HIGHER ENGINEERING EDUCATION IN RUSSIA:

Incentives for Real Change

Maria Dobryakova, Martin Carnoy, Isak Froumin

University – Higher School of Economics (Moscow),

Stanford University School of Education

September 28-30, 2009

Why should engineering universities change?

Examples from other countries

US: moving from a country to a global level, while redefining their engineering competencies; set up standards

EU: preserve individual countries’ identities, while harmonizing their (engineering) education systems

[Based on: Lucena J. et al. Competencies beyond countries: The re-organization of engineering education in the United States, Europe, and Latin America, Journal of Engineering Education, 2008]

Recent context for Russian engineering universities

Related to changes in the economy and labor market • decline of the parent/customer industries• emerging needs of high-tech universities• greater labor mobility

Related to financing of education• systemic underfinancing of higher education and research in universities• deterioration of technical facilities• since about 2006, the government has started to award grants to the best universities on a competitive basis (uni development programs)

Regulatory and institutional changes• introduction of / transition to 4+2• national unified examination• more flexible regulation of curriculum policies

Societal• transformation of socio-economic structure• demographic decrease of prospective students

Geography, methods, data

4 cities: Moscow (8 universities), St. Petersburg (3), Tomsk (4), Kazan (4)

Research methods and data (obtained so far):• semi-structured interviews with university administration

(75 interviews)• student surveys (1400 respondents)• graduate surveys (511 respondents)• semi-structured interviews with employers (32 interviews)

Universities’ reaction to challenges: a typology

Beyond the trend

Wannаbes

Defense industry

Tradition Innovation

Their strong points as seen by the interviewees

stabilization + standardization + institutionalization

the strongest, most influential in terms of pattern-building;

attentive to formalization of practices

? most sensitive to the state’s signals (formal)

most flexible, self-

sufficient, ? ahead of the

state’s signals

stick to the past, proud of their roots,

watch and wait;

choose changes when have to

Planned economy

Perfectly normal

Institutional development

Demands that shape university stakeholders

UNIVERSITY

The State:• demand for compliance with regulations (including accreditation);• demand for professionals

Business, industry:• demand for manpower;• demand for knowledge and innovations

Prospective and current students, families:• demand for fashionable specializations;• demand for a degree (diploma)

Types of universities by their attitude and reaction to the recent challenges

Wannabes Perfectly normal Beyond the trend

4+2 Formal, slow Formal / partially,Advance the standards

Do not care much; introduced it long ago

Nat. Unif. Exam + poorer quality of prospective students

lament Introduce adaptive courses Combine with other mechanisms of searching the talented

Decline of the “parent/customer” industry

lament Form partnerships with stable enterprises, focus on practical skills

Form partnerships with strong enterprises, focus on innovations

underfinancing Open popular fee-paying specializations and branches, go to VocEd

Open popular fee-paying specializations related to their main profile

Rely on / recombine internal resources in an entrepreneurial way

State competitions passive Active, winners, Advance the formal standards

Active, winners

International context Do not care, feel superior (traditions) & deprived (facilities)

Care for the standards Care for research

almost no interest in the change of teaching methods!

Deterioration of technical facilities

lament Buy through winning competitions

Buy through winning competitions, use partner enterprises’ facilities

Voices and attitudes: a cross-examination

• UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION: convinced they are doing what they can

• ENGINEERING EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY: passive, disintegrated; imitation of activity

Voices and attitudes: a cross-examination

• STUDENTS: ~30% doubt that they are well educated, would have chosen the same major, or can be globally mobile.But! 35-55% are disinterested in additional learning opportunities provided by their university

Voices and attitudes: a cross-examination

• GRADUATES: most are satisfied (up to 90%); lack practical skills and a foreign language proficiency; find jobs easily

Did you find a job right after you graduated? - YES

90%

Is your job related to your education? - NO

30%

Is there a demand for your profession in the region? - NO

16,5%

Are you satisfied with your education?

Yes, absolutely 45,0%

Yes, mostly 45,2%

Mostly not 5,7%

Absolutely not 2,5%

Voices and attitudes: a cross-examination

• EMPLOYERS: no particular enthusiasm, no particular complaints; against BA

• the STATE: no clear signals to engineering education? Except for slogans

Types of universities: shares

Beyond the trend

Wannabes

Tradition Innovation

stabilization + standardization + institutionalization

Perfectly normal

Institutional development

13

Итого

Thank you!