Two universities were selected to participate in the project as case studies, one public and one private, both from Bucharest and both with the main activities in the economics field. Both universities agreed to participate. A letter of support was obtained from the rectors in order to induce higher participation of academic and managerial staff in the study. The data collection methods used were recorded in-depth interviews, and as an alternative option, filling in a questionnaire. For the in-depth interviews it was used an interview guide. See Appendix no. 3.1. The topics and questions from the interview guide were summarized and it was conceived a questionnaire to be distributed, as an alternative option for those who could not or do not wish to be interviewed.
The public university has a total of 760 academic staff and an approximate 25% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 185 persons. The private university has a total of 147 academic staff and a 50% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 81 persons. The percentages of 25% and 50% respectively were kept to the possible extent at the level of each academic position.
At the public university, from the total sample of 185 academic staff, 131 participated in the study, representing a response rate of 70.8%, while the non response rate was 29.2%. Table no. 3.1. presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.
|
Faculty and professors’ academic position |
Total
|
Number of persons in the sample |
Positive answers |
Negative answers |
Rate of response |
||||
|
% |
value |
TOTAL |
interview |
quest |
interview |
quest |
% |
||
|
TOTAL |
760 |
24.3 |
185 |
131 |
86 |
45 |
7 |
56 |
70.8 |
|
Professors |
209 |
25.8 |
54* |
27 |
18 |
9 |
3 |
33 |
52 |
|
Senior-lecturers |
103 |
29.1 |
30 |
25 |
14 |
11 |
2 |
3 |
83.3 |
|
Lecturers |
198 |
20.2 |
40 |
26 |
17 |
9 |
1 |
13 |
65 |
|
Assistant professors |
148 |
22.9 |
34 |
29 |
20 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
85.2 |
|
Junior assistants |
102 |
26.4 |
27 |
24 |
17 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
88.8 |
* all of them being on managerial positions
There were 3 faculties where the response rate was higher than in the others, as in these faculties the academic staff is more connected with the outside world explaning the higher openness and co-operation in the study. In case of one faculty, another explanation for the high rate of response is the fact that researchers were members of the academic staff of this faculty and around 60% of the persons contacted accepted to participate to the study as a personal favor to the researchers. There were encountered difficulties in two faculties. In the case of one faculty the head of the chair insisted to control the process and to select himself the people to be part of the sample. This transformed the process into a controlled one and academics, mostly those holding inferior academic position became reticent and concerned about their careerprobably being less sincere in their answers. In another faculty, one influential member of the faculty forbid the others to participate in the study.
Around 60% of the respondents who were not part of the faculties’ management or heads of departments even-though they agreed and participated in the study, they showed some reservation about their inclusion into the sample and they mentioned that they did not consider themselves representative for the academic staff. It was mainly the case of the assistant professors and the junior assistants who do not consider themselves as relevant for the study, due to the fact they that spent less than 5-6 years as members of the teaching staff so they were not able to catch the process of higher education reform from its very beginning.
Generally the duration of an interview was on average 45-50 minutes for the teaching assistant and junior teaching assistants, one hour for senior lecturers and lecturers and around 1 hour and 20-30 minutes for the professors and heads of departments. The longer duration of an interview for those holding upper academic positions can be explained by two factors: either they had more information about the topics discussed or when they did not know the answer they tried to ‘build’ an answer and to indicate the way they considered the things should be as opposed to others who would simply admitt that they do not know.
In the case of questionnaires, their collection was made with difficulty as, none of the respondents handed in the completed questionnaires at the first established date, there were necessary 4-6 subsequent contacts to collect a filled in questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned motivation for the delays was the high complexity of the questions (70%).
Table no. 3.2. presents the response rate of the management within the public university
|
Academic Management |
TOTAL |
Positive answers
|
Negative answers |
Rate of response (%) |
||
|
TOTAL |
Interviews |
Questionnaires |
||||
|
TOTAL |
65 |
25 |
11 |
5 |
32 |
38.4 |
|
University level TOTAL of which: |
6 |
4
|
4 |
0 |
2 |
66.6 |
|
Rector |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
Vice-rectors |
5 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
80 |
|
Faculties’ level TOTAL of which: |
59 |
21 |
13 |
8 |
30 |
35.5 |
|
Deans |
9 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
8 |
11 |
|
Vice-deans |
24 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
16* |
20.8 |
|
Head of departments |
26 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
6** |
57.6 |
* 3 persons could not be found to be surveyed; ** 5 persons could not be found to be surveyed
Consequently, the 29.2% rate of non-response has as main motivations as mentioned by our non-respondents the following:
While the overall response rate was good 70.8%, it can be noticed that the response rate was much lower at the level of management, being only 38.4%. More co-operative was the superior management at the academy level, for which we had a 66.6% rate of response, while at the level of faculties and departments only 21 out 59 persons participated in the survey (35.5%). At the level of faculties a big difference was between heads of departments who participated in a larger proportion 57.6% and the administrative offices (deans and vice-deans) whose participation rate was 25.6%, in spite of the fact that they been contacted on average 4-5 times (when they did not refuse from the very beginning to participate).
At the private university, from the total sample of 50% of the academic staff representing 81 academics, 63 participated in the study, representing an overall response rate of 77% and 42% of the total number of academic employees of the university. Table no. 3.3 presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.
It can be noticed that higher response rates were registered at academics with lower academic positions, as compared to academics with higher academic positions. Also between faculties, The highest rate of respondents (more than 50%) was at one faculty from the 6 faculties, situation explained by the fact that the teachers of these faculties knew very well the researcher who was working as junior assistant at this faculty. This fact offered them a guarantee of the confidentially for their answers. It was also much easier to contact them many times personally, to find an opportunity to meet for the interview.
The lowest rate of response (under 50%) was at the Law Faculty and it can be explained by the fact that around 90% of the professors of this department are involved also in other juridical activities as magistrates or lawyers. They offered as refusal excuse the “lack of time” and the fact that they are “not involved in the university activities”, even though they are fully-employed.
|
Faculty and professors academic position |
Total |
Number of persons in the sample |
Positive answers |
Negative answers |
Rate of response |
||||
|
|
value |
% |
value |
TOTAL |
interview |
quest |
interview |
quest |
% |
|
TOTAL |
147 |
55 |
81 |
63 |
41 |
22 |
7 |
19 |
77 |
|
Board of university |
3 |
100 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
|
Academics Total |
144 |
54 |
79 |
60 |
39 |
21 |
7 |
19 |
75 |
|
Board of faculties |
11 |
100 |
11 |
9 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
82 |
|
Professors |
18 |
72 |
13 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
46 |
|
Senior-lecturers |
12 |
60 |
8 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
62 |
|
Lecturers |
15 |
46 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
71 |
|
Assistant professors |
51 |
49 |
26 |
17 |
11 |
6 |
2 |
7 |
65 |
|
Junior assistants |
37 |
56 |
21 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
85 |
Twenty three percent of the academic staff included in the sample, did not participate in the study. The main reasons invoked for the non participation were:
1. 10% of the non-respondents accepted in the beginning to fill in the questionnaire or to be interviewed, but they changed their minds after they find out details. “I don’t know to answer. I prefer not to be included in the project”
2. 20% refused to be interviewed or to fill in the questionnaire from the beginning for various reasons: “I am too old” or I am a lawyer/magistrate, so I don’t want to be included in the project”.
3. 20% of the non-respondents motivated the fear of the effects of their answers. “I don’t want to have problems, I prefer not to answer. Sorry, I hope you don’t mind”.
4. 20% of non-respondents had delayed 3 –4 times the interview. 10% of them finally refused, and 10% accepted hardly to fill in a questionnaire, but only half of them returned it.
5. 40% of the non-respondents accepted to fill in the questionnaire but they could not be find to recuperate it, even though they were looked for many times by phone. They did not return the questionnaires. (20%).
While the lack of time, the fear of the consequences and the reluctance to be questioned, were the main reasons for non-responses, these aspects were also affecting those who did participate in the study. Eighty percent of the respondents accepted to cooperate because they knew the researcher and not because they wanted to be included in the sample or to cooperate at any project. Some of them (20%) did not see any utility of the study asking questions such as “Why do you do this? What are your advantages?” Other 10% of the respondents limited the length of the interview to 20 minutes.
However in spite of the difficulties the overall response rate was high, 77% with 100% response rate at the level of the board of the university and 82% response rate at the level of faculties board and 75% at the level of faculties.
Comparison of academic participation between the two universities:
If we look at the two universities, we can notice that the response rates were in the similar range for both, with a higher response rate at the private university 77%, as compared to 70.8% at the public university. One explanation can be in the much larger size of the public university 760 academics in total, as compared to 147 in the private one and correspondingly the differences in sample size, 185 in the public university and 81 in the private university where the same academics were teaching in more faculties.
However the large difference was in the case of management, who participated to the study to a larger extent in the private university 85.2% than in the public university 38.4%.
The same difficulties can be encountered in both universities: reluctance to participate, the need to contact the persons numerous times (5-6 times) before getting participation or a ferm negative answer, failing to keeping appointments from some of the respondents.
Similarly in the two universities, the belonging of the researchers to the academic communities of some faculties made the data collection easier. Another similarity was the fact that in both universities those who had extra university activities (teaching in other universities, research, business, community work) were more open to participate and frankly discuss with the interviewers, while those whose only job was within the universities were more reluctant to participate and were more rigid while talking and trying to avoid answers. At the same time from those with extra university activities (especially those involved in politics, law and those with managerial positions outside the university) refused from the very beginning to participate due to the lack of time and some could not even be found at all.
To conclude, in both universities in spite of the difficulties, a high proportion of academics participated in the study and a good picture over the perception of the reform and its implementation can be obtained from it.
1. Research output
Most of the respondents perceived that it took place a reform in higher education in Romania: 80% of the respondents gave a positive answer, 10% gave a negative answer and the rest of them (10%) responded that it was a partial reform or only an unsuccessful trial. The introduction, development or accreditation of the private universities, as an alternative to the public higher education, was identified as the most important element of the higher education reform, as some respondents put it:
“In this particular way we had an increase of the education offer, a significant number of the new faculties related to the demand on the labor market, creating a real competition on the education market, between the private sector and public sector”
or
“ The existence of this university/faculty is the main sign of the educational reform here”.
Among the main components of the refom as identified by the respondents from the private university were: the reform of the Romanian higher education system consists in an adjustment to the European Education System or in the application of modern measures that are already applied in other countries (10%); only 10% of the respondents have identified as main trends the economical and financial autonomy.
The effects of the reform have been perceived as being: the modernization of the higher education system, the introduction the new disciplines, the introduction of the paid-education in the public education system, the introduction of the system of credits, the decrease of the number of educational hours per week, aspects identified by almost 50% of the respondents.
Almost 30% of the respondents have identified as the main effect of the reform the accreditation of the university and the fact that is the only university with these faculties in the Romanian higher education system.
