I. The higher education reform in Romania[1]
1. INTRODUCTION
Romania is one of the Central and East European countries that experienced an unprecedented growth and transformation of its higher education system in the years after the fall of communism in 1989. While this is not unusual for the countries in the region or other post-communist systems, several features of the reform process, and particularly of the development in the evolution of the mix of public and private provision of higher education, make the Romanian case worth studying.
Prior to 1989, similar to other socialist countries, the tertiary education system in Romania was heavily politicized and centralized. Virtually all academics were members of the Communist Party, which controlled all aspects of education. All educational decisions, including the day-to-day management of universities and departments, were made by the Ministry of Education (Nicolescu, 2001a). Despite the rigidities inherent in the system, reforms began almost immediately in the early 1990s, but progressed slowly and their objectives changed throughout the years. The reform in higher education was complemented by a dramatic expansion in the number of institutions and in enrollment levels in response to the excess demand induced by the overly restricted numbers of students granted admission to tertiary education under the socialist system. This growth was initially spurred by the existing public universities, which expanded their programs in the high-demand fields when restrictions on student intake were relaxed by the government, in spite of tightening resources from the state budget. Similar to other countries in the former Soviet block, the increase in the overall enrollment levels in higher education was accompanied by important shifts in the relative demand for different fields of study: technical fields such as mining, chemical engineering and metallurgy, for instance, lost ground, while larger absolute and relative numbers of students have been applying to and enrolling in law, social science, and humanities programs, deemed superfluous for the building of the industrialized multilaterally-developed society and neglected by the communist government.
The rapid transformation of the tertiary sector was also stimulated by the emergence of new private providers in higher education, even in an environment lacking clear accreditation regulations. It is clear that one initial growth factor was the existence of high excess demand at the beginning of the 1990s and the inability of public universities to fully meet this demand.
2. REFORMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ROMANIA
Given the important role education played in reinforcing the communist ideology, it should come as no surprise that the fall of the Ceausescu regime in 1989 was very soon followed by radical measures in education, particularly in the direction of increased choice. In Romania, the “privatization” and massification of higher education occurred at an even swifter pace, on the background of the reform measures undertaken by the government. Several reform phases may be distinguished:
2.1) The period from 1990 to 1993
During the early 1990s, higher education reform was limited to measures with immediate reparatory objectives in education. The main goal was depoliticizing the academic curricula, reintroducing several fields of study suppressed under the communist regime (such as sociology and business), and improving work conditions for teachers (Korka, 2000). Throughout this period, reform consisted mainly of less important measures intended to modernize academic life, and concerned minor changes in curricula, textbooks, teaching and learning methods, and educational standards. Both in secondary and tertiary education, educational reform was short-run-driven, lacked coherence, and did not succeed in changing the nature of supply in higher education significantly (Korka, 2000).
2.2) The period from 1993 to 1997
The 1993-1997 period was marked by the need to change the legal framework in education and to improve managerial practices at all levels. Several fundamental laws were adopted during this period, such as the Accreditation Law in 1993 and the Education Law in 1995 (see section below).
However, as most reform measures remained solely on paper and did not trickle down to the institutional level. For instance, the adoption of the accreditation standards and the creation of the National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation in 1993 were intended to ensure the quality of higher education programs, but came in effect only in 1996. Prior to that date, institutions developed self-evaluation reports, but these constituted only a formality, were not analyzed and did not lead to accreditation. The enforcement of the accreditation provisions starting in 1996 led to the closure of more than two thirds of the higher education institutions (Korka, 2000). Furthermore, academic autonomy, a sine qua non condition for the progress of reform, was mostly a principle on paper until the end of 1997, especially in public education. Private providers, however, mainly due to their financial independence, enjoyed greater freedom, even though they were also restricted in the organization of postgraduate programs and graduation/licensing exams (see Section 4 on Ensuring Quality in Higher Education: Accreditation).
