specialcircumstances - but it is obviously not amodel that can be dismissed without fur-ther consideration.

The Regional Dimension

The shape of a nation’s system of highereducation is not simply determined bygeneral national needs and aspirations.Establishing institutions of higher educa-tion is also a tool in the process of streng-thening the educational system, industry,and the business community in the indi-vidual regions of the country. This needhas been a major force behind the crea-

tion of regional colleges and decentrali-zed professional schools at an interme-diate level in the various districts ofN o r w a y. Similar considerations havebeen part of the rationale behind the crea-tion of the Fachhochschule system inGermany.

Once an institution is established in aregion, the characteristics of that regionare likely to have consequences for itsprofile. One cannot argue with geog-raphy. Thus, institutions of higher educa-tion are subject to influences from theirimmediate surroundings. But mere geo-graphy does not say anything about theprofile of the education at the individualinstitution, or the relationship betweenthe various types of institutions. This rea-lization leads to what is the major ques-tion in this context:

Should Diversification Be a Goal inItself?

The three causes of binary diversificationlisted so far are reflections of, or a res-ponse to, forces or circumstances outsidethe higher education system itself.Diversification of the system of highereducation is an accidental or secondaryconsequence of the ambitions of in-dividual institutions or of broader na-tional concerns like state finances andregional policy. Diversification on thisbasis does not exclude unification of thesystem of higher education at a laterstage. A binary system may be unifiedthrough an incorporation of the newerand specialized institutions into the ex-isting universities, through a develop-ment by which the two kinds of institu-tions become increasingly similar, orthrough an institutional network systemby which the newer institutions are lin-ked with the traditional ones throughvarious kinds of economic and academicrelationships.

- 111 -

JAN F. BERNT

The latter is the present trend in Nor-way.

In contrast, the idea of diversificationas a goal in itself reflects a mistrust of theuniversities, a belief that the universitiesas aging or aged institutions are unable torenew themselves according to the needsof society and of students. A binary sys-tem is established to create a more sui-table framework for innovation in highereducation a supplement to the universi-ties established to work within awell-defined system of division of tasks.

The basic premise of this line of argu-ment is the point of view that the tradi-tional universities today are, and are like-ly to remain, old-fashioned and conven-tional institutions, that they are domina-ted by highly specialized professors wholack the ability to see beyond their ownnarrow research interests, who lackgenuine interest in teaching and contactwith students, and who are unable todesign new courses and education pro-grammes to meet the needs of society.One obvious observation here is that ifthis view is correct, diversification in theform of creating new and more dynamicinstitutions, cannot be - and must not beallowed to be - the sole answer to thiskind of problem. Society has invested toomuch in the universities to allow them todeteriorate into monuments or even cari-catures of the educational thinking ofyesterday.

Diversification may,however, be aninstrument among others to bring aboutnecessary change in the universities. InNorway, for instance, regional collegesinitiated media studies in the 1970’s. Inthe 1980’s, the universities entered thefield, adding their own more research andtheory-based profiles, still leaving roomfor programmes with more practicalorientations at the regional colleges.

Thus the initiative of the regional col-leges acted both as a trigger for innovartion in university studies and as the basisfor an alternative to university education.

PROBLEMS OF V E RT I C A L D I V E RS I F I C ATION - A B I N A RY S Y S T E M

Up to here the issue of diversification hasbeen dealt with solely as a question ofestablishing non-university higher educa-tion. Diversification may also, however,take place between universities, betweennon-university institutions of higher edu-cation, and within single institutions.

Diversification within single institu-tions has not been a topic in the generaldebate on diversification in higher educa-tion. It enters the diversification discus-sion mainly as a possible alternative toinstitutional diversification. The need forexternal diversification diminishes to theextent that the universities manage toestablish diversified programmes,courses, or organizational structurewithin their own systems.

Horizontal diversification - betweeninstitutions at the same level - is also anestablished and generally approvedmodel. There may be problems of controland of coordination (which will be dealtwith later). But there is no disagreementthat institutions should specialize and beencouraged to develop new courses andprogrammes. And in many situations, theinstitutions need no special en-couragement to pursue this line of diver-sification. Even a rather small and insig-nificant institution may be able to find asuitable niche and establish itself in anational position in a narrow segment ofteaching and research.

Then there is the question of verticald i v e r s i f i c a t i o n- of non-university pro-grammes of higher education with a

- 112 -


stronger emphasis on practical applicationthan is considered acceptable at the univer-sities, and with a considerably smaller ele-ment of research-oriented theory as an inte-grated part of their educational pro-grammes. Some of the causes and merits ofsuch a diversification have been examined.Some of the possibly unfavourable effectsof this approach will also be discussed.

The vantage point taken for the obser-vations which follow is that such diver-sification in many cases will have quitegood short-term effects. Establishing newnon-university institutions, or giving newtasks to old ones, may trigger enthusiasmand creativity in the institutions involvedand may attract great interest both amongthe students and among potential recipientsof the graduates of institutions.Non-university institutions will commonlybe more flexible and able to concentrateand shape their efforts to meet the needs ofthe students and society than traditionallyr e s e a r c h-oriented universities. Even theuniversities will have to acknowledge that,as a general rule, the non-university institu-tions appear to be more flexible and morecapable of adjusting to the demands of themarket than most universities - particularlyas regards teaching - but also to someextent when it comes to research aimed atpractical application.

The crucial question therefore is whatsuch diversification is likely to do in thelong run to institutions of higher education- to the non-university institutions offeringsuch courses and programmes, and to theuniversities.

As for the universities, it is an obviouscause for concern that an approach todiversification which gives non-universityinstitutions the exclusive responsibility formore educational programmes of a more

practical nature will tend to reinforce thetraits of the universities which led in thefirst place to the diversification in question.

Such a result could be viewed as havingfavourable effects. Universities are suppo-sed to be institutions of theoretical lear-ning; therefore, to transplant a dominantpractically oriented education programmeinto a university is bound to cause pro-blems. Whether or not and to what extentsuch transplantations should take place willdepend on very concrete cost-benefit eva-luations. It is by no means obvious that aneducational system in which the universi-ties have responsibility for all the varietiesof higher education is desirable. On theother hand, there are obvious dangersconnected with a type of diversification bywhich important sectors of higher educa-tion are the sole responsibility of non-uni-versity institutions - dangers both for theuniversities and for the educational pro-grammes in question.

The universities are supposed to be uni -versità, institutions offering a broad rangeof learning, ideally covering all main fieldsof theoretical knowledge. If the consequen-ce of diversification is that the universitiesbecome excluded from important newfields of learning and education, such anaction would tend to aggravate the pro-blems that led to the diversification in thefirst place. The universities remain conven-tional and secluded from practical life, iso-lated from the important challenges whichtriggered the new type of higher education.They remain unused or misused resourcesin times of scarcity.