Most of the respondents (90%) appreciated that the effects of the reform on the university were mainly positive, only three of the respondents have said that there were also negative effects due to the elimination of some disciplines considered to be useful and also due the decision taken by the public universities, to increase the tuition fee paying places, increasing competition for candidates.
The answers concerning this aspect have indicated that many components of the reform are not very familiar for the academic staff and also for the management in the private university, especially the aspects related to the financial autonomy. The centralization of the financial power, the lack of transparence in communication, the non-existence of the financial autonomy within the university are elements that according to the respondents charaterizes the private university, and prove that the financial autonomy is not a familiar concept and activity within this private university.
The academic and institutional autonomy
Nobody from the academic staff as well as from the academic management could not say what were the written objectives on the long or short term, explained by the fact that they did participate to their establishment.
Most of the respondents tried however to identify the aspects that they consider were the main objectives of the university: 80% mentioned that an important objective for many years was the accreditation (obtained in spring 2002), another one was, the building of the new university headquarters and campus. Half of the respondents have mentioned among the objectives of their faculty the modernization and improvement of the curricula, a better evaluation of the students, partnerships with foreign universities, attracting more students, the consolidation of the university position in the private education system (during the next three years after the accreditation); 20% of professors mentioned as objectives on the long term the organization of master programs and post graduate studies; 20% mentioned the students’ and teachers’ exchanges with foreign universities, attracting more academic staff fully employed in the university. About 10% of the junior-staff have suggested as an important objective the change of the attitude or mentality that according to them is supposed to be realized by the replacement of the older academic staff.
The respondents made no difference between the objectives and priorities of the faculties that suggests that they had only a passive position, they were probably only informed about such aspects in the senate meetings but they did not discuss them or make proposals. The lack of specific objectives for each faculty proves the absence of the autonomy inside the university and an inefficient way to disseminate the information or maybe a general indifference of the academic staff for the decisions or actions of the university management.
Seventyfive percent of the respondents appreciated the university strategy as a good one but in fact they could not mention what the strategy consisted of as it is reflected in the testimony of one respondent:
”The strategy is good, I’m sure that it exists but I don’t know what are its elements”.
Some others tried to define themeselves the strategy of the university:
“The strategy is a managerial program conceived by the rector, the strategy consist in attracting valuable staff, “it is a good and correct strategy”
or
” Maybe the strategy consist in the promotion of the university”.
The management staff have said that the operational plan and the strategy are conceived by the rector and are identical with his managerial plan, but without giving details about this plan.
Even though the management board has identified some elements of the university strategy, it seems that the only person who is defining it, is the rector and probably the strategy is not comprised in official written document, as we could not obtain one.
The university recently introducd a new program, by creating a new faculty, of which respondents are very proud as being the only one of the kind, in the context of the European integration and Romania’s aspiration to it.
About 60% of the respondents, mostly from old academic staff and from university and faculties’ boards indicated some types of decisions which are subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education and Research such as the number of the students per year, the creation of a new department or specialization, the confirmation of superior academic degree such as senior lecturer and professor. Some 10% of the professors suggested that this subordination is also a consequence of the accreditation criteria, but in the future it is expected more autonomy, that supposes fewer decisions to be subject of approval from the ministry. Some agreed with it:
“The number of the students should be imposed by the Ministry to the universities in order to avoid the creation of too many economists or lawyers after graduation, than are really necessary in the market”
and others did not:
“I don’t think that is necessary the control of the number of the students, this number should be established by the competition between the universities”,
About 40% of the respondents agreed that at the university level may be taken decisions regarding the admittance exam, graduation exam, the level of the students’ tuition fees, investments, or curricula, organization of competitions for promotion of academic staff to different degrees, the structure of the academic year, the salary policy or the evaluation of academic staff.
As for the decisions at the faculty level, 60% of the respondents, said that there are not so many decisions to be taken at the faculty level:
“At the faculty level, we cannot take too many decisions”
or
“We take only some operational decisions regarding the academic activity”
or
“The dean practically cannot do anything without notifying the university board”
or
“We take decisions depending on the decisions taken at the university level, that are usually taken ad-hoc”.
Decentralization of the decision-making within the university almost do not exist, the deans practically decide only in case of operational matters, supervising the work in the secretaries. Despite all these few persons complained about the centralization of power and about the fact that every minor thing has to be known and approved by the rector or the university board.
The university’s concern about strengthening the standards leading to the state accreditation mainly the standards referring to the training process, faculty, scientific research, material basis and financial activity influenced positively the process of course curriculum development.
Traditionally, the academic curriculum of a specific course is realized in the first stage by the professor concerned directly (the one who teaches the subject), after that it is submit for discussions between the members of the collectives of each discipline, it is approved by the Faculty Council and then supervised by the dean and finally by the rector.
While, 90% of the older academic staff mentioned that the course curriculum is discussed also with the young staff by asking them to make proposals, at the same time the young staff (80%) said that they were only informed about curriculum and not asked to contribute. However, they mentioned that they have large freedom in conducting the seminars.
Most of the respondents (90%) appreciated that the courses are permanently adapted to the market needs, as explained:
“In comparison with the last year we have 50% new disciplines that means an adaptation to the market needs having also disciplines that are new and different from the public faculties curricula with the same profile”.
The young generations from our respondents had different opinions regarding the course content as they mentioned that the courses are not very related to the market needs most of them containing abstract issues and not practical ones.
The situation revealed was that even the young staff has formally the right to make proposals concerning the curricula, they have not a real opportunity to do this. Whatever are the causes, indifference from their part or not enough confidence from the professors working with them, their involvement is minimum, mostly concerning the way of conducting the seminars, choosing the case studies, and not concerning the content of the curricula.
Admission and graduation exams
The admission at this private university is presently based on a written exam (50%) and the baccalaureate grade (50%), with the exam subjects at the choice of candidates from a given number of disciplines: economics, geography, algebra and mathematical analysis and physics. It was a period of two years when the admission at this private university was based only on the mark obtained at the baccalaureate exam, and this was the period when the state universities increased the supply of fee paying places and at the same time increasing the competition for candidates, as one academic explains:
“The admission exam is a tradition for our university. The exception was in the last two years when unfortunatelly the Ministry of Education grew the number tuition fee paying places at the public universities. So we have to adapt to these circumstances.”
The benefic contribution of the selection based on competition is appreciated by a large number of the respondents:
“It is a visible difference between the students who have passed the exams and the ones who have not”.
The first graduation exam organized by this private university was in the academic year 2001/2002, due to the recently obtained accreditation, as previously (according to law) students from unaccredited private universities had to sitt their graduation exams at public universities. Most of the respondents (90%) stated that they have adapted the graduation process after the organization and the bibliography promoted by the public institutions. This is seen by them as a consequence of the standard criteria imposed by the ministry and it can also be due to the fact that many of the professors from this private university are at the same time professors in public higher education institutions. From 10% of the respondents it came the proposal of giving up the written graduation exams and leaving only the final dissertation as a final exam.
Human resources policy
The proportion of the fully employed academic staff varies from 60,9% to 71,4% from one faculty to another, however higher than the minimum of 50% stipulated by law. The proportion of the fully employed academics on senior postions (professors and senior-lecturers) varies between 30,3% and 46,6%, as compared to the 20% stipulated by law.
Around 70% of the teaching staff is formed of young people, most of them graduates of this private university, who have also studied in the USA for short periods.
To improve the performance of teaching, the senate of the university has established evaluation criteria for academics such the quality of the lectures, seminars and practical works, the scientific research activity and the faithfulness towards the university. The teaching activity of academics is also evaluated by students. An expression of the faithfulness of academics towards the university is considered to be the participation of all the faculty members to the promotion of a favorable image of the university inside and outside it.
One professor was concerned about the fact that the admistration staff is too much involved in the selection and evaluation criteria of academics, by also establishing the content of teaching subjects for professors, as it was explained:
“This is unacceptable, because they (secretaries) have nothing in common with the teaching matters; this is a problem of the department, but in fact this unit has no significance at our university.”
There are both formal rules for selecting academic personnel. The selection is based on fixed rules: a CV, an interview with the rector and a written and an oral exam” and informal rules as most of the young academics said that they had a reccommendation from a professor from the university. This was also mentioned by a professor:
„…even if I have no real power in the selection and the promotion process, I always make proposals and encourage the young staff in complying with the requiered criteria”.
Almost all the respondents said that the selection and promotion process is a competitive one, based on a written exam and on the simulation of the seminar evaluated by a commission.
The university management uses as an instrument of the motivational policy of the university, the possibility for the young staff to attend master programs in the US universities:
“ this year we sent two assistants at a master program for two years to an USA university “.
Talking about the financial means of motivation, we found out that
“The salary is confidential, and very different from one person to another. I can’t say what is this, but it is acceptable and a little more in comparison with the salary given by the public university at the same academic position”.
About 20% said that the real motivation for that ones working in education system is not the financial retribution and there are others such as spare time, the possibility to improve the knowledge through permanent study required for the job, working in the university environment, working with students:
“I choose to do this not for the salary but because I like to do this”.
The fidelity criterion is seen as one of the most important in the selection, evaluation and motivational process. But this concept unique to the university is seldom explained. The rector defined it as:
“promoting the university and its values to the future students with the purpose of attracting them but also to the present students of the university during the seminars so they would know about how the university was created and the difficulties it faced during its development.”
Trying to explain the situation some respondents said:
„Anyway the human resource policy is the responsibility of the human resource department that takes into account the directives of the university board, especially the rector’s, who has the power of decision over everything”
or
„It is a common rule that the professors are entitled to choose their assistants from their best students and to make this proposal to the Faculty Council. But they have no power of decision. Even if it is discussed or not in the Faculty Council, the selection and promotion processes are not transparent, and the fulfillment of the criteria is not always based on objective criteria, for instance the fidelity criterion, that is very subjective, and creates great confusion”.
Teaching methods and documentation
All the respondents give a positive answer regarding the permanent documentation and improving of teaching methods but the most significant difference was between the professors, senior-lecturers and lecturers at the one side and junior-assistants and assistants on the other side according to the specific ways of conducting either lecturer or seminars. Depending on the nature of the discipline, the professors mentioned as methods of teaching: the lecturing, a mixture lecturing, presentation on the blackboard or discussions with students. Junior assistants and assistants conducting the seminars, would use a mix between debates, case studies and simulations. About 20% of the respondents, professors and young staff answered that, the organization of their courses and seminars differed according to interest of the group of students:
„…in some cases the seminar consists only in reformulating a part of the courses”
or
“when the students are interested more in some issues we discuss, we give examples from practice, in other cases our lecturing is enough.”
Only 10% of the respondents included the internet as a way to inform and to update their knowledge, justified partially by the fact that the access at internet is very limited wihin the university, as mentioned:
„I would like to use the information from the internet in updating the seminars but unfortunately the access is very limited. Practically there is no access to internet in the university”.
Technical endowment
The majority of the respondents (80%) stated that there is an actual low technical endowment within the university, but they all expected that the new campus will accomplish all the necessities and expressed their hope that the transition period (renting spaces) will soon be over.