This wave of reforms ultimately did not meet the formal objectives, and therefore did not significantly change the system as a whole (Birzea and Badescu, 1998). The reforms potentially failed because they were targeted more to the needs of the educational providers, both public and private, rather than to social or individual demand (Miroiu et al., 1998, Chiritoiu and Horobet, 1999). Most educational experts agree that the lack of coherence in the steps taken during the first seven years after the fall of communism and the sluggishness with which these were implemented made the reform of higher education in Romania almost non-existent. Systemic reforms, introducing a real paradigm shift that affected the inner logic of the system by changing the fundamentals of the educational system, had not been yet pursued by 1997 (Birzea and Badescu, 1998). Neither the character of education nor its underlying principles had changed, and at the end of that year higher education could still be described, according to the Minister of Education at the time, professor Andrei Marga, as a system that “transmits knowledge but does not encourage creativity; mostly repetitive, it is based on separation into rigid subjects, it is still centralized….” (Marga,1998).
2.3) The period from 1997 to 2000
Starting in 1998, the reform in higher education accelerated and focused on “curricular reform, increasing the links between education and the economic, administrative and cultural environment, improving the educational infrastructure, eliminating paternalism and populism from educational management, and enhancing international cooperation in education” (Marga, 1998). This phase of educational reforms had four major objectives: 1) enhancing access to higher education, 2) decentralizing academic and financial management in higher education by strengthening institutional autonomy, 3) encouraging an active partnership between the academic and business environments, and 4) improving the quality of higher education (Korka, 2000).
The objective of enhancing and liberalizing access to higher education was pursued mainly through increased institutional autonomy, which allowed state universities beginning in 1999 to accept tuition fee-paying students in addition to those funded by the state and to set their own enrollment levels for such students.[2] As a result, enrollments increased significantly in public higher education (particularly in full-time, distance learning and Masters programs), although the physical endowment did not develop accordingly at this time.[3]
In addition, the development of higher education for ethnic minorities contributed to enhancing access to higher education. The Romanian Democratic Union of Hungarians which campaigned steadily for public higher education in minority languages and this ultimately became possible.
The second objective of reform during this period, the decentralization of academic and financial decision-making power, was an integral part of the institutional reform in higher education. Previously, insufficient human and capital resources, the limited managerial experience of university leadership, inertia in the system and in mentalities, legal constraints, inadequate incentives, and excessive bureaucracy in the sector made academic autonomy in Romania look like a caricature of itself. Decentralization relied on improving management and ensuring that institutional autonomy became the core governing principle for both state and private universities. This component of the reform targeted mostly public universities, which relied on the Ministry of Education even for current operational decisions.
Institutional autonomy was achieved both through the decentralization of academic decisions concerning programs, admission, and curricula, and through the transfer of financial decision-making power to public universities (Nicolescu, 2002). The devolution of autonomy to lower hierarchical levels progressed slowly in public higher education and became effective only in 1999 with the introduction of global financing (see also sections below). Nonetheless, a better separation of academic leadership from financial and administrative management and the improvement of the managerial abilities of governing bodies are still needed.
The last two objectives of this reform period – encouraging an active partnership between the academic and business environments and improving the quality of higher education – stem directly from the decentralization of academic and financial management. It was hoped that, in addition to increasing the efficiency in the use of resources, the latter would also provide incentives for universities to produce graduates with skills competitive in the transforming labor market, as well as to ensure comparability with Western and, in particular, European Union standards (see Section 7 on Complying with European Union Standards in Higher Education).
Attention was focused on curricular reform, which included the introduction of subjects with direct applications in practice, the diversification of academic specializations, the development of inter-disciplinary programs, and the transfer of skills thought to be in demand in the labor market. According to the Education Law of 1995 put into practice a few years later, curricula and programs are designed by each department, approved by the Department Council and the Senate of the University, and are then approved by the Ministry of Education at the recommendation of the National Council of Academic Authorization, Accreditation and Evaluation to ensure national comparability. Although the law proposes curricular frameworks, the sequence of subjects during the course of study in a program, the time allocated for each course, and adaptations of the framework to specific academic missions are decided at the university level, with the formal objective of “ensuring high quality skills and knowledge for the students and graduates of higher education institutions” (MNE notification no. 9056/2000).
