V. Conclusions: reforming the higher education system in Romania

To conclude over the results of this complex study, we will organize the discussion around a number of questions to which we will answer through the results of the study. A comparison between state and private education will be done at the level of each question.

Q1: What is the time framework of the reform?

All the changes from small to large, starting from the beginning of 1990 are seen by academics to be part of the reforming process of higher education. Things evoluted slowly in higher education after 1990. From only superficial changes and declarative interest of authorities in higher education in the period 1990-1993, to some legislative changes in the period 1993-1995 and after, and only lately with some measures for implementation. This hesitant and slow process of transformation in higher education over the whole period 1990-2002, was perceived as being a gradual reform by academics and academic management from universities, the factors directly involved in the transformation process. Therefore, the reform in higher education is seen as taking place between 1990-2002 (and further) since the first changes in higher education occured, and not only after 1995, when a more coherent plan for reforming higher education was formulated by authorities.

Q2: What are the objectives of the reform (authorities view)?

The main objective in the field of higher education (according to the declarations over time of different parties in power) is to form in Romania an unitary higher education system, to provide high quality educational services, compatible with the European Union standards.

Given the existance of two different higher education systems in Romania (the public system and the private system), in order to reach this main general objective, the specific objectives for each educational system were different.

The two systems started the reforming process from different situations: while the public sector inherited a centralized way of decision making and a well structured but outdated way of operations, the private sector was completely autonomous from both academic and financial points of view at the beginning of 1990’s, when there was no legislation governing higher education in general and private higher education in particular. The different starting points were reflected in the different needs of each sector and consequently in different objectives for reforming each sector.

For the public higher education system, there were no clear objectives of the reform up to 1995, when the Education Law was promulgated and the two main directions were introduced: academic autonomy and financial autonomy (through the global financing). In this sector the main objective was decentralization from academic and from financial point of view. A shift from the highly centralized system, in which most of the important decisions were taken at the MER level to a system in which universities to become self-sustainable and to be able to gather a large proportion of their necessary budget from other sources than the state budget.

For the private higher education system, the undeclared objective was to control the quality of educational services, as on the one hand this sector was sett up with no reglementations, no standards to comply with in the first place, and on the other hand it was suspected of being driven mainly by economic reasons, compromising on the quality of the services. Therefore, for the private higher education system the declared objective was to make it to comply to the standards sett for both public and private education.

Q3: What consisted the reform of for the two types of higher education systems?

In state universities the objectives of the higher education reform have been achieved to a certain extent, as an increased academic autonomy was perceived by all respondents. The other objective of granting larger financial autonomy to public universities, was not fully reached, as on the one hand the concept was conceived in a limitative manner from the very beginning (state control over the spending of funds was still kept) and on the other hand, with the change in the political power and the minister, some of the liberties granted previously from financial point of view have been restrained and eliminated after 2000.

In the private universities the main effect of the reform was the accreditation, that on the one hand granted larger autonomy to private universities as once accredited they can conduct all types of academic activities including the organization of licencing exams, but on the other hand limited the liberties of private universities as they had to comply to the restrictive standards of the ministry.

The higher education reform can be seen as granting larger autonomy to public universities, mainly from academic point of view and to some extent from financial point of view, while for the private higher education, the reform meant a decrease in their autonomy, as new standards have to be respected, restricting the previous unlimited liberty of action.

Q4: What is the perceived degree of academic autonomy in universities in Romania?

The degree of academic autonomy is perceived as high in both public and private higher education. While in public higher education the academic autonomy was increasing in the last years, the private higher education enjoyed from the very beginning total academic autonomy that started to be regulated over time and to decrease to a certain extent. However, the degree of academic autonomy in the Romanain higher education is perceived by the majority of academics on managerial positions as being high.

Academic aspects such as the improvement of the course curricula, the introduction of new programs, the introduction of new courses setting up new faculties were the main changes that took place in both private and state higher education in the last years, reflecting the large academic autonomy they have.

Q5: What is the perceived degree of financial autonomy in universities in Romania?

Financial autonomy differs in the two types of higher education systems, both as present state, as well as evolution in time. While in public higher education the trend was from high centralization towards decentralization and granting of larger financial liberties, in private higer education the trend was from complete financial autonomy to more restrictions imposed by the MER. Even though the two higher education systems evoluted from the financial autonomy point of view in different directions, at present private higher education still has a larger degree of autonomy than the public higher education. This is based on the fact that the two educatinal systems are based on different financial sources and the public higher education is accountable to MER for the funds it receives from the state budget.

Q6: What was the impact of the higher education reform at the university level?

The impact of the reform at institutional level differed in the state sector as compared to the private sector. In the state sector the impact of the reform was decentralization and increased autonomy, while in the private sector the impact of the reform was a higher degree of control of the state (through MER) over academic and financial activities. The main change in public higher education was larger autonomy, while in private higher education was the completion of the accreditation.

Q7: What was the evolution of the two higher education systems during the reforming period?

Both sectors state and private increased in the period 1990-2002, both in terms of number of students and number of academics. At the same time new faculties have been sett up and new programs have been introduced. The introduction of the fee paying places in public univesities brought this sector closer to the private sector, from the economic point of view. The private higher education sector was more flexible in introducing new types of educational programs (a non-traditional combination of disciplines).