Some 50% of the respondents refused to discuss about the actual situation, considering it as irrelevant because the campus is under construction.
“There is no case to say something about endowments because of the new campus it is built rapidly”
or
“We have to limit the modern teaching to our present possibilities; we have constraints due to thepresent facilities”.
The present endowments for research and academic activities are very limited, only the classes for courses and seminars, a slide-projector/faculty, a video-projector/university, no other facilities:
”We have only the halls and nothing more conduct our activities”.
Other facilities such a printers, computers, papers or writing tools and photocopies are available only for secretarial activities, the access of the academic staff being very limited.
Evaluation of the students
For an unitary evaluation of the students’ activity during the academic year, the senate of the university has established the following criteria: attendance criterion and ability criterion (participating at the discussion during the seminars, developing and upholding the projects from the curricula, developing some personal or team reviews defended within students debates, upholding the case studies, upholding reviews, overviews of the studying materials, answers given to the tests).
The majority of the professors (50%) referred to the final examination (a written exam) and the during the year activity evaluation (counting for 30% up to 50% of the final evaluation) as the main way for evaluating students. Partial exams (exams given during the year covering only part of the subjects of the discipline) exonarate partially or totally students at the final exam.
Research activity
There are a number of research centers (3) sett up in this private university according to what the academics have stated. However, most of the young academic staff (80%) did not really know about these centers, as mentioned:
“I heard about some research contracts and centers but I’m not involved”.
The main scientific research activity mentioned by most academics was the scientific communication session of the academic staff, an event that takes place regularly at the level of the university.
Referring to the research projects the answers of the management staff were very different: some mentioned that there is a number of 20 contracts run within the university, while 95% of the respondents did not mention anything about the 3 research centers functioning inside the university, when asked about the research activity. The situation was different from one faculty to another: while in most of them the research activities were conducted by smaller groups of people, in one faculty all respondents stated that they were involved in the existing research activities (including academics on lower academic positions who were not involved at all in such activities in the other faculties).
Cooperation among faculty and departments; other partnerships
The main form of cooperation between departments and faculties is seen to be the coordination of the teaching activities, as some professors teach at more than one faculty within the university.
A few professors (6) said that there is little cooperation between faculties and there are some problems in creating a real one:
“There are very few activities of cooperation between faculties, mostly informative ones, we need very much to improve this situation”
or
“Currently in our university the activities have an individual character there is not too much cooperation”.
Even if incipient forms of cooperation exist between the faculties these are mostly reduced to teaching activities and are seen as being stopped more extensive forms of cooperation because of a strong individualism.
External cooperation and partnerships with other universities it is also developing, as the university has 10 partnership agreements with universities from USA and also some exhange programs with universities from Spain and Brasil. One university in USA is the main partner of this private university as there are frequent exchanges of both students and teachers with this univesity. Recently the Romanian university sent two assistant professors to complete their Masters at the USA university.
Asked about the cooperation with companies, almost all the respondents said that it is not a real or permanent cooperation with the companies, that would be very necessary for all the faculties. As a consequence students have to find on their own companies to fulfil the internships. The contacts with companies and institutions are usually based on personal relationships of professors and not on contractual bases with the university.
Around 15% of the respondents, stated that they do not have knowledge about the financial activity of the university:
“I don’t know, only the board of the university is in charge with this”.
In terms of financial sources of the university, about 60% of the respondents said that the tuition fees are the sole income source of the budget, some 15% of the respondents added the sponsorships as a source of the budget, some 10% mentioned the credits or research contracts as another source of financing to the budget of the university and another 8% mentioned the interests for the deposits in the banks.
Almost 80% of the persons interviewed assumed what are the elements of the the budget, not really knowing what was the situation:
“I suppose that the taxes are the most important element to finance the budget”.
Very few respondents (2) suggested for the future that will be very important to increase the budget organizing the master or post-graduate courses.
The majority of the respondents (80%) mentioned as the most important direction of the allocation of funds the campus building. Some 10% added the salaries as another element of the budget allocations. The rest of 10% assumed the budget allocations are also for the material base or endowment, the improvement of staff work conditions, scholarships, student books and other learning supports, endowment of the secretary cabinets and promotion. Some (8%) mentioned that the present 0.8% of the budget allocated for promotional activities should be increased to 3% in the future.
The execution of the budget at this university is very centralized, there is no budget at the level of faculties. The rector himself mentioned that he is the only one person in charge with financial matters.
The fact was appreciated positively by some of the academics who mentioned that
“for the actual stage of the university development is very important to remain centralized”, while others are in favour of decentralization
“it is important to decentralize the budgets at the level of faculties, as in this way the competition between faculties can be increased and consequently their performances.”
Almost none of the respondents were able to estimate the cost of the education per student, some of them identified this cost with the current tuiton fee for that academic year, which was about 400 USD.
The financing process is not transparent in this private university even for the persons from the faculties’ board. Most of the respondents assumed only what were the elements of the budget (sources and destination). The academic staff and the faculties board are not involved in this process not interested in attracting other sources of financing.
Communication and information channels within the university
At this question, 30% of the respondents, mostly those who fill in questionnaire did not have an answer or preferred to not answer, 30% said that practically there is no communication, 20% said that even if it exists some communication is necessary a real improvement and only 1% said that there is a good communication inside the university.
The main information and communication channels used by the Faculty Council (according to the respondents) were the periodical meetings, the information meetings which followed the Senate meetings, the displays.
An important part of the respondents declared that they are not satisfied with the actual way of disseminating the information and that there are necessary major changes. Even the persons who had not answer to this question suggested a need of improvement or a lack of communication about which they do not want to discuss.
“This is the our major weak point.”
Some respondents suggested that the lack of modern way of communication such as e-mail, Internet affected also the communication inside and outside the university:
“We find out about some decisions too late“.
It seems to be a miscommunication between members of the faculties and between generations, as well. About 20% of the respondents, mostly from the young staff said that the Faculty Council reunions are usually inefficient because they only send information in only one way, top down. At the same time, persons from the old academic staff complained about the lack of proposals coming from young academics
“who had usually a passive role during the reunions”
or
”We expect all the time proposals from the assistants or junior assistants but usually they only attend the reunions and nothing more”.
Most of the respondents identified the responsibility of the university to the state with the subordination to the different public institutions, aspect appreciated by some of them (50%) as being necessary:
“We had some negative examples in the private education system, so I think that a permanent supervising from the Ministry is necessary”
or
“This permanent control improves the quality of education”
while the other part considered that it influences in a negative way the autonomy of the university as stated:
”The different mechanisms of control of the state affect very much our autonomy”
or
“I think that there are too many constraints that should not exist. For example, the accreditation it should not be signed by the president of the state”.
As for the expectations of the students from their faculty and how the university answers to their expectations, about 60% of the respondents said that the university entirely responds to the expectations of the students which are an academic staff highly prepared, new information and knowledge in the field of study, the permanent improvement of the pragmatic character of the learning, conditions offered for learning, an objective evaluation, the punctuality of the professors, to have a practical and theoretical background in order to cope to the conditions imposed by the labor market and to ease the process of finding an appropriate job after graduation.
Another part of the respondents (20%) said that currently the university does not respond to the expectations of the students, since the university does not offer the proper conditions of learning which mean laboratories, access to Internet, appropriate endowments of the classes, as stated:
“Maybe after the finishing the campus a part of their expectations will be accomplished”.
Some respondents (10%) explained that the expectations of the students are different: a part of them expects only to obtain a diploma without too much effort, while another part expects to receive educational services at a high standard of quality:
”30% of the students wish to obtain the diploma and they think that this is what they paid for and the rest of 70% of the students expect to become highly prepared, to attend courses and seminars with large practical applicability”.
A person from the academic management said that some of the difficulties on implementing the university’s strategy are related to:
„ …. the mentality of some students who think that in a private university it’s enough to pay for passing the exams”.
The evaluation of the teaching activity by the students was recently introduced in the last two years and generated contradictory opinions among academics: about 40% of the respondents appreciated as a good idea taken from the American higher education system and as a necessary thing at the same time. Other 50% from the respondents appreciated that this evaluation needs to be improved and some disagreed with it totally:
“It is a stupid idea to ask the students about a course or a seminar that they had not attend classes in proportion of 80-90%”
or
“I think that is very hard to evaluate the quality of a professor, and their evaluation is not a relevant thing to us”
or
“I think that this process should be revised or at least to put the students sign the questionnaire to increase their responsibility”.
There is no systematic communication with graduates, as stated by many:
“Unfortunately, it does not exist a coherent communication program with our graduates”.
Some of the professors would have some occasional contacts with graduates but mainly based on interpersonal relationship.
However, all the respondents agreed that a formal contact with the graduates would be necessary in order to evaluate the university’s performances.
A similar situation is in the case of contacts with the business community:
”We don’t know about the expectations of the employers since there are no studies, we find only through our personal relations. Some professors have a second job by working in some companies and this help us a lot to know practical examples, to help our students to fulfil their internship and also to find a job”.
All respondents mentioned that they have the possibility to make proposals for the improvement of the university’s activity, but practically few of them are taken into consideration, in this way discouraging them from further proposals:
”Most of the proposals are ignored or the board says that there is not enough money’
or
„I propose to buy a CD player but they told me that we don’t have money for such expenses. So finally, the students helped me to buy this very useful device for my classes”.
The proposals are not initially rejected but finally are accepted only some that are not so expensive.
About 20% of the respondents said that some of their proposals were taken into consideration by the management, the aspects involved being the way of evaluating the students, intoduction of some disciplines.
About 80% of the respondents said that the role of higher education in the actual context of Romanian society, consists in offering high quality training for its students and at the same time specialists for the labor market at the same level of qualification as in the developed countries.
Other respondents mentioned as roles of the educational system: a formative role, the engine of the society, the trigger for changing mentalities, the creation of the students’ personality, a social role and some 10% of the respondents said that the higher education system has to provide a theoretical and practical background to the students that will be useful after graduation in their future workplace.
Some respondents would plead for the elite character of higher education, considering that only the persons who are interested to find out more, to learn more should attend the courses of the university:
„The higher education is not for everyone, only for those who have a passion for learning.”
The role of higher education is perceived in different ways by the academic staff. But the main idea from most academics was that the educational system should correspond to the real needs of the society in terms of well prepared workorce and the expectations of the young people who come to the university to find more in the field of their interest.
University/faculty orientation
Asked about the orientation of the faculty towards practice or theory, respondents had different opinions from which emerged 3 directions:
1) about 30% of the respondents suggested the equal orientation of the university to the theory and the practice,
2) almost 40% admited that the orientation is much more to the theory than to practice:
„Unfortunatelly the the theory is more important than the practice in our university. There should be employed more professors with practical experience”
or
„There is 90% theory and only 10% practice due to the lack of endowments, laboratories necessary for the practice” and
3) around 20% suggested that the final efforts of the university board and academic staff gave an actual orientation strongly to the practice.