The non-university institutions offeringnew courses or programmes may, however,be facing serious long-term problems.When a new institution or a

- 113 -

JAN F. BERNT

new line of higher education is established,it can commonly draw upon the best intel-lectual resources that are available at thetime. But after five, ten, or fifteen years,this situation may have changed drastical-ly; the academic strength of the institutionmay be seriously weakened.

It is a common experience that if an ins-titution of higher education wants to stay inthe front line, some research in the field inquestion must be undertaken at the institu-tion. If not, the knowledge base of the ins-titution is likely to start eroding rapidly.Even at institutions with a fairly wideresearch portfolio, there will still be pro-blems connected to the nature and substan-ce of the research undertaken, and particu-larly to the relationship between appliedresearch and basic research. A non-univer-sity institution may have difficulty in main-taining sufficiently strong ties betweenthese two kinds of research, partly becauseof inadequate funding for research pur-poses, but chiefly because a major part ofthe ideological and practical basis for theseinstitutions will lack or have reduced stresson basic research in order to promote amore practically oriented line of educationand research.

In an open academic society with a flowof ideas and personnel among the variouskinds of institutions, this inherent propertyof non-university institutions will com-monly not affect the quality of the teaching,notably in a short-term perspective. In thelong run, however, this separation from thebasic research milieu is likely to weakenthe quality of both research and teaching atthese institutions. The teaching of theorymay - even at the best of such institutions -take the form of a passing on of knowledge- the state of the art - without giving thestudent the proper tools to develop his orher own knowledge in the years after gra-

duation.

The above is obviously a strong argu-ment in favour of restricting binary diversi-fication to non-university institutions infields which do not require front lineresearch performance, simply because thislevel is not targeted. And even in thesecases, it appears necessary to maintain asystem of quality control and institutionalc o-operation in order to prevent thenon-university institutions from becomingpromoters of secondhand and second-rateknowledge.

Some institutions of professional highereducation agree with this point of view, butmainly because they fear that a more theo-retically oriented education would destroythe practical orientation of their educatio-nal programmes - that they would be domi-nated by theoretical knowledge more thanby practical professional skills.

This position does have its merits. Itwould be an unfortunate situation if all pro-fessional training were to be modelled sole-ly on academic, theoretical education. But,on the other hand, it illustrates the dangersof the ditch on the opposite side of the road,that important professional training pro-grammes may fail to meet the challenges ofnew knowledge in the field, with negativeacademic drift and an inadequate profes-sional education as the consequence.

D I V E R S I F I C ATION - WHO SHOULDDECIDE, HOW TO CONTROL?

Returning to diversification as a generals t r a t e g y, the question asked is whatmechanisms should be used to achieve-and control - diversification?

During the Bucarest Workshop, a convin-cing argument was made that mere

- 114 -

REPORT ON THE WORK SHOP

market mechanisms are not likely to createconstructive diversification. A number offactors tend to contribute to conformityboth in education and in research. In thiscontext, this report concentrates on the ten-dency towards uniformity in the educa-tional programmes.

An important observation to be made inthis context is that many institutions aremore likely to copy the programmes of suc-cessful competitors than to develop theirown. Such an action is party a question ofcost. It takes much less time and intellec-tual and administrative resources to adopt aprogramme from another institution than todevelop a new one. But it is also a questionof marketing. As a general rule, it is mucheasier to sell a local version of an establi-shed and successful programme than toconvince potential students and employersof the merits of a new and untested localvariety.

Secondly, there is the phenomenon ofacademic drift - the tendency of non-uni-versity institutions to try to become morelike universities - with more re-search-oriented teaching programmes. Thistendency may also, to some extent,’reflecta market mechanism. Institutions which arerecognized as being close to the universi-ties in terms of academic standards mayhave more prestige than more practicallyoriented ones. More important, however, isthe fact that academics who are employedas teaching staff at non-university institu-tions are likely to bring with them thestandards and the expectations of universi-ty staff as to the profile of the programmesand the character of the institution. Thus inmost cases strong forces will act on a pro-fessional non-university programme ofhigher education, driving it in the directionof the programmes of those institutions towhich its institution was intended to be analternative. This tendency may be good or

bad. What is certain is that it means thatmore freedom of choice for such institu-tions is at best an uncertain avenue todiversification.

One of the speakers, Dr. LeoGoedegebuure of the Center for HigherEducation Policy Studies at the Universityof Twente, the Netherlands, argued that theanswer to this problem is to ensure diversi-fication among the various kinds of institu-tions through a controlled differentiation oftheir environments. This aim, he suggested,should be achieved through governmentcontrol of the framework within which theinstitutions are working. He did not, howe-v e r, elaborate as to what kind ofenvironmental variation he had in mind.

Another speaker, Professor RoelandI n ’tveld of the Erasmus University ofRotterdam, the Netherlands, argued per-suasively that governments should be veryreluctant to try to legislate in the areas ofteaching and course programmes in highereducation. statutes, according to him, rare-ly make good teaching plans.

The following main options for in-fluencing higher education programmesthrough control of the environment of theinstitutions remain:

- Government administrative controlover what programmes, degrees, orcourses are offered at the individualinstitutions. Instead of telling theinstitution what to do, the govern-ment might prevent it from jumpingon the bandwagon and copying anapparently successful programme byrefusing to give the necessary per-mission, thus creating a situationwhereby the institution is encoura-ged to create its own new pro-grammes or to develop existing onesfurther.

- 115 -

JAN F. BERNT

- Control through the credit system ofthe institutions. By claiming the ul-timate authority in cases of disputesconcerning the credit given by oneinstitution for courses offered atanother, the government can preventuniversities and other institutions ofhigher education from trying tocrush every new flower not grown intheir own gardens. Thus it would bepossible to create a more healthyand efficient competitive climatebetween, on the one hand, the largerand established institutions, majoruniversities and schools at universi-ty level, and, on the other hand,newer and smaller institutions ofhigher education with a weaker aca-demic standing: polytechnics, com-munity colleges, and other non-uni-versity institutions, and the smallerand less recognized universities.

- Control through funding - that is:specified grants for special pro-grammes or positions, or linked tocertain performance indicators, forinstance, the number of students in aprogramme graduating within a spe-cified time limit.