The final objective of the Romanian higher education reform in this period, raising the quality of education, was expected not only as a result of decentralization and the granting of almost full academic autonomy, but also in response to the external evaluation for accreditation. Although some progress has been made, mostly in terms of establishing quality standards, this is an ongoing process in its initial stages.
2.4) The period after 2000
The pace of
reform in higher education slowed down significantly after the Social
Democratic Party of Romania came to power in the fall of 2000. For the
first year and a half, essentially everything came to a standstill: the
government did not even announce its educational policy, let alone introduce
any new reform initiatives. No significant changes took place in the
period late 2000-2002 compared to what had already been started in 1997.
Nonetheless, in 2002, after the newly appointed Ministry officials were settled
in their positions, there was a renewed interest in higher education. The
government passed several provisions, among which the most important pertain to
the accreditation of 18 and the closure of 14 private universities (see Section
4 on Ensuring Quality in Higher Education in
3. LEGISLATION AND GOVERNING BODIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The reforms discussed above were mostly the result of legislation passed by the government, which paralleled to some extent the different stages of reform. This section distinguishes only two periods of legislative development in higher education after 1990 (Nicolescu, 2001c): the period from 1990 to 1993 and the period after 1993 to the present. During the former there were no specific laws regulating activity in the field of higher education. Universities and colleges could be set up on the basis of Law 21/1924 concerning non-profit organizations and Law 31/1990 governing firms. The loose legislation permitted the founding of private higher education institutions, either as non-profit or for-profit organizations. After 1993, however, there was a rapid development in the legislation governing education in general and in higher education in particular.
The main laws regulating higher education in Romania at present are:
1) The Accreditation Law (Law no. 88/1993 concerning the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and the Recognition of Diplomas), introduced to regulate the rapidly growing private higher education sector. The provisions for academic accreditation were put forth in 1993, but their implementation started only three years later, together with the collection of relevant information by private universities.
2) The Education Laws (Law no. 84/1995 and Law no. 151/1999). Only as late as 1995 a law regulating education was passed, and was amended four years later. This law laid down the objectives of higher education (art. 4), stated the principle of open access to higher education for all people (art. 5), forbid any political or ideological affiliation of higher education institutions (art. 11), proposed guidelines for the organization and administration of higher education institutions (including university leadership), and instituted the principle of academic institutional autonomy. According to this law, universities may conduct both research and teaching activities, and are free to decide on the organization of programs and research, curricula, and human resource management (activities that were previously controlled by the Ministry of Education).
The 1999 amendment to the Education Law introduced new principles and guidelines regarding the financing of higher education, including the so-called “global financing principle”. This was intended to reduce the reliance of public universities on state financing and implied a more complete definition and enforcement of the principle of institutional autonomy. For private higher education, this new principle of financing meant that they would be able to compete for public funds which had been previously unavailable (see section 5 on Higher Education Finance in Romania for more information).
3) The Law on the Status of Teachers (Law no. 128/1997). The law provided a detailed list of all professional degrees (article 53), put forth the activities compatible with the academic profession and their content, and legislated the guidelines for the compensation of the teaching staff (art. 48-52) as well as their rights and obligations (title IV, chapter I).
4) Other numerous government decisions regarding specific educational issues adopted after 1997. Most of these provisions were designed either to ensure a proper implementation or to supplement the existing laws regulating education and often included measures for implementing institutional autonomy, and put forth detailed operational guidelines. However, the high number of regulations reduced the transparency and coherence of the legislative framework governing higher education and made their application difficult. Moreover, problems were compounded by situations when government-issued regulations were put into practice despite not being approved by the Parliament or when the new regulations were inconsistent with previous provisions remaining in effect.
At present the Ministry of Education and Research is preparing a new Law on Higher Education in Romania, which is expected to pass in 2003. No draft of the law was made available for public debate, proving a lack of transparency and a lack of mobilization and involvement of the interested parties.
Governing bodies in higher education in Romania
In Romania, the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) is currently the main government body responsible for regulating the activity of universities and other tertiary education institutions, through its General Division for the Coordination of Higher Education.[4] According to the Education Law of 1995, the main functions of the Ministry are the coordination and control of the national system of education at all levels and the coordination of scientific research in higher education. The Ministry also publishes a list of approved institutions and academic specializations and endorses the annual number of state-funded students for public universities. It also approves the maximum annual enrollment levels for tuition fee-paying students in both public and private universities.