Worth mentioning are the so called „special clinics”, that are courses especially created for the third and fourth years that are tought by more professors, each of them taking into discussion one by one practical cases.
Corruption in the higher education system
About 20% of the respondents said that there is no corruption in the higher education, with some exceptions, while 80% admitted that it exists in the whole Romanian economy and therefore in higher education system, too:
„I would say that the corruption is everywhere in our economy, and probably this is in higher education too”
or
„At present, in our society the corruption is everywhere.”
However, in spite of this general appreciations, most of the respondents mentioned that there were no cases in the univesity. Only one person said that corruption is everywhere in the university and more than 90% of proffesors accept favors in exchange of students’exams. Very few persons refered to corruption as to the fraud by the students or favors accepted by proffessors in change of exams.
The reason for choosing this profession
Most of the respondents stated that their main reasons for choosing this job were others than the material ones:
„There are many disadvantages in this work, as the salary, but I like what I do. It is a job with many compromises. But if you really like to teach, you have to accept them, if no tyou don’t.”
or
„You have to feel something when you chosse to do this.”
Some 20% of the respondents, mostly from young staff said that this is a transitional period in their life to the best job: „ I do this because I didn’t find anything else till now”.
A percentage of 7% of the respondents considered that there was no reform taking place in higher education or that the reform is questionable, as their statements reflect:
“no, there was not any reform at all”
or
“... there were some changes occurred but it is hard to say if those changes can be considered as being a reform or the opposite”
or
“there was some reform…but at a little extent if we have a comprehensive view of the whole higher education sector.... in our university there was a reform at the level of internal organization and curriculla…but I don’t know if this was a part of the reform … I think that a reform of higher education should mean more than that”
or
“during the mandate of the minister Marga Andrei, there were some efforts to do some reform, but unfortunately this reform was shaped by Marga’s view and resemblance…it was a reform done in a hurry.
Components of the reform of higher education
None of the academic staff or the academic management did not mention among the components of the reform pursued in the field of higher education, the introduction of the new system of global financing since 1998. Only 2% of their respondents referred to the financial autonomy as a missing part of the reform, as stated:
“I do not know exactly what financial autonomy means, but as long as most part of the financial sources of the university come from the state…there is no financial autonomy”,
or
“…I think everything is related to money. A certain reform (mostly declarative one), on the paper, took place in our university too…but as long as the wages and many other financial aspects are imposed by Ministry of Education and Research (MER), than all you must do is to comply with its standards ...”.
The limited financial autonomy is seen as impeding the reform as stated by some:
“I think that the fact that wages are set up autonomously at Ministry level if affects (erodes) the fundamentals of the reform of higher education because one cannot pursue reform exclusively with technical endowments, but with people. But if one has not enough money to pay the academic staff, the young people in particular, the departments are going to get emptier and than with whom is the reform going to be pursued and implemented?”.
Only 6% of the respondents considered the existance of private higher education as part of the reform of the higher education, system the rest did not mention at all this sector of higher ducation in Romania, indicating that they are not concerned about this sector at all.
Most answers about the components and effects of the reform of higher education referred to the changes occurred at the academic level. The answers about the components of the reform may be grouped as follows:
1. Ninty percent of the respondents mentioned as part of the reform the changes occurred in the academic curricula at their faculty. All answers indicated changes in the content of academic curricula/course syllabus, the weight of each course within a curricula, the harmonization of the curricula with Western standards.
This answer is the most common as it is the most visible transformation produced in the academic area in the last years and all respondents were involved by the nature of their work in this activity, as they explained:
“there were introduced either completely new disciplines or new themes in the syllabus of courses in the areas that changed the most”,
or
“some changes took place in the sense that the content of the academic curricula became more practical oriented”.
2. Sixty percent of the respondents indicated the harmonization with western standards as one main component of the reform. The changes in the curricula and the harmonization with Western standards, were indicated simultaneously and related to each other as part of the reform by 30% of the respondents. Also other aspects of “harmonization with Western standards”, where seen as being part of the reform, such as the introduction of European transferable credits, changes in the teaching methods.
3. The diversification of the forms of enrolment in higher education, as a mean for the diversification of the educational offer, was mentioned by 43% of the respondents. The main forms of diversification were “the introduction of Open Distance Learning (ODL)” or “the introduction of paid higher education in the public sector” or “diversification of postgraduate programs of master or other short or long term postgraduate courses”.
4. The improvement/development of technical endowments was mentioned by 28% of the respondents mainly from a faculty needing IT material base for running their current activities.
5. The increased international openness of the faculty and academic exchanges was indicated by 15% of the respondents under the form of “increased international openness of the faculty” or “larger opportunities for international academic exchanges of students and professors” or “larger opportunities for scholarships abroad”.
The effects of the reform of higher education
The most frequent answers about the effect of the reform at the faculty level were as follows:
1. The improvement of the technical endowments was indicated as an effect of the reform by 25% of the respondents. The most common perceived improvements were “the development of the technical endowments in terms of computers and soft”, “improving the access of students and academic staff to information through facilities such as free access to internet”, “acquisition of books”, “the improvement of working conditions, namely non financial ones”.
2. The changes occurred in the academic curricula - were perceived both as positive and negative effects by different respondents. Among the positive perceptions about the changes in curricula were: a more practical content of the curricula based upon the market and students needs and requests (9%), “the introduction of optional courses which induce a higher flexibility of education process for the students” (18%), “the harmonization with EU standards” (30%). Among the negative perceptions about the changes in curricula was the reduction of teaching hours (8%) seen to have adverse consequences on the education process since:
“the position in time and in the curricula of various courses changed and…courses are not taught in their normal and logic order (so that each course may use the knowledge acquired in previous courses), ….the order was reversed so that parallelisms appear frequently...and this was done so that the curricula fit in the 20 weakly teaching hours”.
Other negative effects perceived were the exclusion of certain courses from the academic curricula of many faculties (usually courses that were not part of the main subject of the faculty’s specialization).
3. The increased number of students was an effect of the reform of higher education indicated by 14% of the respondents. Some respondents, tried to explain the reasons and the effects of this increase in the number of students. The fact that higer education in Romanis is in the process of transformation from an elite system (prior to 1990) to a mass system is appreciated negatively by many respondents as it is reflected in their statements:
“the main effect of the reform resides in the changing character of the admission exams which allows more enrolments with adverse effects on the quality of the students enrolled that is getting lower”
or
“the reform had a small negative connotation...since a substantial improvement of the education did not occur…students are getting worse”
or
“the effect of the reform was an increased number of illiterates”
or
“higher education became a sort of a post-secondary school”.
However, there were also different opinions about the quality of the students and of the graduates of higher education in Romania, but without being mentioned to whom is made reference all students or only the best students:
“we became well known internationally due to the quality of our students”
or
“one effect of the reform was the increase of the competitiveness on the education services market in Romania.”
4. Positive changes occurred in the area of teaching methods (14%) expressed as “introduction of the information technology in teaching techniques”, “improving the quality of teaching through to a better access of students and academic staff to information and access to internet”. Such answers were given by respondents from some faculties, while none of the respondents from 2 of the total number of 9 faculties of the public university considered that teaching methods were improved. This is an indication that the evolutin oand the progress of chnages were different from one faculty to another.
5. Other effects of the reform of HE with a high degree of diversity but acknowledged by a small number of respondents each, were: “the possibility of the recognition of the diplomas by foreign universities”, “the development and better financing of research activities”, “the democratization of the professor-student relationship”.
To conclude, as far as the perception of the reform and its components and effects is concerned, there are a few aspects that emerge at the level of this public university:
1. Most of the respondents (including those on managerial positions) did not know very clearly what were the components of the reform and what was envisaged through it. This may suggest communication and involvement shortages as: a) The absence or the low efficiency of a public dissemination of the strategy of the Ministry regarding the reform within the academic community and/or the poor communication or dissemination of the relevant information regarding the reform within the university and faculties by their management towards the academic staff and b) the low preoccupation/interest manifested by the academic staff, generally for strategies of the government, although they are supposed to be among its beneficiaries. The academic staff became aware of the reform only when it effected them directly.
2. The reform was appreciated by most of the respondents in relationship with close changes to the work place at the level of academic, and not with its overall view. A larger of the reform was presented by the academic management.
3. Many respondents made confusion between the components of the reform and the effects of the reform by either mentioning the same aspects under both categories or replacing them with one another.
4. The evolution and progress of changes in all respects of the academic life differed to a large extent from one faculty to another within the same public university, according on the one hand to the profile of the faculty and on the other hand to the entrepreneurial spirit of the faculty’s management and the organizational culture at the level of faculty.
5. There have been indicated both positive, but also negative effects of the reform, with the positive effects having prevalence over the negative ones according to the respondents from this public university.
More than 80% of the academic staff interviewed placed the beginning of the reform in early 90’s and associated its start with the depolitizitation of the curricula. Very few mentioned as the moment of the beginning of an effective and more substantial reform the years 1995-1996 or 1997, when the reform started to have a planed agenda. Some of them mentioned the moment as “this was the moment when it became more obvious” or “it is the moment when it accelerated”.
This is generally the perception of the entire academic staff regardless its academic position or working experience in higher education. The conclusions to be drawn are:
1) they associated the beginning of the reform with the first changes in HE and the period of the adoption of the first measures that affected them professionally and had a strong impact (rather psychological)
2) the later measures adopted after mid 90s and which were more substantial had not the same psychological impact and consequently these were not considered significant by most of the respondents;
3) there was a low interest and preoccupation for publicity and information dissemination from central authorities or their measures had little effectiveness. The academic staff manifested also little interest in the reform since they did not consider themselves to be able to influence its results.
The most common answer (51%) provided to this question may be synthesized as “to provide well educated and trained economists/specialists”. In other words, the mission of the faculty is to offer a adequate theoretical background for their students so that to help them find good jobs. Other similar answers were: “to create the specialist in such a manner to shorten the period of intergrating to the work place”, or “to enforce/enhance the exigency so that to strengthen the performance”.
Most of the respondents even though offfered an answer were hesitant, showing in fact that they assumed more than they knew what was the clear mission of the university or if such a mission was stated and followed to be implemented by the university.
Each faculty in this public university has published brochures in which the mission of the faculty is presented, therefore the 33% of the respondents who did not know to answer to this question and the hesitance of the others when answering, reflect that:
· there are information an communication shortages within the faculties of this public university;
· there is a lack of preoccupation of the academic staff for this issue which they either seem to consider as not being directly connected with their professional activities or they place it under the responsibility of the faculty top management.
Over 70% of the academic staff does not know which are the long term objectives of their faculty. The share is higher in the case of the inferior academic positions such as assitants lecturers and junior assistant lecturers. The percentages differed from one faculty to another, the highest rate being 91% and 72%. In two faculties not even the heads of departments could not answer what are the long term objectives of the faculty. Others identified the long term objectives as: „the long term objectives are to develop the declared mission of the faculty” or “to find the best methods to reach the goal of our mission”.
The most common answers were referring to: “increased quality of graduates, of the education process” (15%), “better adapting to the market needs” (9%).