All these kinds of environmental con-trol imply a reduction of institutional auto-nomy. The question as to what extent suchreductions can be accepted must be discus-sed at the national level. In a country withstrong democratic traditions and vigorouspublic opinion in favour of academic free-dom, control mechanisms can be acceptedwhich would be rejected out off hand in acountry in which there is a considerablerisk that governmental control of the in-stitutions of higher education might beused to exert political pressure on the direc-tion or the substance of research and tea-ching. Also, at an administrative level, the

extent to which central government shouldbe given the authority to control the envi-ronment of institutions depends largely onthe degree to which it can be trusted to actin a prudent and sophisticated manner inthis sector. Can we trust central govern-ment to exercise its powers with care -delegating the decision-making authorityto the individual institution in all cases inwhich national control and co-ordination isnot necessary, and showing the properreluctance to set aside the judgments of in-dividual institutions as to what kinds ofeducation they should offer?

These concerns are obvious when thequestion is one of government control overwhat courses and programmes are offered.They are also crucial issues when it comesto the question of what kind of researchinstitutions and their staff members shouldbe permitted to pursue? Apparently, howe-ver, even technical co-ordination such as acentralised system for credits for coursesfrom other institutions may have unfortu-nate consequences if it is not exercisedwith the necessary prudence and respect foracademic standards. A g e n e r o u scredit-giving system, designed to help andto upgrade non-university education mayhave a Gresham’s Law effect: the lessvaluable and less rigorous of competingcourses giving the same academic creditwill tend to attract the most students in acompetition with its more demandingcounterparts. The other half of the rnarket -the companies and institutions hiring thegraduates - will in most cases not be suffi-ciently well-informed and sophisticatedenough to balance this effect adequately.

The questions of direct governmentcontrol over teaching programmes andresearch are fairly easy to identify and toaddress. In the last instance, these areissues of law. To what extent should

- 116 -


central government have powers to controlthe activities of non-government ownedinstitutions of higher education, and towhat extent should publicly owned institu-tions be exempted from the general rulingpowers of central government and be gran-ted an independent or semi-independentstatus?

The problems of institutional inde-pendence are more complex, particularly asregards financing Funding will always be apotential source of control for centralgovernment, to the extent that it has fundsto distribute. Central funding may bebalanced by regional funding, which,however, may also be used to control insti-tutions. Private funding raises new and dif-ficult questions depending upon whether itcomes from sponsors, buyers of research,or students. Although time and space donot permit a discussion of the pros and consof types of funding the assumption is thatpublic funding will remain the major sour-ce of income for most institutions of highereducation, a reality that it is neither desi-rable nor realistic to try to change.

As a consequence of institutional de-pendence on government funding, it isnecessary to scrutinize the public fundingprogrammes in order to identify the effectswhich they have on the activities of institu-tions. The question is not merely one ofacademic freedom from political control,but also - and probably mainly - a questionof the potentially distorting effects ofgovernmental fundingmechanisms on theinternal priorities and decision-m a k i n gprocesses within institutions.

Money speaks, and sometimes it speaksso loudly that the voices of academic andadministrative reason cannot be heard. Thepower of money represents a major chal-lenge to all systems of higher education. It

is necessary to analyze the effects ofgovernment funding programmes and to tryto draft political guidelines and statutorylimits for the exercise of this kind ofgovernmental power.

The answer to the question as to whatextent central government should havepowers to control the environment of insti-tutions of higher education will depend lar-gely on the trust people have both in themotives and in the ability of centralgovernment to act in this sector. Is thegovernment capable of acting rationallyand forcefully in regard to these questions?Or is it more likely to be bureaucratic, inef-ficient, and weak so far as external pres-sures are concerned - or even corrupt?

And then there is the cost-benefit ques-tion. What is the cost of central governmentcontrol in terms of effectiveness and oftime consumed? A wide range of ex-periences, even those of higher educationadministrations, indicate that multilevelbureaucracies will have an inherent ten-dency to spend increasing amounts of theirtime add resources on internal administra-tive affairs.

The presently dominating fad in highereducation management in western coun-tries, quality control through extensive useof plans, reports, and performance indica-tors, has given rise to a number ofexamples of the dangers of uncritical at-tempts to fit research and higher educationinto modern models of management andadministration. In spite of a general pointof vantage in favour of de bureaucratiza-tion and decentralization, this new vogue inhigher education management seems tohave an inherent tendency to generate anincreasing amount of administrative work,partly in central government, but particu-larly within the institutions themselves.

- 117 -

JAN F. BERNT

The idea of effective quality controlthrough a limited number of fairly simpleperformance indicators has proved to bea desktop fiction. If we are unwilling torestrict the concept of quality to what iseasily measured through simple perfor-mance indicators, we have the choicebetween investing a considerable amountof our scarce resources into an extensivebureaucracy, one-half of which is produ-cing plans, reports, etc., which the otherhalf evaluates and tries to act on the basisof, or to return wholly or partly to a tradi-tional more holistic administrativemodel, with less detailed control andwith more weight on a working and lessminutely defined overall evaluation ofinstitutions.

A popular answer to this problem is debureaucratization through the use of mar-ket mechanisms. The institutions ofhigher education should be forced toreach for excellence through a marketwhereby students, private corporations,and the government itself act as buyers ofthe output of the institutions - researchand graduates. This idea of an invisiblehand as an alternative to bureaucratic andpolitical control may appear quite attrac-tive. It brings us, however, back to thequestion of whether it is possible to cre-ate an effective marketplace for researchand higher education.

The inclusion of the government asone of the market forces is in reality anegative answer to this question. Govern-ment participation in a market will inmost contexts imply a political and ad-ministrative responsibility for what themarket produces. Thus the market willnot be an alternative, but a supplement togovernment control, and in most casesnot a very important one. The alternativeto this disruption of a would-be free mar-ket of competing programmes of higher

education is government abdication inone of the most important sectors ofsociety, in favour of a darwinistic sur -vival of the fitness, based upon, at best, aquite uncertain idea of what fitness willimply in this context. This risk is one weshould be very reluctant to take.

THE COSTS OF DIVERSIFICATION:LACK OF MOBILITYAND LOSS OFFLEXIBILITY

An even more fundamental and largelyneglected issue in the debate on thediversification of higher education is theprice that must be paid and will no doubtcontinue to be paid for an extensive anduncoordinated diversification on a na-tional basis, in terms of loss of oppor-tunities for national and internationalharmonization of programmes of highereducation and free movement of studentsand graduates within and across thenational borders. In light of the effortsinvested in internationalization in thisdomain, one may be tempted to ask whe-ther the diversification discussion thathas been going on about this subject overthe last few years is not similar to a dis-cussion about the number of camels youshould bring on a trip to the North Pole.

Controlled diversification of highereducation may fit into a unified nationalsystem for degrees, educational pro-grammes, and credits but at the cost ofthe more extreme idea of institutionalliberalism. Even controlled diversifica-tion is difficult, it being very hard to en-visage how a system of national diver-sification of higher education can bereconciled with, for instance, an interna-tional modular system of credits. Thesituation might arise whereby what isasked is whether or not a loss in mobilityof students and graduates - within a na-tion and across international borders - is

- 118 -


an acceptable price to be paid for a highdegree of institutional diversification.