Q8: What were the similarities and the differences between the two educational systems in Romania in the reforming process?

A number of similarities, as well as differences between public and private higher education in the process of reform, emerged from teh present study:

The main similarities were:

- Academics from both systems characterized in a similar way the reform: as being actually implemented at institutional level and as being gradual. A small number of academics from both systems considered that there was no reform taking place in higher education.

- In both systems the changes in the curricula was one of the main transformations occured in the academic activity, reflecting the disponibility for adaptation of both systems.

- There was no teacher training coming from external sources (that would bring new perspectives) in neither higher education system, they both relied mainly on internal trainers or domestic trainers.

The main differences were:

- The most obvious and the most frequent change that took place in the last years differed in the two higher education systems: in the public higher education the introduction of the new academic programs was the most frequent change and in the private higher education the improvement of the library, through the introduction of new literature was the most frequent change.

- The new legislation granted more autonomy at institutional level in public higher education and restrained from the decisional powers in private higher education.

- The communication with the MER is perceived as being improved by the private higher education system and as being worsened by the state higher education system.

- The financial autonomy is higher in private higher education than in public higher education.

- Decision making at institutional level is more centralized (and in many cases person- related) in private higher education than in the public higher education, where most decisions are group decisions.

- Financial decisions are taken at university level in most private universities, while there are a few public universities were the financial decisions have been decentralized at faculty level.

Q9: What was the efficacy of the reform in HE? Have the objectives been achieved?

The efficacy of the reform in higer education was medium to high, if we compare the present situation to the starting point and consider the evolution of the sector and the changes that actually took place. In public higher education the autonomy from both academic and financial point of views increased (as sett through the reform objectives) and in the private higher education new standards have been introduced (as sett through the reform objectives). At the same time, if we use as point of reference the level it is envisaged to be reached from the autonomy point of view, the efficacy of the refom is mediun to low, as public higher education needs more time to fully implement the autonomy that was granted and private higher education still needs improvements in its activity in order to fully fulfil the standards.

Factors influencing the evolution of public and private higher education

The similarities and the differences in the evolution of the two higher education systems and the way they implemented the refom, was influenced by a number of factors:

The two higher education systems had different starting points in the reform process, as presented previously.
There were different objectives and priorities of the authorities (MER) for reforming the two higher education systems: granting autonomy to public higher education institutions and bringing to sett standards (through accreditation) the private higher education institutions.
The priorities and objectives at institutional level differed for universities with different proprietary forms: private universities had as priorities to obtain accreditation and to build the material and human base required by the accreditation standards, while the public universities envisaged a higher autonomy in decision making from academic and financial point of view so that they can independently administer their funds and take academic decisions.
The initiation of private higher education at the beginning of 1990’s, by academic staff from the state higher education brought about the development of the private higher education as a copy of the state higher education in terms of management, organization and operations, leaving little palce for real innovation.
During the implementation of the reform, institutions from the two different types of higher education systems had different conditions of operation:

different degrees of autonomy (larger autonomy at institutional level in private universities than in state universities)
different decision making mechanisms (independent from authorities, but centralized in the hand of one person – in most cases - in private universities and dependent on MER and concentrated in the hands of a group of persons, the university managerial team – and in some cases involving management at faculty level - in the public universities).

Figure no. 5.1. presents sinthetically the higher education reform process in Romania.

Figure no. 5.1. The higher education reform process in Romania

Final comments

The reforms took place gradually, starting with the passing of legislation and still struggling with the most difficult task of implementation. Despite the unhurried and uneven pace of reform, however, one dramatic transformation of the Romanian higher education system consists in the growth of private universities. Their success has been credited to the replication of the structure, program offerings and mode of operation of existing public institutions. Nonetheless, despite the similarities with their public counterparts, private universities have been bolder in experimenting with different forms. For instance, they tend to be more responsive to market demand and to encompass a wider range of programs.

Regardless of how similar or different private universities are relative to public higher education institutions, the latter are an alternative for those who fail to gain admission into a public university. The market value of education may go beyond the degree and may reflect some return to the four to six years spent in school. However, once private institutions have been granted accreditation, the value of the degree will rest solely on the returns from education in such an institution.

The recent introduction in public universities of full tuition for students admitted above the number of students approved and funded by the state and for those enrolled in distance-learning programs forces state higher education institutions to operate in a manner closer to a profit-driven institution. As of yet, it is not certain if this will be reflected in a decrease in the quality of public education, as seems to be the case in most private universities, or whether the former will thus find the resources to improve.

The higher education reform was partially successful, as some of the objectives sett for each form of higher education (public and private) have been achieved (larger academic autonomy for state universities, unique established standards for state and private education).

At the same time there have been implementation problems in the case of both public and private higher education, as some objectives have not been achieved (financial autonomy, the quality of higher education services).

However in both public and private higher education systems there is some degree of heterogenity, as the implementation of the reform differed highly from one institution to another. The success of the reform depends to a large extent on the individuals in managerail position in universities.

The proposed unitary higher education system in Romania has not been obtained, as in spite of the unique required standards and the existence of some similarities, there are still differences between public and private higher education.