Strategy of the faculty
The share of respondents not knowing the strategy pursued by their faculties was over 75%. Generally it seems that some information about the strategy of the faculty is known at the level of the academic staff holding positions of professors, and rarely at those holding positions lower than senior lecturer.
What was identified by the respondents as being the strategy of their faculties was: adapting the curricula to the market needs (15%), the openness of the faculty (5%) by “increasing openness, contacts and exchanges with national and foreign universities” or “continuously adapting our academic curricula to what is up to date in other Romanian and foreign universities and to the market needs”. Also some importance seems to be attached in the strategy of all the faculties to the quality of the human factor, respectively to the quality of the students admitted and to the quality of academic staff employed (21%). In relation to this issue, some professors mentioned the “need to make the young assistants more responsible”, “the need to attract the best prepared persons in the academic staff”, or the need for their strategy “to focus on attracting additional funding that will allow them to bring professors from abroad” (allowing both a higher quality of human resources of the faculty and exchanges of knowledge and information about teaching techniques).
Based on the analysis of the answers provided to the questions about the long term objectives and strategy of the faculty some conclusions may be drawn. The high rate of „I do not know” answers recorded at both questions suggests either inadequate communication, either low preoccupation of the academic staff for the aspects considered beyond their academic tasks. This might also the result of the fact that usually the academic staff, not having decisional or administrative powers, has not being asked/consulted when such strategies and objectives are set up. This may also suggests that the respondents consider that the long term evolution of their faculty should be decided at the level of the faculty management for insuring a wider vision than it could be done at departments’ level. But the paradox exists, since the long term objective of the faculty are barely known, how then the long term objectives of the component departments are integrated into the long term objective and strategy of the faculty? This may be destructive for a faculty and the quality of its activities since it is supposed that professors adjust their activities so that to help the achievement of the faculty goals. This became impossible or difficult since at the level of academic staff, the objectives of the faculty are not known. The general explanation for not knowing these aspects was that „we did not participate to the decision making process”. But this affirmation is exactly the opposite with the conclusion presented in the next sections regarding the utility of the departments reunions that are perceived as an efficient way of disseminating information from the faculty administration and Professors’ Council (bodies that are in charge with setting up these long term goals) towards the academic staff. This situation may also suggest that academic staff is rarely consulted in elaborating the faculty strategies and plans. Another explanation for this situation may be the fact that academic staff does not consider the decisions and actions of the management of their faculty as part of a coherent strategy pursued for the achievement of a certain goal.
The rate of “I do not know” remains high, around 66%-70% at the level of university.
Among those who answered, considered to be as short term objectives of their faculties: adapting the curriculum to the market and students needs (12%), increasing the quality of human factor both students and academic staff (10%), development of competitive master programs.
Adaptation to the market needs also means, in the view of the respondents “ to offer a flexible package of optional and facultative courses”, “permanent and improved communication with students”. The objective of increasing the quality of human factor was expressed as “to all members of academic staff should have good knowledge of the use of information technology”, “to complete our staff by employing valuable persons…and to promote their mobility between related disciplines so that to avoid their dependence on a single course”. Other interesting objectives connected to the human factor referred the “expansion of using students as technicians during their academic studies so that to attract them after graduation toward academic life”.
Comparing the answers provided at the three questions about long-term objectives, the strategy of the faculty and the short term priorities of the faculty, it is interesting to observe that the degree of information among the members of the academic staff is low. Therefore, neither in the case of long term objectives and strategy, nor for the short term objectives and operational plans, the respondents were not able to express their opinion upon the effectiveness of the strategies and operational plans developed by their faculties. At the same time the heads of the departments admitted that there are no written operational plans. It also seems to be a common feature that academic staff is encountering difficulties in differentiating the objectives from strategy or the long-term objectives from short term priorities. This may be also a valuable argument in supporting the hypothesis of the study of poor information and low preoccupation of academic staff for organizational aspects of academic life.
In all faculties the last educational program introduced during the last five years was a master program. However, there were between 20-33% of the respondents (depending on the faculty) who did not know what was the last program introduced. Generally, the awareness of the respondents was limited and influenced by the concrete way in which they get in touch with the respective program. The rest of the respondents indicated correctly the last educational program introduced at least as type of program even though not all details were known. Generally academic staff from the responsible departments provided the details about the administration of the program. This situation is most obvious in case of inferior academic degrees. There was one faculty where the situation was completely different, as its academic staff was much more informed about its newest educational program than in the other faculties. Their more indepth and accurate information was explained through the fact that the academic staff regardless their academic position was widely involved in the logistic of the programs and the details related were more openly discussed within the department. The strategy for administrating the postgraduate programs in this faculty relies on delegating the responsibility of each master or specialization to lower organizational level, respectively to each department of the faculty.
The decision of introducing a new educational program should normally be adopted by professors’ Councils of each faculty based on the proposals of faculty management and should be subject to validation in the Senate of the university. Most of the respondents indicated the faculty management as a decisional body entitled to adopt this decision when in fact this body is the one making the proposal for the introduction of a new educational program. This may suggest that either the Professors’ Council is controlled and highly influenced in its decisions by the faculty management or it is perceived as such, either there is little transparency in the process. Only in one faculty respondents described that the process takes place as it was suppose to. This is mainly the result of the policy of involving the academic staff in administrative and organizational life of the faculty. This may be also the result of the fact that each specialization provided for undergraduates as well as the master programs are generally administrated (curricula, organizational aspects) by one of the departments from the faculty, which means more transparency and involvement of the academic staff due to a higher degree of decentralization than in the case of the other faculties.
Generally, over 66% of the interviewed persons considered that the introduction of this program was the result of the market demands, not an administrative decision as it actually was.
According to the answers of the respondents, the course curriculum is the result of discussions and debates between the so called “collectives” (namely academic staff teaching the same disciplines or group of discipline) since this methodology was indicated by over 80% of the respondents. Few respondents (below 20%) stated that a course curriculum is the result of the vision of a single person, respectively the course coordinator in the case of most faculties, while in case of one faculty there were more than 30% of the staff who declared that the course curriculum is sett up by the course coordinator (this idea was supported mainly by academic staff with inferior academic positions).
The main criteria based upon the course curriculum is set up, according to the respondents were the following:
1) market demands (seen as labor market or students) – over 60% of the respondents.
2) course curriculum in foreign universities as reflected in the following statement:
“we enforced the collaboration with universities and specialized institutes from abroad so that the course objectives and criteria that we are setting to be based upon an international openness” or “the course content is based on European standards” and
3) evaluation made by academic staff about what they consider necessary to be known by students (according to the desired level of knowledge of students).
The most synthetic way of describing the setting up a course curriculum was the following “we analyze an equivalent course curriculum from foreign universities and our existing resources (in terms of academics, technical endowments and course materials)”.
When IT subjects were involved in the content of the courses, a continuos up date of the course content to the latest development in the area of informatics took place
“we are changing annually around 20% of the content of our courses so that these are completely new once at every 4-5 years”. Academics from this faculty get informed about the latest developments in their teaching field by the contacts they have with business environment and by Internet. The contacts with the business environment are used also for adapting the courses to the existing market needs. These contacts, are rather the results of personal and informal contacts of the heads of the departments and faculty management than collected through an official/formal process.
Respondents appreciated that the process of setting up the curricula is relatively decentralized and flexible as compared to 5 years ago. The frequency in operating changes and up dates is seen as being higher than before “as compared to the same process 5 years ago…at present the process is more decentralized, transparent…it is more controllable…everything may be monitored…I was used with a more rigid course curricula”.
However the course curricula is seen as a necessery first step in assuring a good teaching process, but not as being sufficient “but a course curriculum does not provide much relevant information about the quality of the taught course”.
The course coordinators and academic staff with positions higher than senior lecturer declared that they are widely involving the academic staff with lower academic position in drafting the course curriculum and in editing background papers for the course. This opinion is not fully shared by the interviewed academic staff with inferior positions who consider that they are not involved at all in setting up course curriculum or that their suggestions are not treated seriously or are only listened but not implemented. This means that the involvement of younger staff in elaborating curriculum is mostly declarative, not properly functioning in practice. Both course coordinator and inferior academic staff may be responsible for this unequal collaboration.
Here are some desciptions of the process from academics on lower academic positions:
“I do not dare to make any suggestions…I do not have enough experience so that to be able to make appropriate suggestions or to say something different than the professor”.
The idea of “little freedom” was defined as “I have the right to conduct the seminars as I consider best but I cannot do other themes than those indicated by the professors/course coordinator”, “my suggestions for improving the core themes debated in the seminars or to renew the course curriculum are not taken into consideration”.
Adapting the course to the market needs
About 75%-80% of the interviewees identified the market needs as being identical with students’ demands regarding the utility of the content of the courses they take. Therefore, these respondents stated the relative high importance they attach to such discussions during seminars and courses.
Also some 20% of the respondents, mainly professors or senior lecturers, considered useful to remain in touch with their graduates and with employers as relevant providers of information about market demands. Such process exists at the moment in this public university, according to most respondents (70%) but is rather an informal and interpersonal relationship based, rather than a formal process managed by faculties.
Some of the young academic staff considered also as being useful their permanent collection of information about the newest soft and the latest achievements in their field.
Traditionally the introduction and the adaptation of courses would take place according to the work force available within the university. In one faculty respondents emphasized that the process changed and showed that the course curriculum and the curriculum of new educational programs are set up according to the market needs and there is no longer the case that courses are tailored for the professor “our courses and curricula are set up as the market demand, we do not have courses tailored for a certain member of our academic staff”.
Admission procedures
Only two respondents did not know what were the admission procedures in their faculty. All other respondents from all faculties regardless their academic degree, were aware of the admission criteria and types of exams.
Generally the admission criteria used at the admission exams in 2001 for all faculties within the university were:
1. written examination of a multiple choices test 70% of the final grade
2. the result at the baccalaureate exams – 20% ,
3. the avergae grade during high school years- 10%;
The last two criteria have been introduced during last 3 years since autonomy was granted.
The main changes occurred in the admission procedures identified by the interviewed staff, as compared to the existing situation prior to 1997 were:
1. the simplification of the exam
2. the increased objectivity due to the introduction of a written multiple choices examination
3. the sense of lowering exigency.
The opinions about the changes occurred differed: around 30% of the respondents considered the changes as inducing positive effects (in the sense of simplification of procedures, transparency, exigency level), while around 40% considered these changes as having a negative effect (mostly due to the lowering of the admission standards and to the irrelevant and incomplete evaluation of applicants in the new type of examination).
The following statements reflect the opinions of some respondents:
“the criterion of taking into consideration the grades obtained during high school and at baccalaureate examination should be eliminated…since there is no real ranking of the high schools…it is possible for an applicant to have very good grades, but this is not relevant since she/he may have graduated a high school where the level of exigency is very low…and this applicant will be more favored as compared to an applicant who has graduated a top high school where the level of exigency is very high”,
or
“I consider the multiple choices test as an adequate type for admission examination since it induces simplification and more objectivity in evaluating the results”
or
“I do not agree with the multiple choice type of test used in the admission examinations since it does not offer the possibility to fully evaluate relevant knowledge of each applicant”.