Another price that might have to paidfor a high degree of diversification mightbe as Professor sir Graham Hills ofStrathclyde University, Scotland, pointedout at the Bucharest workshop that thetrade-off for a high degree of specializationbe a dramatic loss of flexibility. In times oftechnical innovation and global competi-tion, it is of crucial importance that an edu-cation-system which mainly produces nar-rowly specialized graduates not be created.There is ample evidence that graduateswith a knowledge of a fairly broad range ofsubjects based upon a familiarity with thebasic scientific principles underlying theirfields of education are easier to reemploy,upgrade, or retrain than highly specializedgraduates or graduates with an educationbased almost exclusively on practicalapplication. In times of accelerating scien-tific progress, today’s knowledge is likelyto be obsolete tomorrow. An importantconsequence of this acceleration is that thequality of education should be measurednot according to what one has learned, butaccording to what one is able to learn.

The need for flexibility in terms of theupgrading and the adjustment of educationprogrammes and of graduates may be thestrongest argument against a high degree ofdiversification. In times of global competi-tion, no country can afford to waste its eco-nomic and intellectual resources on educa-tional programmes which are less thanoptimal in terms of quality and flexibility.As pointed out at the Bucharest workshop,closed doors can be afforded neither withinnor between national systems of highereducation. One should be able to move inthe system, and the system should be trans-parent to the students and to the recipientsof graduates.

On the other hand, it is important thatthe national and international credit sys-tems be designed in a way that encouragesunconventional courses and combinationsof courses. As Professor Sir Graham Hillsobserved at the workshop, an abundance ofknowledge is available. The challenge is tomaster it. In other words, what is needednow are graduates who have learned howto learn - how to maintain and upgradetheir own professional standards - not wal-king textbooks which will be outdatedshortly or drivers of cars which will be outof production in a few years.

In this situation, it is crucial, par-ticularly to countries which are in the pro-cess of reconstructing both their societiesand their systems of higher education, thatwe avoid what Vice-Rector IoanMihailescu of the University of Bucharestdescribed at the workshop as ”the traps ofrestructuring”. We must not become so fas-cinated with new ideas, models, and rheto-ric that we throw away the experienceaccumulated through the development ofthe present university model of higher edu-cation, experiences with a system foundedon research based teaching at institutionswith interaction and co-operation betweena broad range of academic subjects.

This concern is of crucial importanceto countries which, like the former com-munist states of central and easternEurope, are in the process of restructur-ing their systems of higher education aspart of the departure from a totalitarianpolitical system. In the process of re-entering the free academic world and ofmodernizing their institutions, the east-ern European countries should be carefulnot to adopt uncritically the current rhe-toric of western debate on higher

- 119 -

JAN F. BERNT

education or to try to imitate all reforms -implemented or merely suggested - thatare currently in vogue. Experiences anddocumented results should be the basisfor decisions on the organization of re-search and higher education, not unfini-shed experiments or ideas.

Academics must trust their own judg-ments. There is no such thing as a uni-

versal model for the organization ofhigher education - only more or less suc-cesful attempts to adapt to a complex andchanging national and international en-vironment. In this process, we should becareful not to discard the knowledge andvalues of a working system each time wefeel there is a need for reform.

The observations of ProfessorIn’tveld at the workshop are particularlyworth stressing: lawmakers should bemodest; laws should be brief and shoulddeal mainly with issues of organizationand of relations between government andin situations. Above all, no attemptshould be made to solve the problems ofdiversification and of the design ofprogrammes of higher education througha system of comprehensive legislation.

CONCLUSION

The questions of how higher educationshould be organized are complex, andthere are no simple answers. In this area,everyone is a student and should remainso for the rest of his or her life. The pur-pose of legislation is not to prescribe theright answers to these questions, but tocreate an environment that ensures arunning informed debate and an en ligh-tened decision-making process in thefield.

The substantive answers to the ques-tions addressed in this report will not befound in the market, nor in the ministries,or in the legislatures, but in a continuousdialogue between the institutions, themarket, and society at large, and withinthe institutions. The main challenge is toensure that this dialogue is not halted orperverted.

The task of legislators is to create theproper environment for continued workwith these issues, and in this context, theinstitutions of higher education must beviewed not merely as the objects of thisdebate, but also, and maybe even prima-rily, as its main fora. The institutions ofhigher education may have failed to meetall their obligations in this respect, but itis a grievous mistake to try to hold thisdebate outside an academic context as adiscussion solely of how to achievebureaucratic control and eff i c i e n c y.Some of the debate on diversification ofhigher education must be viewed asattempts of this kind.

A house divided will not stand. Themain task at hand in the field of highereducation and research is not to differen-tiate and to divide, but to keep or to bringtogether research and teaching, researchand society, teaching and society, re-search and teaching in various academicfields, research and teaching at differentinstitutions, and research and teaching ind i fferent countries. Diversification ofhigher education must take place within aframework that takes care of these needs.Differentiation of types of institutionsand of programmes of higher educationmust be a supplement, not an alternativeto a unified academic tradition of know-ledge and teaching.

- 120 -


Six years after its introduction into theuniversity system, much of Denmarkremains unconvinced about its three-yearbachelor’s degree.

At a seminar held by the ministry ofeducation, Hans Skov Christensen, headof Dansk A r b e j d s g i v e r f o re n i n g, theDanish employers organization, said thatindustry had no interest in the newdegree.

Industrial employers want candidateswith the traditional five-year master’sdegree. Only 25 per cent of candidateswith the new degree have been able to beemployed.

Hans Peter Jensen, rector of theDanish Technical University and Head ofthe Danish Rectors’Conference, said thatuniversities too had very little faith intheir bachelor graduates: ”Nobody wantsto be operated on by a bachelor doctor,cross a bridge built by a bachelor engi-neer, or be buried by a bachelor priest”.

The bachelor’s degree was introducedin Denmark in the late 1980’s as a res-ponse to increasing pressure for moreuniversity places. The Liberal (conserva-

tive) government wished to see more stu-dents at university level but did not wantto finance a five-year master’s degreecurriculum for all.

Since then, the new degree has beenmarketed neither by universities nor byindustry or academic organizations. Onlyvery few courses programmes, such asmeteorology, are geared to three years.

On top of the internal labour marketproblems, Danish bachelor’s degree hol-ders face a lack of international recog-nition.

Ole Hansen of the Niels Bohr Institutesaid that in the United states, Danishbachelor’s degree holders are not ad-mitted to postgraduate study before theyhave completed an extra year in the USsystem.