Under Law no. 88/1993 on the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and Diplomas, the National Commission for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation (NCAEA) was created as the government body in charge of accrediting universities. The Council consists of 19 to 21 members proposed by the government and approved by the Romanian Parliament; according to the law, every four years a third of its members must be replaced. The NCAEA is responsible for setting up academic evaluation commissions, composed of well-known academics from different academic disciplines, which carry out program and institutional evaluations for the Council.
The National Council for University Research (NCUR) is the autonomous body responsible for the funding of research in Romania. Nonetheless, the Council has only a consultative capacity, as the Ministry of Education must approve the actual budget allocations. Its main role is therefore to establish and identify programs through which university research can be supported, to develop procedures for the evaluation of grant proposals, to organize competitions for grants, and to propose annual research budgets (Ministry of Education, 1996).
Between 1997-2000, several new governing or consultative bodies were established, including the National Council for Education Reform, the National Council for the Attestation of Academic Certificates and Diplomas, the National Council for Higher Education Finance, the National Council for Scientific Academic Research, the National Council for Libraries, the National Council of Rectors, and national committees for various fields of study. The new bodies were created to assist the Ministry of Education in the implementation of academic and financial autonomy.
4. ENSURING QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ROMANIA: ACCREDITATION
According to Law no. 88/1993 concerning the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and the Recognition of Diplomas, all higher education institutions functioning on 22 December 1989 were accredited by the state by default. All other institutions established after that date were required to submit to an accreditation process within six months after the coming into effect of the law.
The academic accreditation process in Romania consists of two sequential stages: provisional authorization and full accreditation. They are each discussed separately in this section.
Provisional authorization
Provisional authorization implies that a department or program within an institution is permitted to organize admissions, design curricula and enroll students. However, during the provisional authorization period – which may be no longer than three years – the institution cannot organize graduation examinations, cannot award degrees, and cannot issue diplomas. Graduating students must take their licensing examinations at an accredited higher education institution that grants the degree and issues the diploma.
To apply for provisional authorization, the department or program prepares a self-evaluation report that is submitted to the Ministry of Education and the National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation (NCAEA). The latter appoints special commissions to carry out their own evaluation of the institution's or department's activities and, in turn, issues a new report. All the reports, accompanied by the Ministry's recommendation, are forwarded to the Government, which ultimately grants provisional authorization. The criteria for authorization pertain to faculty, curriculum and educational facilities. Among these are the requirements that at least 50 percent of the faculty members in each department, program, or specialization must be employed full-time, and that full-time faculty members must author a textbook in their subject areas. Table 1 (Academic Authorization and Accreditation Standards in Romania) presents these criteria in more detail.
Full accreditation
The second stage of academic accreditation consists of full accreditation. The process must begin within two years after the first cohort of students graduates from the department or institution applying for accreditation. Receiving full accreditation grants the institution the right to organize graduation examinations, to award degrees and to issue diplomas. The application and approval processes are similar to those for provisional authorization but involve meeting stricter standards for faculty members, administration, educational facilities, and graduation examinations. For instance, for each of the first three years of operation in the life of the institution, at least 51 percent of the total number of students taking the graduation examinations each year must pass the exams (see Table 1 for additional criteria). The Romanian Parliament ultimately endorses the accreditation.
Initially, due to a shortage of qualified personnel, private universities largely relied on professors teaching in public universities to staff their positions. In 1996, only 5 to 10 percent of the faculty members in private institutions were employed full time, the remainder being professors employed in public universities teaching part-time in private institutions (Mihailescu, 1996). As a result, a massive transfer of organization models, curricula, and teaching methods were transferred from state to private universities. The latter easily became duplicates of the former, leaving little room for innovation, initiative and better quality education (Nicolescu, 2002). This situation, combined with the possibility that private universities attract students who do not gain admission to state institutions (Sapatoru, 2000) and that the majority may come from low income families (Ionita, 1998), may lead one to believe that private higher education is not a real alternative for public education (Mihailescu, 1996; Miroiu, 1998; Chiritoiu & Horobet, 1999). Several other studies point in the same direction. A study of the post-secondary educational choices of high school graduates in Romania reveals that private education is believed to be inferior in quality relative to its state counterpart (Sapatoru, 2000 and 2001; Nicolescu, 2001a). Similarly, employers express their belief that public higher education is much more rigorous by comparison (Nicolescu, 2001b). Nonetheless, in hiring and promotion decisions, employers do not seem to distinguish systematically between graduates of public and of private universities.