Some respondents offered suggestions for the improvement of the admission procedures:
1) the completion of the current actual examinations procedures with individual interviews with applicants or with new disciplines: “ I do not understand why knowledge in informatics of the applicants is not tested at this specialized faculty …therefore (due to the absence of this test) during first year of study I am forced to teach them knowledge that more than 50% of the students already have”,
or
“my personal suggestions is to introduce also an interview with applicants as it is the practice at foreign universities”;
2) the possibility of eliminating the selection process prior to the admission in the faculty as a students and its transfer to the period of academic studies that “the admission examinations should no more be used… all applicants should be admitted and then they should be selected through usual examinations carried out during the faculty…but this seems rather impossible at the moment due to the limited existing technical endowments of the university and the large number of applicants (such as class-rooms and so on)”,
or
“probably the admission exams will be eliminated in the future…as it is the case of most developed countries…but such an option is viable when the grades at baccalaureate will become relevant and the evaluation standards in high schools will be higher than they are at present”.
Graduation exams
The organization of the graduation procedures has a more decentralized character than the admission procedures, the university’s decisional bodies being involved mostly in drafting the general principle for these examinations, while de responsibility for organizing the process lies at the level of faculties’ management. Also in this public university, regardless the faculty, the graduation exams consist in written examination of the multiple choices type from various courses undertaken by students during their academic studies (and to which they have passed regular examinations for each course during their study period) and the public presentation of the graduation paper to a commission of professors.
In case of most faculties, the actual responsibility for carrying out the graduation exam is delegated to the core departments, while the other departments part of the faculty are not involved in the process. Consequently due to this manner of organizing graduation examinations, to the decentralized character of this process, the share of the respondents not having accurate information about this activity is high (around 35%).
Very few interviewees (12%) agreed with the manner in which graduation exams are taking place at the moment in this university. Over 75% of interviewees considered useless the theoretical written exam since:
“ it covers domains where knowledge of the students were previously evaluated during their academic years”
and consequently ”the same knowledge is tested twice”,
or
“the written exams is not relevant”,
or
“it tests the reproductive capacity of the graduates”,
or
“it raises problems since there were cases in which students of whose marks at the regular exams (at courses included in the bibliography for the graduation exams) were below 6 or 7, but they managed to get 9 or 10 at the graduation exam”
and
“it should not be part of the graduation process”.
Consequently almost all these respondents proposed the elimination of the theoretical exam and that the graduation exams should consist only of the presentation of individual dissertation. Also over 50% of the interviewees added that if the defence of the dissertation is to be the only form of licencing exam, an increase in the exigency of the evaluation of the graduation paper is needed and the standards of elaborating it should be raised. The practical part of the dissertation should be more developed and have a more eliminatory character in order to avoid the frauds. More responsibility of the professor in evaluating the papers is needed, as one professor mentioned:
“we discovered that one student presented an identical dissertation as one previously presented, few days before by another student…interesting to notice is that the coordinator for both dissertations was the same professor”,
The licencing exams were introduced at the beginning of 1990’s for both state and private universities, as one way to ensure similarity of knowledge of graduates from both state and private universities, as private universities were suspected to graduate students who do not have a comparable level of knowledge as the students from state universities. The licencing exams are organized for state universities’ students and for private universities’ students that are not accredited, at public universities. Therefore, one faculty in this public university tried to ensure a higher objectivity of the process as explained by one professor:
“there were some problems at our faculty, regarding the graduation exams since graduates from private universities came to us to pass these exams…consequently we introduced some restrictions…in the graduation commissions, professors from our departments/faculty who teach at private universities were not allowed…we also decided to proceed to a more exigent, in depth and comprehensive examination of graduates from the private universities… we have a reputation to protect….we are not willing to give a diploma/qualification with our university name on it to everybody….when we had them (graduates from private universities) they were quite perturbing and stressing elements”.
Generally the decisions regarding the graduation exams are taken at the level of the university’s Senate (core rules and principles for ensuring the coordination of the process the uniformity of evaluations) and faculties’ management (the organization of examinations and of the process).
Human resource policy
More than 90% of the respondents from all departments, including heads of the departments and regardless the academic position mentioned that the selection process of the academic staff is based upon the rules and criteria set up by the Ministry of Education and Research for each academic position and indicated that these criteria refer to individual performances of the staff in their teaching and research activities. The selection process is seen as being a competitive one, based on exams.
All respondents answered that the most common way of spreading information about vacancies is the publication “Monitorul Oficial” and also, to a much lesser extent the notices put up by the specialized department of the university. Older professors, employed prior to 1990 mentioned that they were selected automatically according to their performances during the university studies. None of the respondents did not mention that the university has its own criteria of selecting staff different form those of the Ministry.
Respondents from few faculties (30%) mentioned that usually professors select their future assistants from their best students and inform them about the existing vacancies.
Promotions are also based on the competencies, meaning the teaching and research performances of academic staff according also with criteria set up by Ministry, the process of promotion being similar with the one of selection.
None of the respondents, heads of the departments included, knew which is the methodology based on which they wages are set up. Most of them answered “I do not know” or “ I wish I knew”. Generally heads of the deaprtments and very few members of the academic staff mentioned or assumed that their wages are centrally determined by the Ministry. This is only partially true since according to the principle of institutional autonomy, the Ministry of Education and Research provides a basic wage according to the wages set up for state employees considered to be on similar positions, but universities may supplement these “guaranteed wages” from their own revenues according to their own performance criteria. None of the respondents in this university mentioned this aspect. All of the respondents shared the opinion according to which it should exists some differentiation of the wages among staff according with their performances and competences, but none indicated a specific manner of doing it.
All respondents answered that they are barely motivated by the faculty or the university. This answer is based on the fact that the academic staff considered the financial instruments used in the motivation policy of the university as being completely inadequate, as one statement is very suggestive:
“… the level of the wages are a shame for this occupation. We are in the disgrace of the society with this wages”.
All the respondents from the academic staff considered that they are motivated either by the possibility to participate to international academic exchange programs or by the fact that they see themselves as contributing to the professional training of the future economists (opinion shared by the largest part of the staff at all levels). None of the respondents from the academic staff considered that their faculty set up and employs a coherent policy for attracting young persons within their academic staff and there is no preoccupation for this.
All heads of departments included as instruments of motivation: financial bonuses that are granted rather on a “rotation principle” than on academic performances, so that to cover all staff within a determined period and international academic exchange programs in which the faculty is involved (in these cases young staff is preferred as stated by the head of the departments). All respondents answered that their option for working in higher education was based on their passion for teaching mainly and not for material benefits.
Documentation
In preparing their courses and seminars, various answers were provided by the respondents, differences being due to the specific character of each department and to the academic position of the respondents. For instance, most professors and senior lecturers (about 80%) use the courses written by themselves as theoretical background for their lectures (as having a written textbook is a condition for promotion to senior lecturer and professor levels), while academics on inferior positions use mostly foreign materials for preparing their seminars (either under the form of foreign books or information available on the internet which helps them to update their knowledge ). Consequently, Romanian materials used were generally published in 2001 or 2002, while the foreign books are a little older, the year of their issue being around 1998-1999. Generally written materials (about 90% of the answers) were accessed by the academic staff in their own personal library or procured in other libraries than those of the university, while information collected from the internet were accessed and were available due to the free access to internet provided by the university.
Technical endowment
All respondents considered that the technical endowment of their faculty improved considerably during the last 3 years, but they still assessed that their access to various facilities is till limited (mostly that regarding printing, writing tools and paper) and this opinion was mostly shared by the inferior academic position regardless the department they were part of. Modern tools for teaching such as videoprojectors and slideprojectors are still low exploited in the teaching activities by the staff, not being used on a regular basis in the teaching activities. There is only one videoprojector per faculty and only half of the course halls are eqquiped with slideprojectors, while for seminars are available a limited number of slideprojectors at each entrance in the university’s buildings and they can be taken by professors based on their university card. In other words the improvement of the technical base of the university (both in terms of existing facilities and access) it is seen as compared to the past but it is still not at the necessary level on the one hand and on the other hand this improvement is not yet fully reflected in the quality of teaching since these facilities are not used regularly by all academics.
Evaluating students
Generally, at all faculties in this university, the evaluation of the students consists of two parts: the grade obtained at seminars where practical activities are carried out and the grade obtained at the final examinations based on guidelines allaborated at the level of university. All respondents, with no exception indicated this method of evaluating students, regardless their academic position and faculty. What differs from one faculty to another, as well as according to each course is the weight of the grade obtained for the seminars that varies between 20% to 60%. This already reflects a change as compared to the period previous to 1989 when the evaluation was based solely on the results at the final examination. The evaluation of the activity of the students at the seminars varies from one faculty to another and from one course to another, comprising the evaluation of activities such as case studies, projects, essays and different types of home-works. The shift towards a long term evaluation, during the academic year and during the exams session is a sign of more participative methods of education by involving students all year long and by trying to teach them to make constant effort.
Cooperation among faculties and departments
Most respondents considered that the collaboration among faculties is low. The respondents, holding inferior academic position, did not even know if this cooperation exists and in what it consists. As examples of forms of cooperation among the faculties were mentioned: setting together educational plans, the adaptation of the courses to the need of the faculty the organization and functioning of master programs which requires professors from more than one faculty.
Very few respondents (3%), heads of some departments complained about the difficulties they are confronted with in collaborating with the management of other faculties or departments considering that the collaboration depends mostly on personal relationships and these affect the introduction of their disciplines to the curriculum of other faculties.
One conclusion that may be draw is that the cooperation among the departments within the same faculty is greater and the collaboration between faculties differs according to the faculties involved and relationship between management of faculties and departments. Very few courses of a faculty are taught by professors from another faculty within this public university, the largest part of the courses are taught by professors from that faculty. The formal cooperation among faculties and departments refers exclusively to teaching activities, the cooperation between faculties in the field of research (if any) being based on personal relationships.
Financing the activities of a faculty and the use of funds
All respondents regardless their academic position indicated as main source of financing the educational activities of their faculties, the state budget.
The non-budgetary sources, indicated by respondents were:
1. Donations and sponsorships that faculty attracted a as a result of its cooperation with various components of the business environment.
2. Fees collected from fee paying students, postgraduate programs, distance learning programs and taxes collected for repeating exams.
3. Only respondents from one faculty indicated also as a major non-budgetary source of financing the research projects that the faculty is currently involved in, but they did not make any distinction among the budgetary funds transferred for research activities through complementary financing from state and non state financing of research activities. The fact that very few respondents outside this faculty indicated the funds attracted through research projects as a major source of financing is explained by the fact that this faculty coordinates the highest number of research projects within the university and consequently the volume and the impact of funds attracted in this manner are larger and more visible than in case of the other faculties. In the same faculty, respondents indicated that they participate in research projects outside the university.