A record number of 41,724 studentsare being admitted to Danish universitiesthis year, while another record number -21,700 - were rejected.

(Source: The Times HigherEducation Supplement, No.1139, September 2, 1994)

- 121 -


Information

DENMARK:

Business Gives Thumbs Down on Degree

Ireland will abolish tuition fees for uni-versity students within the next threeyears, Education Minister NiamhBhreathnach has announced.

The present fees range from about US$ 2,250 to US $ 3,300 a year. Only fortyper cent of students receive financial aidfrom the government.

The minister’s promise must still beapproved by the coalition government.That approval seems likely, since the pro-posal has the support of both parties inpower.

Tuition fees account for some thirtyper cent of the income of the country’sseven universities. The balance of theiroperating funds comes mainly fromgovernment grants.

Some university officials have ex-pressed concern about relying even moreheavily on the state for their financialsupport, saying that doing so might ul-timately lead to an erosion of their tradi-

tional independence. They also say thatdropping tuition will do nothing to in-crease the number of students from poo-rer families who can attend universities,nor will it create any additional studentplaces. This year, 60,000 young peoplehave applied for just under 30,000 uni-versity and college openings.

The decision to scrap the fees may notbe as costly to the government as it firstappears. The government is also ex-pected to abolish a tax credit for parentswho may give up to five per cent of theirincome to their children who are in col-lege.

The gap between the cost of aboli-shing tuition and the total amount ofeducational tax credits is about US $22.5-million.

(Source: The Chronicle of HigherEducation, Volume XL, No. 5t, 17August 1994)

- 122 -

INFORMATION

IRELAND:

Plans to Abolish Tuition Fees at Its UniversitiesWithin Three Years

The need for rethinking and radical chan-ge is the leitmotif of all debates con-cerning higher education. In this context,academic staffing is a nodal issue.

Knowledge about academic staffing poli-cies and practices, with both their quanti-tative (or demographic) and qualitativeaspects, is incomplete in several ways. Inthis context, this OECDsponsored publi-cation by three eminent specialists, Dr.Elaine El-Khakis, Vice-President forPolicy Analysis and Research of theAmerican Council on Education; Dr.Maurice Kogan, Director, Centre for theEvaluation of Public Policy and Practice,Brunel University, United Kingdom; andD r. Ingrid Moses, DeputyVice-Chancellor, University of Canberra;serves as an inspiration for experts in thefield of higher education having ”creati-ve policy” skills. The overview of themain issues concerning the theme, aswell as the strategies and policies propo-sed and analyzed, recommend this bookas a kind of ”synoptic work” which ismore ”a matter for creative policy analy-sis than research” (p 125)

The book is based on an OECD Institu-tional Management in Higher Educationworkshop held in Paris in 1992. It wasled by the authors as well as by Dr. HansAcherman, Deputy Secretary-G e n e r a l ,University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. It is based primarily on the con-tributions produced during the workshop.

The book deals with the ways in whichacademic staff members face new chal-lenges and the effects of these challengesupon their mandates, tasks, qualifica-tions, conditions of work and profes-sional development, and at the sametime, with the demographic and econo-mic parameters within which academicstaff must work.

The information is based mainly on theexperiences of English and Frenchspeaking countries and does not includeany substantial consideration of the pro-blems of staffing in central and east ernEurope (only a few brief references aremade to these countries in chapter 6).H o w e v e r, the intention is that a futureproject activity, in collaboration withcolleagues in central and eastern

- 123 -

HIGHER EDUCATIONINEUROPE, Vol. XDE, No. 4, 1994

Bibliographical References

Book Review

Staffing Higher Education: Meeting New Challengesby Maurice Kogan, Ingrid Moses , and Elaine El-KhakisHigher Education Policy Series 27, OECD, 1994. London and Bristol (Pennsylvania): Jessica Kingsley, 1994 X-136 p. ISBN 1-8 5 3 0 2-5 4 1-0

Europe, will develop some understandingof the problems peculiar to these coun-tries which are outside the original arenaof OECD.

The first eight pages of the book con-stitute a so-called Executive Summarywhich introduces the larger problemsevoked throughout the book.

Describing some of the emerging char-acteristics of the academic profession,the increasing complexity of the acade-mic task, the changing staffing structures,and the functions of different sectors andinstitutions, the authors focussed in thesecond part of the study on the analysisof different staffing policy practices(helpful in determining fits betweentasks, structures, and qualifications) in anattempt to reformulate them for futurepatterns of work.

The conclusion that ”the actual changedmission of higher education calls for amore sophisticated and careful manage-ment of human resources than used to bethe case” (p. 117) provokes thinking inregard to new structures which combinethe vertical management and the horizon-tal collegial modes of governance thusworking towards ”the release of synergybetween academic and management

values”.

The recommendations made in the finalchapter, the most consistent and valuablein the book, are directed to governments,institutions, and members of the acade-mic profession, having as a backgroundthe exceedingly complex changes inmany of the countries within the ambit ofOECD. Analyzing governmental poli-cies, the authors draft the contents of apossible analytic basis for a comprehen-sive staffing needs analysis. At the insti-tutional level, they emphasize the needfor explicit, integrated policies for selec-tion and staff development and for activepolicies for the removal of impedimentsto staff advancement. So far as the acade-mic world is concerned, the authors sug-gest that policies should pay attention toidentifying the conditions, the inputs, andthe processes necessary for advancingstandards of work.

The implementation of policy sugges-tions and ideas for the quantitative andqualitative improvement of staffing inhigher education requires research whichis coherent, effective, and efficient. Thisbook represents a very good step in theright direction.

Laura Grunberg

- 124 -

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Background report to OECD review.Setenyi, J. et al.; Ed. Budapest, MEC,1994. 51 p., tabs. (Consultative Meetingof the Ministers of Education of Centraland Eastern Europe. sinaia, Romania,1994)

The education system in Romania: tui-tion in the languages of ethnic minori-ties. Romania. Ministry of Education.The Education Department for NationalMinorities. Bucharest, ME, 1994.1v.(various pagings), annex.

The higher education in Greece.Kassotakis, Michael. Athens, 1994. 19 p.

The higher education system in Russia.The Centre for International AcademicCooperation (Russian Federation); Ed.Voronezh, Voronezh state University,1994. 9p.

The state educational standard of theRussian Federation: higher p ro f e s-sional education-g e n e r a lre q u i re m e n t s. Russian Federation.Higher Education State Committee.Moscow,HESC,1994. 7 p., annex.

E u ropean Forum for F reedom inEducation: procedure and organiza-tion. / /Europaisches Forum fur Freiheitim Bildungswesen: Ziele,Vorgehensweise und Organisation. ger.European Forum for Freedom inEducation (Germany). witten, EFFE,1994. 23 p.