As of February 2003, only 18 private universities – out of 87 that were operating then, according to the Ministry of Education – were fully accredited (see Table 2, List of Private Universities Accredited and Closed in the Period 2001-2002. Among the remainder, some universities are still under review for accreditation. However, during the last decade a number of private universities ceased their activities voluntarily, some were not authorized after the adoption of the Accreditation Law in 1993, while others were closed subsequent to not receiving accreditation in 2001-2002 (see also Table 4, The Number of Higher Education Institutions and Total Enrollment in Romania, for the evolution of the number of private higher education institutions from 1989/90 to 2000/01). For instance, in October 2001, 14 private institutions were denied accreditation, thus being required to cease all activities (see Table 2). The students enrolled in such institutions are redistributed to other private accredited universities.
5. HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE IN ROMANIA
Under tightened state budget constraints, with the collapse of the socialist system and the plunge of the economy at the beginning of 1990s, the Romanian government had no choice but to cut back public expenditures on education, together with slashing spending in most other areas of the economy. The share of educational expenditures in GDP, although it increased from the meager 2.2 percent in 1995, stayed well below the 4 percent threshold established by law, and in 1999 it accounted for 3.2 percent of GDP (Sapatoru, 2001; see Table 3 (Total Public Expenditure on Education, by Level, in Romania, 1985-2000). The level of public spending on education fluctuated greatly in real terms, although it seems to have risen rather steadily until 1996) in terms of its share in total government expenditure, only to fall again in more recent years (OECD, 2000).
The major source of funding for public higher education in Romania is the state budget, allocated on an annual basis by Parliamentary decision. Until 1998, state support was earmarked exclusively for public education and was based on two main considerations: the equal distribution of public resources (although the current and educational needs of each university were different, depending on specializations and programs offered; and covering the current costs of inputs (mainly staff salaries, building maintenance). State-allocated funds could be used only according to the destination indicated by the Ministry, although flexibility in the use of funds within each category was existed.
Starting in 1998, in accordance with the decentralization of academic management and financing, the so-called “global financing” system was introduced and came into force in the academic year 1999/2000. The explicit goal of this reform measure was to diversify the sources of financing, particularly in public higher education, and to avoid reliance on a single revenue source (which led a chronic under-financing of public universities). Global financing permits universities to obtain funding both from the state budget (through so-called “base financing”) and from non-governmental “extra-budgetary” sources (through “complementary or additional funding”). “Base financing” involves the allocation of state funds to institutions to cover current educational expenses proportional to the number of full-time equivalent students which it enrolls and the size of allowance set for each field by the National Council for Financing in Higher Education (NCFHE), supposedly reflecting educational costs by specialization. "Complementary or additional financing" entails the allocation of funds on the basis of competition for financing academic research projects and educational investments. Finally, in addition to state funds, universities may use other “extra-budgetary” resources from tuition fees, revenues from scientific research, consulting, or national and international research grants.[5]
The introduction of global financing reduced the importance of state funding as the sole source of financing for public universities. The newly introduced system represented a major step towards a more effective institutional autonomy of public universities whose activities were indirectly limited before by their dependence on state allowances and restrictions imposed on the use of funds provided. State funds allocated to universities can now be redistributed across departments. Only few institutions (such as the Babes Bolyai University in Cluj and the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University in Iasi) have decentralized their budgets to the department level. Private universities receive most of their income from tuition fees and only a small proportion comes from private sponsors or donors. State support is also available to accredited private providers, which may participate in competitions for public funding for research and investments and may be granted other forms of government support (see global financing above). However, this did not occur until the end of 2002.