All of the respondents agreed upon two things: the funds provided through state budget are insufficient to the educational needs and the non-budgetary funds and sources should be expanded, but they could not indicate a specific way of doing it (except for very few respondents who proposed the enforcement of relations with the business environment through research projects or sponsorship). None of the respondents were familiar with the criteria used in allocating funds among various purposes and types of activities carried out in their faculty and placed the responsibility of adopting such decisions at the university management level, only few respondents placing also some responsibility at the level of the faculty management.
All respondents stated that there is a budget at the level of university, without offering details about it and at the same time no respondent could specify if there is a budget at the level of faculty or not. In fact there was no decentralization of budgets at the level of faculty in this public university.
The conclusions regarding the financial activity in this university are that: the financial decisions are highly centralized at the level of university’s management; the academic staff perceive these decisions as being centralized and therefore they pay little attention to these decisions which are no longer relevant for their activities and focuse exclusively on their teaching tasks. This situation might also be the result of the fact that they are not asked by the faculty or university management to participate to take the financial decisions.
Estimating the cost of the education of a student
None of he respondents was able to estimate the cost of the education of one student of their faculty during the current academic year. Few of them (9%) considered expensive the education of a student of their faculty but they did not know to indicate an approximate value. There was just one answer estimating this cost, from a senior lecturer who based his estimation on a study he conducted few years ago approximating the annual cost of educating a student in this university around 700 USD per year.
Decisions subject to the approval of the ministry, of the university and of the faculty level; the decentralization of decisions
Among the decisions that are subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education the only one mentioned by most of the respondents (70%) was the approval of promotion on superior academic positions (senior lecturer and professor). A few respondents (20%) included in this category the approval of new academic programs. Other relevant aspects such as approval of financing, enrolments, academic evaluation and accreditation were not mentioned by the respondents, reflecting a low involvement in these activities.
The decisions taken at the university level mentioned by the respondents were: the confirmation of the academic titles such as lecturer, teaching assistant and junior teaching assistant which are subject to the confirmation of the university’s Senate.
None of the respondents indicated the types of decisions decentralized at the faculty level, in this way not pointing out the effects induced by the decentralization process. However, academics on managerial positions mentioned that some decentralization occurred during the last five years, without concretly indicating what are the areas where decentralization occurred and its impact.
This evidence suggests the fact that at the level of the academic staff and low management level (heads of departments) there is no coherent knowledge about what institutional autonomy is and what should be the effects of the process of decentralization promoted through the reform of higher education by the authorities (MER). The academic staff was unable to make any connection between the improvement or deterioration of their working conditions, the quality of teaching, the technical endowment and the institutional autonomy the university enjoys due to the higher education reform. This may also suggests that academic staff did not know its rights and how to use them and to what extent the autonomy they are entitled to, since they do not know which are the decisions decentralized to the faculty and individual level. Another conclusion that may be drawn is that initiatives at the low management level (heads of departments) is very low since most respondents from this category did not know much about decentralized decisions. Therefore, it is hard to believe that they would act on their own initiative instead of waiting specific decisions to come from upper management level; this will lead to the perpetuation of old mentalities and will nourish the trend of centralization of decision.
Communication and information channels within the university
The general view was that the informal and interpersonal relationships prevails as comparing to formal channels.
The formal communication channels between faculty and its departments mentioned were: secretaries of departments, heads of departments and departments’ meetings, displays within the departments, and ocassionally the intranet (within only one faculty).
A common feature mentioned by all respondents from all faculties, regardless their academic position was that the formal reunion of the department is an adequate way of discussing academic (teaching or research) matters rather than discussing or solving administrative issues. Also the departments’ meetings are seen by most respondents, who are not part of decisional bodies as the only frame in which they may express their opinions and to participate to the decisional process.
Generally academic staff from all faculties considered the teaching staff as being the main interface between departments and students. In other words, the teacher is also seen as a disseminator of information issued by the departments to the students through the seminar or courses.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the state
The largest part of the respondents (80%) had no clear idea about the issue of responsibility of the university towards the state, but they assumed that the responsibility of the faculty towards the state manifested under the form of the quality of the tertiary education that the faculty provides to the students and consequently further influences the quality of the workforce in the labour market.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the students
The largest majority of the respondents (80%) considered that the responsibility of the faculty towards students manifest in the same way as the responsibility of the faculty towards state, respectively by providing high quality education. The majority of the respondents see this issues from only this perspective.
The respondents did not presented a coherent view of the students’ expectations from the higher education. Generally the heads of the departments and some representatives of the staff (holding various academic positions) presented quite an official point of view about what they think the students expectations’ are, respectively that students expect to receive a high quality education. Most respondents from all faculties (60%) mentioned a trend towards lowering students’ standards regarding the quality of education, mentioning that generally students expect less exigency at exams. It is considered that the main purpose of the students is rather to obtain a higher education diploma that confers them a better social status and a better position on the labor market than to obtain specific knowledge.
Most respondents sharing this view agreed that this was the consequence of two elements:
1. lowering the quality of the students due to the lowering of admissions standards (generally this view was shared by staff with superior academic position) which also lowers the value of the diplomas provided and
2. the lower preoccupation of the students for the quality of their education since many of them already have jobs which consumes their largest part of the time in disfavor of their academic concerns (generally this view is shared by academic staff holding inferior positions).
The respondents, except for the heads of departments, were not certain if at the faculty level there is a formal process through which the quality of their teaching activities is evaluated. Consequently the respondents either did not know anything about the process (very few cases covering all academic positions) or heard about this process, but they had very few information about the results and the way in which the results of this process is taken into account when adopting decisions or how this influences their activity and careers.
The evaluation of the teaching process generally lacks transparency and it is seen rather as a formal process with no relevant consequences in the decisional process. Only few heads of departments declared that this process is usefull and its results are used either under the form of discussing in the departments’ meetings or in a more informal environment (generally face to face talking) about the most negative aspects revealed in order to correct them.
However, not even the heads of the departments did not make any clear reference whether the results of this evaluation are taken into account when promotions are made or proposals for promotions are done, as it is stated by the law. This process of formal evaluation is managed in this university by the students union, aspect that seemed to be known exclusively by the heads of the departments, while the other respondents either did not know whom is conducting this process or assumed that the coordination is insured by the faculty management since this is the body that they consider that uses the results of the survey.
Also the largest part of the respondents (75%) indicated that they are conducting their own process of evaluation of the quality of their teaching and the results they obtain are relevant for adjusting their future needs according to students’ requirements.
All respondents considered that there is no formal process of gathering and up dating information about the faculty graduates and this process is rather an informal one (on a very reduced scale) and is based on the interpersonal relationships between academic staff and the graduates. Only in one faculty there are plans for the future creation of an electronic data base with the faculty graduates which would allow to the faculty to follow up the careers of its graduates.
Concerning the way in which the requirements of the employers are identified and taken into account, the survey revealed three major answers:
1. Generally the academic staff affirmed that such a process does not exist and that the demands of employers are not known by the academic staff (30%).
2. The process takes place through individual interpersonal relationships of the staff with the employers, so it depends on each individual.
3. There are some formal relations established between the employers and faculty through the postgraduate programs (master programs) and research projects.
This aspect raises a question over previous allegations of the way the individual teachers adapt their course to the labor market needs, since they affirmed that the demands of the employers are hardly known.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the employees
The respondents were not aware about what exactly means and under which forms the responsibility of the faculty towards its employees manifests, but they were able to answer to more specific additional questions on this topic. All respondents regardless the faculty or academic position mentioned its satisfaction about the working conditions and even mentioned an obvious improvement during the last three years, although most of them connected directly this improvement of working conditions with the personal efforts of the rector rather than connecting it with any component of the reform of higher education.
Very few academics were aware of the fact that they have the possibility of procuring teaching materials or books through the special funds created by the university about whose existence and possibility of being accessed by the academic staff was mentioned by the heads of the departments. To conclude, the academic staff did not know precisely what were their rights.
Self evaluation of the faculty
A large part of the respondents regardless their academic position or faculty, did not know if such a process exists (50%) or clearly stated that such a process does not exists (30%). The remaining ones (20%), covering all academic degrees and faculties and including almost all heads of departments, stated that a process of self evaluation of the faculty performances exists as part of the process of academic evaluation and that is done according to the criteria provided by the ministry. These respondents actually indirectly admitted that the standards for performance appraisal of the faculty are external standards and not internal standards and indicated that the process that they were calling ‘self evaluation’ was in fact just an administrative task of the decanates in applying external standards, and not an actual self evaluation carried out in accordance with specific standards of each faculty or university’s internal standards.
Corruption in higher education
The main form of corruption mentioned by there respondents was influence traficking at all levels.
Job satisfaction
The academic staff was not satisfied with the financial terms of their job. Other sources of insatisfaction were: the lowering quality of the students and diminished duration of the courses or seminars which negatively affect the quality of teaching activities.
Generally job satisfaction for most respondents consisted of: the passion and dedication for this profession, working in a competitive and dynamic environment and the respect of the students.
C. Comparison between the state and the private universities
From the study conducted in the two universities, the private and the public one, a number of similarities and differences emerged in relationship to the way they conduct their academic activity and the way they perceive and implement the higher education reform.
First of all the two universities differed as proprietary form (state/private), but also as size (number of academic staff and number of students) with the state university twice the size the private university (in terms of students) and five times larger in terms of academic staff.
Looking at similarities, there were identified a number of aspects common to the two universities:
1. In both universities the components of the reform, its objectives and directions are not known at the level of ordinary academic, with some more knowledge at the level of management. This reflects a deficitary communication from the MER towards universities and within the universities themselves.
2. In neither university academic staff including most of the academics on managerial positions too, could not precisely define the mission, the objectives and the strategy of their faculties and university, even when they did existed in a written form in some documents. In both universities ordinary academics mentioned that they have not been consulted by the top management when setting objectives and strategies for their faculty/university, proving centralization tendencies on the one hand, and communication weaknesses on the other hand. In these conditions whatever plans the top management of universities have, they are difficult to be sucessfully implemented when the ones who are supposed to implement them, do not know them.
3. In both universities, the setting up of the curriculum for a course is officially (declared) done by the collectives of academics teaching that discipline, while in practice younger academic staff on lower academic positions complained that their opinions are not taken at all or not enough into consideration, leaving the course coordinator and older professors with the largest role in setting the course curriculum. This traditional way of setting the curricula was kept in state universities over many years and was also transmitted to private higher education, perpetuating the monopolization of decisions on the one hand and the differences between generations on the other hand.
4. In both universities there have been introduced systems for the evaluation of the teaching activities in the last 3-4 years. The systems have been conceived at the level of top management in both universities but their implementation differed. While in the private university the process is more organized, more transparent and takes place in an unitary way, in the state university, the management offered some guidlines to be adapted at the level of faculty that resulted in a disorganized process, non-transparent and inefficace in most faculties of the public university. This can be considered a result of the refom, as it is requiered in the accreditation standards.