State education in Romania. Romania.Ministry of Education; Ed. Oradea, ME,1994. [37] p., tables.

Education in Romania. Romania. Min-istry of Education; Ed. Oradea, ME,1994. [21] p., tables.

Russian universities. InteruniversityCentre for International EducationalProgrammes (Russian Federation).Moscow, ICIEP, 1994. 76 p.

Etudiants des hautes ecoles suisses.//Studierende an den schweizerischenHochschulen. Office federal de la statis-tique (Suisse). Berne, OFS, 1994. 24 p.ISBN: 3-303-15096-6

Education in Finland l994: education,statistics and indicators. statistics Fin-land. Helsinki, SF, 1994. 71 p. ISSN:1236-47460789-6735

Acts on schools of higher education,the academic title and academicdegrees. Poland. Ministry of NationalEducation. Department of Science andHigher Education. Warsaw, MNE, 1994.103 p. ISBN: 83-85430-10-5

Report on the future of self-regulationin higher education. Accrediting Com-mission for Senior Colleges and Univer-sities. Western Commission for Collegesand Universities (USA) Oakland, MillsColleges, 1993. 23p.

- 125 -

BIBLIOGRAPHICALREFERENCES

NEW PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED BY CEPES

3-8 October

”Appraisal and Perspectives ofEducation, for InternationalUnderstanding”. 44 Session of theInternational Conference on Educationorganized by the International Bureau ofEducation (Geneva, Switzerland). Forfurther information, please contact:

Mr. Juan Carlos Tedesco, Director, In-ternational Bureau of Education, P.O.Box 199,1211 Geneva, Switzerland.

10-13 October

CRE Projection Quality Audit (Utrecht,The Netherlands). For further informa-tion, please contact:

CRE, 10 rue du Conseil General, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland.

- 126 -


Calendar of Events

MEETINGS ORGANIZED BY CEPES

1995

9-11 February

First meeting of the Expert Group for theElaboration of the Joint Council ofEurope/UNESCO Convention onAcademic Recognition in the Europeregion (Bucharest, Romania). For furtherinformation, please contact:

Ms. Stamenka Uvalic-Trumbic,CEPES, 39 Stirbei Voda St.,R-70732, Romania.

12-14 February

First Session of the CEPES AdvisoryBoard. For further information, pleasecontact:

Mr. Lazar Vlasceanu, CEPES, 39Stirbei Voda St., R-70732, BucharestRomania.

OTHER MEETINGS

1994

30 October-3 NovemberCRE Project on Quality Audit (Goteborg,Sweden). For further information, pleasecontact:


31 October-4 November”Intercultural Conflicts in Peace Re-search and Education”. 15th GeneralConference of IPRA: the InternationalPeace Research Association (Malta). Forfurther information, please contact:

Ake Bjerstedt, Peace Education Com-mission, School of Education, Box23501, S-200 45 Malmo, Sweden.

2-4 November”Higher Education: Capacity- b u i l d i n gfor the 21st Century”. 4th UNESCO-NGO Collective Consultation on HigherEducation (Paris, France). For further in-formation, please contact:

Ms L. Kearney, UNESCO,ED/HEP/HE, 7 place de Fontenoy,75352 Paris 07 SP, France.

10-12 November”Social Science Information Needs andProvision in a Changing Europe.European Conference (Berlin, Germany).For further information, please contact:

Ms Ulrike Becker or Ms ErikaSchwefel, InformationszentrumSozialwissenschaften, Abteilung Ber-lin in der Aussenstelle der

Gesellschaft SozialwissenschaftlicherInfrastruktureinrichtungen (GESIS),S c h i ffbauerdamm 19, D-1 0 11 7Berlin, Germany.

9-11 November 1994”Perspectives of Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment”, 3rd European Forum forContinuing Engineering Education,A d o l f C z e t t e l - B i l d u n g s z e n t r u m ,Theresianumgasse 16-18, A-1040, vien-na, Austria.

13-17 NovemberCRE Project on Quality Audit (Oporto,Portugal). For further information, pleasecontact:


24-26 November”Quality in International Education”. 6thAnnual Conference of EAIE: theEuropean Association for InternationalEducation (London, UK). For further in-formation, please contact:

EAIE, Van Diemenstraat 344, NL-1013 CR Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

19-21 December”The Student Experience”. A n n u a lConference of the Society for Researchinto Higher Education (SRHE) and theUniversity of York (London, UK). Forfurther information, please contact:

SRHE, 344-354 Gray’s Inn Road,London WC1X 8BP, UK.

- 127 -

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

Follow-up Meeting of MINEDEUROPEIV in conjuction with CORDEE. (Paris,

France). For further information, pleasecontact:

1995

Mr. H. Rissom & Mr. P. Herold, UN-ESCO, ED/UCE, 7, place de Fontenoy,75352 Paris 07 SP, France)

”6th European Conference for Researchon Learning and Instruction”. EuropeanAssociation for Research on Learningand Instruction (EARLI) (Nijmegen, TheNetherlands). For further information,please contact:

Robert-Jan simons, Department ofEducational Sciences, NijmegenUniversity, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HDNijmegen, The Netherlands.

”6th World Conference on ContinuingEngineering education’’. InternationalAssociation for Continuing EngineeringEducation (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil). Forfurther information, please contact:

F. R. Landi, Escola Politechnica,University of Sao Paolo, POB 1145, SaoPaolo, CEP 05499, Brazil.

”9th World Conference” . Wo r l dAssociation for Cooperative Education(WACE) (Jamaica). For further informa-tion, please contact:

Cal Haddad, International Secretariat,WACE, c/o Mohawk College, P.O. Box203.4, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N3T2.

January6th Session of the International Commis-sion on Education for the 21st Century I(Beijing, China). For further information,please contact:

Ms A. Draxler, UNESCO, ED/EDC, 7,place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP,France.

26-29 January‘ ’ S k o l a ’ 9 5 ’’Prague StudentF a i r.International Conference andExhibition on secondary and HigherEducation, organized under the auspices

of the council of Europe (Prague, CzechRepublic). For further information, plea-se contact:

ICEF International Consultants forEducation and Fairs, Am Hofgarten 18,D-53113 Bonn, Germany.

FebruaryMeeting of Governmental Experts toExamine the Draft Recommendation onthe status of Teachers in Higher Educa-tion (Paris, France). For further informa-tion, please contact:

Mr. D. Beridze, UNESCO, ED/HEP/HE,7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP,France.

6-9 February 1995”Global Civilization and Cultural Roots:Bridging the Gap. The Place of Interna-tional University Cooperation”. Interna-tional Association of Universities, tenthGeneral Conference (New Delhi India).For further information please contact:

Dr. Franz Eberhard, Secretary General,IAU, 1, rue Miollis, F -75732 Paris, Cedex15, France.