In September 2002, the Ministry of Education and Research issued methodological regulations to improve financing in higher education, according to which private higher education institutions are compelled to contribute 10 percent of their revenues from student fees to the state budget for students enrolled within the limit approved by the National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation and the Ministry of Education and Research. For enrollments above this level, private higher education institutions must relinquish 40 percent of their revenues. This former provision also applies to public higher education institutions. The measure was formally justified by the need to raise funds for improving student housing and implicitly to prevent universities from increasing enrollment beyond a certain level to the extent that it would affect the quality of education (at least in terms of student-teacher ratios, overcrowding of classrooms, and overloaded professors). No information exists as of yet to assess the effects these regulations have had on private and public higher education institutions, but it is clear that the measures do not provide incentives for growth.
As of February 2003, the Romanian Parliament was discussing a draft Law on the “improvement of financing in higher education” which makes the provisions of the previous regulations even harsher. According to this draft, all higher education institutions, be they state or private, would be required to hand over to MER a progressively higher proportion of their revenues, starting from 40 percent for revenues from tuition-paying students admitted above the number approved by the Ministry higher by up to 10 percent, to up to 100 percent for revenues accruing from enrollments exceeding by 40 percent or more the enrollment figures approved by the Ministry.
The September 2002 European Union country report on higher education in Romania states that “the Romanian education system is still missing financial funds, and even if the public funds were increasing, the financing is still not satisfactory.” The report recommends that the sources of funding in higher education be diversified and that all agents involved in the educational process should contribute to financing.
6. THE EVOLUTION AND CURRENT STATUS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN
The reforms undertaken throughout the years and the legislation governing higher education in Romania influenced the evolution - along a series of dimensions - of this sector as a whole as well as in relative terms with regard to the public-private mix. This section explains the mechanisms for the growth and transformation of public and private higher education and documents the extent of these phenomena. Among these dimensions of evolution, we focus on the changes starting in 1990 and the current status in student enrollment levels, faculty numbers, and the structure of the sector by field of study, type (day, evening, and distance-learning) and language of instruction, and degrees awarded.
Number of institutions, enrollment levels, and geographic distribution in public and private higher education
Under the communist regime, the sole providers of higher education in Romania were public institutions. The concept of “scientific planning” of the country’s manpower needs, adopted by the central government, ensured that access to higher education was severely restricted both in number of students granted admission and in the fields of study offered by state universities. Consequently, the liberalization of the economy was also reflected in the liberalization and massification of higher education in Romania, and one of the major transformations in the sector after 1989 consisted of a significant increase in the supply of both public and private higher education services in response to the initially high excess demand for tertiary education. This was the result of the expansion of both public and private provision.
Public higher education in Romania evolved in several ways. First, the established state universities spun off smaller units across the country. Second, departments were re-organized through the creation of new academic units or through closures and break-ups of existing departments to reflect the changes in the curricula, in a move away from the communist planning model. Third, several post-secondary vocational institutions (which had lost their higher education status in the 1970s when there was a push for shorter-term post-secondary vocational training in Romania, particularly in teacher training and technical studies) reverted back to their legal form as universities (Eisemon et al, 1995). Finally, new public universities were established, primarily in small and medium-sized towns, to cater to local markets. From 1989/1990 to 2000/2001, the number of universities increased from 44 in to 57 and the number of departments/programs overall increased more than five-fold (see Table 4, Number of Higher Education Institutions and Total Enrolment in Romania).
While some growth in public education enrollments was recorded in the early transition years, the pace and magnitude of growth increased in the 1997/1998 academic year when public institutions were first allowed by the Ministry of Education to admit tuition fee-paying students for both day and distance-learning programs (above the number approved and funded by the state). The number of students paying tuition almost exceeded the number of students financed by the state budget.
Private higher education developed through the establishment of new institutions. Table 4 shows the growth in the number of private institutions in recent years. Despite the controversy surrounding the exact figures, it is clear that private tertiary education flourished after 1989.[6] Most of the new private institutions and the largest amongst these were established in Bucharest. In 1999, about 40 percent of the new private universities were located in the capital and accounted for approximately half of total enrollments in private higher education (OECD, 2000).