5. In both universities the senates developed guidelines for the evaluation of students in the last 3-4 years, placing a larger extent on the during the year evaluation than before. This is another result of the reform.
6. In both universities there were academics who proposed the elimination of the licencing exam concomitently with an increase in the exigency for the final dissertation. The simplication of the licencing process is seen as a solution, now that private universities started to be accredited and can organize their own licencing exams.
7. Both universities have known some improvement in the technical endowment, but in both ordinary academics still have difficulties in getting access to printers, computers, paper, slides and writing tools. This shows that there are still academics who still have „to invest” from their personal income if they want o conduct the class in honorable conditions, as neither the state or the private university do not ensure good material conditions (multiplication of case studies, printing slides, etc) for all the programs and all the professors.
8. The research activity was developed inequally at the level of different faculties in the state and the private university, with one faculty taking the lead in both universities. This reflects that the activity is very much persons related and it depends to a large extent on the initiative and the connections of different members of the collectives and departments.
9. In term of cooperation between faculties, both universities have defficiencies, as the only form of cooperation is related to the coordination of teaching activities, when different professors teach in more faculties.
10. The financial process in both universities lacks transparency, with the top management in charge of the planning and the execution of the budget, with no decentralization of the budget at the level of faculties. Centralization of the financial activities is a common feature for the public and the private university.
11. In both universities there were respondents who considered that the communication and the information processes as being the greatest weaknesses of their university, as it was not the case of any other aspect of the universities’ activity.
12. Neither university organized a coherent system to monitor the evolution of their graduates in the labour market or have formal and continous connections with the business community, in spite of the fact that both of them declared that they adapt to the market requirements on a continous basis.
13. The relations with the business community and the labour market in both universities has no formal organization and is based mainly on the personal relationships of individual academics.
14. In both universities the main motivation for choosing this profession was the psihological incentive, while the financial aspect is considered to be the compromise required in this profession in Romania.
Looking at the differences, there have been identified a number of aspects that varied in the two univesities:
1. The effects of the reform were perceived completely different for the two universities: while for the private university, the accreditation was the main effect, for the public university there were more effects perceived simultaneously with prevalence on the changes in the academic curricula, the increased number of students and the improvement of the material base.
2. In terms of objectives of the university/faculties there were differences between the public and the private univesrity: while the public university defined for itself more general objectives such as increasing the quality of the graduates and of the educational act, the private university has more concrete objectives, such as the finalyzing of the new building, the consolidation of the university’s position in the private higher education sector.
3. Even though in both universities the financial decisions were highly centralized at the level of top management, in the private university the degree of centralization was higher as all decisions were in the hand of only one person, the rector, while in the public university was the universtity level management team (rector and vice-rectors) who would take the financial decisions.
4. In the private university the degree of centralization of the decision making over academic issues (such as the course curriculum) is higher than in the state university. In the private university even at the level of operational issues there is the need of the rectors’s approval, while in the public university these are delegated at the level of decanates.
5. The admission criteria differ from one university to another, with more criteria taken into consideration in the public university (70% exam, 20% baccalaureate, 10% grades during high school years) than in the private university (50% exam and 50% baccalaureate) and with higher emphasize on the admission exam in the public university.
6. In terms of technical endowment there are still large differences between the two universities: while the public university had as starting point the inherited material base whom it is trying to improve, the private university started from zero and had to create its own basic facilities (such as buildings, class-rooms, etc). Consequently in the public university the modern technical facilities for preparing and teaching, were more developed (free acess to internet, half of the class rooms eqquiped with overhead projectors, a few videoprojectors at the level of university) than in the private university (no access to internet for academics and students, only one overhead projector and videoprojector at the level of university).
7. The process of evaluating the teaching activities is more organized and more transparent in the private university than in the public university. It has an unitary charater at the level of the private university, while in the public university is decentralized at the level of faculties, lacking coherence. In the private university the process is coordinated by the management, while in the public university the process was coordinated by the Students’ Union. However, in the public university most of the professors organize their own evaluation processes for getting feed back from students, that is not the case in the private university.
8. While in the public university there is the perception that the admission standards are lowering, in the private university there is the perception that admission standards are strengthening.
Table no. 3.4. presents the main similarities and differences in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the public and the private university.
Table no. 3.4. Strengths and weaknesses of the public and the private universities
|
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
||
|
Similarities |
* the recent introduction of the evaluation of courses * the introduction of the unitary systems of students’ evaluation * the main motivation of the academic employees are psychological, based on the pleasure to work with students |
* the reform directions were not known * no clear objectives and strategies at the level of university * no team decisions when setting up the course curricula * research inequally developed at the level of faculties * low cooperation between faculties * no monitoring of graduates evolution in the labour market. |
||
|
|
State |
Private |
State |
Private |
|
Differences |
* the implementation of some objectives of the reform * the improvement of the course curricula * the higher exigency of admission standards * better material base * individual feed back from students |
* more concrete short term objectives * an organized and well developed system of course evaluation |
* admission standards are lowering * the level of students’ is lowering |
* very centralized financial and academic decision making |
The two universities studied the public and the private one have similar strengths and weaknesses, neither of them being very proactive in implementing the reform in higher education. The components and the perceived affects of the reform are interpreted differently by the two universities, each of them taking into consideration those aspects closely related to their situation and activity. While for the private university the reform meant the development of the private higher education sector, the accreditation of private universities, for the public university the reform meant more autonomy in taking academic decisions.
The two universities presented common weaknesses, such as no clear knowledge of the academics about the university’s objectives and strategy, defficitary communication within the university, low cooperation between faculties, no monitoring of graduates’ evolution in the labour market.
At the same time each of them had distinctive strengths, as compared to the other. The private university has formulated more concrete objectives, whose implementation is permanently monitored. Also in the private univesity the evaluation of the teaching activities is an organized and transparent process, its results being used further for the improvement of the academic activity. The public university implemented more of the directions envisaged through the higher education reform, it still has a more exigent selection system of the candidates and its academics pursue their own evaluation of courses, looking permanently for feed back and self-improvement.
Even tough the reform menat different things and was implemented differently in the two univesities, the academic activities do not differ to a very large extent in the private university as compared to the public university, reflecting a perpetuation of traditional ways of teaching and learning in the Romanian higher education.
INTERVIEW GUIDE
A. The reform
1. Did a reform take place in the Romanian higher education sector in the past years? If so, please indicate the year it began and elaborate on its main directions.
2. What was, in your opinion, the main effect of the reform on your faculty/university?
B. Academic autonomy
1.What is the mission of your faculty/university?
2. What are the long-term and short-term objectives of your faculty? Please give details about the way they were established.
3. Does your university/faculty have a strategy? If so, please describe it.
4. Which are the main measures taken in order to implement the strategy and which are the problems encountered in this process?
5. What is the last educational program that your faculty took on in the last 5 years? Please give details about the decision-making of this program. Have you noticed any difference, in the past 5 years, in the way these kinds of programs are endorsed?
6. How is the analytical program concluded? Do you consider that there have been changes, in the past 5 years, in the way these programs were concluded?
7. Please elaborate on decision-making regarding admittance/entry at your faculty. Did the process change in the last years and how? Do you have suggestions for a better-organised process of admittance?
8. What is the faculty's strategy for attracting high-quality students?
9. Please elaborate on decision-making regarding the diploma exam/licensing exam at your faculty. Did the process change in the last years and how? Do you have suggestions for a better-organised process?
10. Personnel policy:
- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of hiring academic personnel. Did the process change in the last years and how?
- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of promoting the academic personnel. Did the process change in the last years and how?
- How are the wages established?
- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of licensing academic personnel?
- How is the faculty motivating its employees at work?
- What is the faculty policy of bringing in and maintaining young teachers?
11. What teaching methods do you use?
12. Which is the newest book or magazine you used to prepare your classes and how did you acquire it?
13. What facilities is the faculty/university is offering for the academic and research activities? Have you noticed changes regarding these facilities after the reform was launched?
14. Please give details about the methods you use to evaluate your students.
15. Please give details about the collaboration between faculties and/or departments.
16. Please give details about your faculty's research activity in the past 2 years and indicate in how many research programs were you implicated in.
17. Is your faculty participating in international and inter-university research/cooperation programs? In how many of them were you involved?
C. Financial autonomy
1. Please indicate the sources of financing of your faculty/university: state sources and extra-budgetary sources. What are your proposal for attracting more extra-budgetary sources at your faculty/university?
2. How are the faculty funds allocated? Do you participate in taking this kind of decision?
3. Does the university and the faculty have a budget?
4. Please estimate the annual average cost of educating a student in your faculty.
D. Decision-making mechanisms
1. Which are the main 3 decisions of the university that require approval of the Ministry of Education and Research? What was the situation before 1995?
2. What decisions do exclusively the university managers take? What decisions do exclusively the faculty managers take? What decisions do exclusively teachers and professors take? What was the situation before 1995?
3. How is the information passed on in your faculty? Please specify the efficiency of the methods used to inform the personnel.
4. Which are the main new types of decentralized decisions that can be taken by your faculty leaders as a result of the academic and financial autonomy?
5. Have there been any changes in your faculty as a result of these decisions?
6. Have you participated, in the past 2 years in a training program for university managers?
7. Do you have the possibility to make suggestions for the development of your faculty? And if so, was it taken in consideration?
8. Do students participate in the taking decisions? How?
9. Is the university and faculty management divided in academic and administrative management? What is your opinion about such a division?
E. University responsibility
1. Please elaborate on the faculty's responsibility towards the state.
2. Please elaborate on the faculty's responsibility towards students. Include in your writing the process and results of students' evaluating the teaching process, as well as faculty's attempts to respond to the qualitative and quantitative requirements in the working fields.
3. Please elaborate on the faculty's responsibility towards its employees.
4. Please indicate the performance indicators that your faculty is using in measuring the quality of its teaching process.
F. Organizational culture
1. Please indicate the main three characteristics of the organizational culture within your faculty/university. How did it change in the last years?
2. Which are the main ceremonies that take place at your faculty?
3. Which is the main points of reference in your faculty history?
G. General opinions
1. What role should the higher education sector pursue in the present Romanian society?
2. How would you characterize your faculty, as theory-oriented or practical-oriented?
3. Please share your opinion on corruption, both of the academic personnel, and the students, in the Romanian higher education sector and at your faculty.
H. Difficulties
1.What are the positive and the negative aspects at your work place?
2. Please give details about the main difficulties that you encounter in the teaching process and suggest solutions to eliminate them.
I. Personal data
1. Have you ever been part of any decision-making body?
2. At how many faculties do you teach within your university?
3. Are you involved in any teaching activities outside your university? If so, please indicate the nature and location of the faculty/university.
4. Are you involved in other activities, beside teaching/research? If so, please indicate the firm you are working for, position and hours worked in a day.
5. Please indicate if you have studied abroad and give details.
6. Please indicate if you have taught courses abroad and give details.
7. Please indicate the number of your publications after 1990 (books and papers).
8. Please indicate the number of the conferences that you participated in.