April5th Session of the International Commit-tee for the Application of the Conventionon the Recognition of Studies, Diplomasand Degrees in Higher Education in theArab and European states bordering theMediterranean (Paris, France). For fur-ther information, please contact:

Mr. D. Beridze, UNESCOED/HEP/HE, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352Paris 07 SP, France.

19-22 AprilInternational Conference onCounsellingand Tolerance". Org a n i z e dby IRTAC (University of Malta, Malta).For further information, please contact :

- 128 -

CALENDAR 0F EVENTS

D r. Derek Hope, Secretary T RTA C ,Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex,UB8 3PH, UK.

7th Session of the International Commission on Education for the 21st Century(Amman, Jordan). For further informa-tion, please contact:


June/JulyFinal Session (8th) of the InternationalCommission on Education for the 21stCentury (Paris, France). For further in-formation, please contact:


26-30 June”One World Many Voices - Quality inOpen and Distance Learning”. 17thWorld Conference for Distance Educa-tion (Birmingham, United Kingdom).For further information, please contact:

ICDE Conference Office, The OpenUniversity, West Midlands region, 6668High Street, Harborne, Birmingham B 179NB, UK.

JulyImproving University Teaching” (IUT).20th International Conference. For fur-ther information, please contact:

Improving University Te a c h i n g ,University of Maryland, UniversityCollege, University Boulevard at AdelphiRoad, College Park, Maryland20742-1659, USA.

International Conference on DistanceEducation organized by the Associationfor International Education and the state

Committee for Higher Education of theRussian Federation (Moscow, RussianFederation). For further information,please contact:

M r. Alexander Prokopchukf DeputyDirector of International Cooperation,state Committee for Higher Education, 33,Ul. Shabolovka, Moscow, RussianFederation.

2-7 July”state and University in the New Europe:a Liberal Future?” InternationalConference (Usti nad Labem, CzechRepublic). For further information,. plea-se contact:

Dr. Bob Brecher, School of Historical &Critical Studies, University of Brighton,1 0-11 Pavilion Parade, Brighton BN21RA, Sussex, UK.

12-18 JulyEducation for the 21st Century: Educa-tional Modernization and CulturalTradition (9th congress), World Councilof Comparative Education (Beijing,China)..For further information pleasecontact:

World Council for ComparativeEducation, c/o University of Manchester,Department of Education, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

27-30 August”Dynamics in Higher Education Tradi-tions Challenged by New Paradigms”,17th Annual EAIR Forum,.Swiss FederalInstitute of Technology (Zurich, Switzer-land). For further information, pleasecontact:

EAIR Secretariat, Forum 1995 CHEPSUniversity of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands.

- 129 -

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

4-1 1 SeptemberFourth World Conference on Women:Action; for Development, Equality andPeace (Beijing, China).

5-12 September”20th Annual Conference”. Associationfor Teacher Education in Europe (Oslo,Norway). For further information, pleasecontact:

ATEE, rue de la Concorde 60, B-1050Bruxelles, Belgium or BisletHoegskolesenter, Pielestredet 52, N0167Oslo, Norway.

14-17 SeptemberEuropean Conference on EducationalResearch, British and European Educa-

tional Research Associations (Universityof Bath, UK). For further information,please contact:

ECER 95 Conference Secretary, School ofEducation, University of Bath, BA2 7AY,UK.

December

”The Changing University”. A n n u a lConference, Society for Research intoHigher Education (SRHE) (Edinburgh, UK). For further information, please con-tact:

The Conference Org a n i z e r, SRHE344/345 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X8BP, UK.

- 130 -

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

BERG, Carin. Director.Address: European Centre for HigherEducation (CEPES), 39 Utirbei Vodastreet, 70732 Bucharest, Romania.

BERNT, Jan Fridthjof. Professor.Address: Institute of Public Law, University of Bergen, Allegaten 27, 5007Bergen, Norway.

CZINEGE, Imre. General Director.Address: Banki Donat Technical College, Nepszinhaz u. 8, Budapest1081, Hungary.

GOEDEGEBUURE, Leo CJ. Dr.Address: Center for Higher EducationPolicy Studies, University ofTwente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AEEnschede, the Netherlands.

GROOF, Jan de. Dr., governmentcommissioner.Address: A. Goemaerelei 52, 2018Antwerpen, Belgium.

HILLS, Graham. Professor sir, BBCNational Governor for Scotland.Address: Sunnyside of Threepwood,Laigh Threepwood, Beith KA 152JW, UK.

HOLENDA, Jiri Dr., Rector.Address: University of West Bohemia inPilsen, Americka 42, 306 14 Plzen,Czech Republic.

MEEK, V. L. Researcher.Address: c/o Center for Higher EducationPolicy Studies, University of Tw e n t e ,P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, theNetherlands.

MIHAILESCU, Ioan. vice-rector.A d d re s s: University of Bucharest, 64Kogalniceanu Blvd., Bucharest,Romania.

PROKOPCHUK, A l e x a n d e r. D e p u t yDirector.A d d re s s: Directorate of InternationalC o-operation, state Committee forHigher Education, 33, ul. Shabolovka,113819 Moscow, Russian Federation.

RIBIER, Renee. Charge de Mission.Address: Comite National d’Evaluation,142, rue du Bac, 75007 Paris, France.

SAYEGH, Raymond. Prof. Dr. d’Etat,Consultant.Address: Universite de Strasbourg II, 6,rue de Rome, Strasbourg, France.

- 131 -


Notes on Contributors *

* Please note this address correction for Dr. Dimitra SCHONEGGER who contributed tothe last issue of the review, No. 3,1994: Hammerschmidtgasse 4,1190 vienna, A u s t r i a .

SCHINDLER, Gotz. Dr.Address: Bavarian Institute on HigherEducational Research and Planning,Arabellastrasse 1, 81925 Munich,Germany. :

TEICHLER, Ulrich. Dr.Address: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum furB e r u f s- und HochschulforschungGesamthochschule Kassel,Henschelstrasse 4, 3500 Kassel,Germany.

VANDERHOEVEN, Johan L. Dr.A d d re s s: Nijverheidstraat 102, 2800Mechelen, Belgium.

VLASCEANU, Lazar . ProgrammeSpecialist.A d d re s s: European Centre for HigherEducation (CEPES), 39 Stirbei Vo d astreet, 70732 Bucharest, Romania.

W I M B E R L E Y, James. Head of theHigher Education Department.Address: Council of Europe, BP 431 R6,67006 Strasbourg Cedex, France.