Despite the rapid growth of private higher education, the established existence of public universities prior to 1989 and funding by the state, combined with capital and other resource constraints and the prospect of a finite demand for higher education faced by private education providers, ensured that the public education still dominates university enrollments: as of 2000/2001 almost 70 percent of the number of students enrolled in a tertiary degree program were attending a public school (see Table 4).
The extent of the massification of higher education in Romania is evident from the evolution of the number of university students per ten thousand inhabitants, which increased from 83 in 1990/91 to 202 in 1999/2000. Similarly, enrollment rates (associated with the 19 to 23 age group) went from 9.9 percent in 1990/91 to 25.1 percent in 1997/98 (Sapatoru, 2001).
Both supply and demand factors contributed to the uneven regional distribution of private universities in Romania. On the demand side, Bucharest was a large market for higher education, particularly in fields in which public universities were not strong. On the supply side, in the initial stages of growth, private providers relied on the existing public education infrastructure, including both material and human resources (buildings, libraries, teaching staff etc.). Moreover, most new private institutions were founded by entrepreneurial-minded university professors, most of which were then located in Bucharest. Gradually, however, private institutions began responding to demand in markets other than Bucharest and set up regional branches, particularly in areas where there was little competition from public institutions.
Faculty and staff in public and private higher education
The extent to which private higher education constitutes a new industry in Romania is obvious in Table 5 (The Structure of the Faculty Body in Romania at the Beginning of 1997/98 and 1998/99): while enrollments in private education amounted to about 30 percent of the total number of students in higher education, the number of full-time academic staff employed in the former accounted for only around 10 percent of the total number of professors, assistants and researchers in higher education. Given the accreditation requirements pertaining to the percentage of faculty employed full-time, we can expect to see an increase in the number of staff in private institutions as they rely less on faculty visiting from state universities and hire their own staff.
The data also show that – for the years in which figures were available - approximately 2/3 of the faculty body consisted of junior and regular teaching assistants and junior lecturers, possibly younger faculty members. This may reflect the relative shortage of professors given the rapid expansion of enrollments, particularly in private higher education, problem compounded by the earlier hiring freeze in effect imposed by the socialist regime in public universities in the 15 years prior to 1989.
Fields of study
Prior to 1990, the public higher education enrollments were dominated by engineering and other technical sciences (which accounted for more than 58 percent of total enrollments see Table 6 (The Structure of Higher Education Enrollment, by Field, in Romania) - while other the production of other specialists, such as legal experts, economists and social scientists was less of a priority for the socialist economy at that time. The transition to a market economy in Romania and the subsequent collapse of the system of centrally planned manpower and educational needs, combined with the prospect of higher returns to education in other fields in the new economy, induced a shift away from such studies, and the decline of the share of enrollments in technical studies in public higher education is almost monotonous through 2000/2001. Nonetheless, state universities maintained their programs in technical fields, as it would have been politically unacceptable to lay off professors and other teaching and administrative staff serving programs that had experienced a drastic fall in demand, particularly while they were still under state control and financed by the government, even though sometimes seats for admission in such programs remained unfilled.
After 1990, both public and private universities, and especially the latter, began offering new programs in high-demand fields. Currently, approximately 63 percent of total student enrollments in public and private higher education are represented by economics, law, fine arts, and humanities programs, together with newer specializations such as IT and computer science. In private education, enrollments are heavily skewed towards economics and law programs, which represent about three quarters of total enrollments in this sector (see Table 6).