- 132 -

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE

Quarterly review, in English, French, Russian

STUDIES AND PAPERS

CEPES publishes studies and shorter papers on specificissues of higher education, follow-up studies to mee-tings, and periodic statistical surveys. Their topics rangefrom general problems of planning and management tothe specific teaching, training, research and service func-tions of higher education, and its new roles for theadvancement of modem society.

CEPES STUDIES

• HANDBOOK OF HIGHER EDUCATION DIPLO-MAS IN EUROPE (KG. Saur, 1992, 304p. ISBN3-598-11073-1)

To order: K. G. SAUR VERLAG & CO., Postfach 7016,D-8000 Munchen 70, Germany.

• MULTILINGUALLEXICON OF HIGHER EDUCA-TION, Vol. 1: Western Europe and North America (K.G.Saur, 1993, 346 p. ISBN 3-59811058-8)

To order: K. G. SAUR VERLAG & CO., Postfach 7016,D-8000 Munchen 70, Germany.

°GAINS AND LOSSES: WOMEN AND TRANSITIONIN EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE (English,1994, 115 p. ISBN: 92-9069-125-5)

°ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND UNIVERSITYAUTO-NOMY. Contributions to the International Conference,5-7 May 1992, sinaia (English, 1993, 309 p. ISBN92-9069-126-3)

°HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM IN ROMANIA: ASTUDY(English, 1994, 143 p. ISBN 92-9069-128-X).

PAPERS ON HIGHER EDUCATION

°TRENDS,DEVELOPMENTS,AND NEEDS OF THEHIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS OF THE CEN-T R A L AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES(English, 1992, 48 p. ISBN 92-9069-119-X)

°ASSISTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN CENTRALAND EASTERN EUROPE. ACTIVlTIES OF INTER-NATIONALORGANIZATIONS -A SURVEY(English,

1992, 31 p. ISBN 92-9069-120-4)

°CEPES - 20 YEARS OF SERVICE (English, 1992, 40p. ISBN 92-9069-l2l-2)

°BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ACADEMIC RECOGNITIONAND MOBILITY - EUROPE REGION (English,1992,123 p. ISBN 92-9M9-122-0)

°ACCREDITATION, ED QUALITYASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION (English,1992, 85 p. ISBN 92-9069-123-9)

°ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND UNIVERSITYAUTO-NOMY. Proceedings of the International Conference,5-7 May 1992, Siniai (English, 1992, 52 p. ISBN92-9069-124-7)

°UNIVERSITIES OF TOMORROW (English, 1994, 29p., ISBN 92-9069-127-1)

° U N I V E R S I T Y PROFILING AND IDENTITY(English, 1994, 21 p. ISBN: 92-9069-130-1)

°EUROPE-USA: MUTUALRECOGNITION OF QUA-L I F I C ATIONS (English, 1994, 58 p. ISBN:92-9069-131-X)

MONOGRAPHS

The series of monographs is intended to cover the natio-nal systems of higher education in Europe and NorthAmerica. The monographs follow a standard structureidentifying the main features and explaining the func-tions of the national systems, while also facilitating easycross reference and comparison among them. The mono-graphs appear in English, except as otherwise noted.

Available:

°ALBANIA, BULGARIABIELORUSSIAN SSR, FIN-LAND, GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, HUN-GARY, THE NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, POLAND,SWITZERLAND, TURKEY, THE UKRAINIAN SSR,THE UNITED STATES .FORTHCOMING:Monographs:°BELARUS, UNITED KINGDOMStudies:

°THE DOCTORATE IN THE EUROPE REGION

CEPES PUBLICATIONS

• Order should be placed with the publisher

November 1994

CEPES PAPERS ON HIGHER EDUCATION

The European Centre for Higher Education is pleased to inaugurate a new series ofpublications on higher education designed to deal with and to present to the interested

public specific issues and problems in higher education with which the Centre is dealing.Each volume in the series is written either by CEPES staff members or by invited specia-

lists,experts in their respective fields.

The series currently includes six titles, all of them published during 1992:CEPES - 20 YEARS OF SERVICE

(Leland Conley Barrows)

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY(Proceedings of the International Conference, 5 - 7 May 1992, Sinaia, Romania)

ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION(Paul Enache sterian)

ASSISTING HIGHER EDUCATION IN CENTRAL AND ASTERN EUROPE:ACTIVITIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS - A SURVEY

(Stamenka Uvalic-Trumbic)

TRENDS, DEVELOPMENTS, AND NEEDS OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMSOF THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

(Lazar Vlasceanu)BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ACADEMIC RECOGNITION AND MOBILITY - EUROPE REGION

(Cecilia Preda)Interested readers may purchase these studies directly from CEPES at the very low price of$5.00 per study. Please write to CEPES as per the instructions given on the order form at

the end of this volume.

NEW CEPES STUDY(1994)

CEPES would like to-announce the recent publication of Gain and Losses: Women andTransition in Eastern and Central Europe. Compiled by Dr. Ruza Furst-Dilic of the

. Coordinating Centre for Research and Documentation in Social Science ofVienna, who also

wrote the Introduction, this volume includes essays by eminent womenscholars on the

current situation of women, particularly academic women, in Albania,Hungary, Ukraine

Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Romania, Poland and Slovenia. The conclusions reached by many of the contributors to this study are surprising.

Interested readers are invited to order this publication, which costs only $15.00, directly fromCEPES, making use of the order form at the end of this volume.

NEW ADDITION TO THE CEPES MONOGRAPH SERIESON THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE

EUROPE REGION OF UNESCO

CEPES would like to announce the recent publication of Higher Education in Norway.Compiled by Anne-Marie Fetveit of the Norwegian Ministry of Education, Research, andChurch Affairs, this study supersedes the earlier study on Norwegian higher education

which appeared in this series in 1983.Interested readers are invited to order this new publication, which costs only $10.00, directly

from CEPES, making use of the order form at the end of this volume.

CEPES PAPERS ON HIGHER EDUCATION

The following studies, produced in 1994, have just been added to theCEPES Papers series:

UNIVERSITY PROFILING AND IDENTITY

(J. Van der Perre)

EUROPE - USA: MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS(Stamenka Uvalic-Trumbic)

Interested readers may purchase them directly from CEPES for $5.00 each. Please write toCEPES as per the instructions given on the order form at the end of this volume.

STILL AVAILABLE! ORDER NOW!

Higher Education in International Perspective: A Survey and Bibliographyby Philip G. Altbach and David H. Kelly

(London: Manses, 1985)

The European Centre for Higher Education wishes to inform the readers ofHigher Education in Europe that it still has on hand a few copies of this classic work, onewhich has withstood the test of time. They can be ordered directly from CEPES for the lowprice of $25.00. In order to obtain your copy, please write to CEPES as per the instruction

given on the order form at the send of this volume.

higher education in europe - unesco

Documents