Types of instruction and degrees
Higher education in Romania has been traditionally organized, since 1948, in three types of instruction (day, evening and distance learning courses) and at present both public and private institutions offer these three forms of instruction. However, the most common form is full-time day classes: in 1998/1999, 94.6 and 68.3 percent of the total number of students enrolled in public and private higher education, respectively, were pursuing a degree full-time (see Table 7, The Structure of Enrolment in Higher Education, by Type, in Romania). This is a clear shift compared to the communist period when the share of full time enrollments was nearly equal to that of part-time enrollment: day classes accounted for 57.72 percent in the academic year 1989/1990. Distance-learning enrollments exhibit yet another pattern of development in the years since 1989: an almost five-fold absolute overall increase, due to a surge in enrollment in private higher education institutions. Both in evening and in distance-learning programs, but especially in the latter, students tend to be older adults compared to those enrolled in day-classes who are more likely to come directly from high school. Forty one percent and 44.2 percent of the students enrolled in day classes in public and private education, respectively, were 20 or under, while only slightly more than 33 percent and about 25.7 percent of the students enrolled in evening classes and distance learning in public and, private education, respectively, fall in this age group (Sapatoru, 2001).
Higher education programs are delivered through several types of higher education institutions: colleges, universities, academies, polytechnic universities, and specialized institutes. Colleges offer undergraduate education in short-term programs (two-three year courses) that lead to a diploma (‘graduation diploma’), and do not permit graduates to apply for further education in Masters or Doctorate programs.
Language of instruction
Prior to 1989 there was no higher education institution, be it university or department, with teaching activities carried out in a language other than Romanian. After 1990, exclusively in the sector of public higher education, departments/programs with teaching in foreign languages (English, French, German, etc.) were created. Furthermore, starting in 1998/1999, public higher education diversified its program offer by creating a sub-sector for ethnic minorities in which all-teaching activities and examinations are carried out in minority languages. Also, beginning with 1998, due to a Government Ordinance, it was possible to establish according to the Romanian and foreign specific law. The graduation papers are recognized in Romania, but also in the partner countries, according to the international law terms.
7. COMPLYING WITH EUROPEAN UNION STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
In 1998 and 1999, reports of the European Union (EU) Commission judged that Romania had made progress toward an effective institutional and legislative reform in the field of education, and that "Romanian education reform continues, but the rhythm of transformations is slowed down by financial difficulties" (Information Bulletin of MNE, no. 3/2000). Therefore, in an effort to contribute to the country’s chances for accession to the EU, the more recent reforms in higher education in Romania have focused on measures meant to ensure the harmonization of the Romanian educational system with European Union standards and procedures.
The first step in this process was Romania’s participation in the European conventions for mutual recognition of diplomas and certificates. Romania has also redefined the objectives and the underlying principles in higher education in accordance with the Conference of European rectors (Berlin, 1998) and the Bologna European Summit (1999). Furthermore, issues such as enhanced access to higher education, promoting gender and ethnic equality, decentralization, development of non-traditional forms of study, stipulated in the Bologna convention, became part of the reform in higher education in Romania.[7]
As a result, the European Commission considered the progress made by Romania towards ensuring compatibility with EU standards as being substantial: “…In higher education a council was set up during the reference period to certify the quality management systems. Secondary legislation has been adopted on: general objectives and guidelines for second chance education; entrepreneurial education; combating social exclusion; providing access to the pre-university education, colleges and universities for young Roma; and integration of the children with disabilities. Measures have been taken to facilitate the free movement of students. Student, professor and researcher mobility has been introduced as an indicator of the performance of higher education institutions. Periods of studies of at least one semester or examinations taken in an EU member state are recognized. As from the academic year 2000-2001 higher education institutions will issue, upon request, a diploma supplement to facilitate the recognition of qualifications. In principle EU nationals enjoy the same rights as Romanian students in higher education. However, equal treatment will still have to be extended to tuition fees, which are higher for EU nationals than for Romanian students” (EC, 2000). Education was included among the first five domains for the 2007 negotiations for European Union accession.
Birzea, Cezar (1997), The Dilemmas of the reform of Romanian Education: Shock Therapy, the Infusion of Innovation, or Cultural Decommunization?, in Higher Education in Europe. Vol. XXII, no. 3.
Birzea, Cezar and Mircea Badescu (1998), Financing the Public Education in Romania. Policy Issues and Data Availability, Bucharest: Editura Alternative.
Bratianu Constantin, Lefter Viorel (2201), Management strategic unversitar, (in Romanian), ed. RAO, Bucharest.
Chiritoiu Bogdan and Horobet Alexandra, “Euro-shape and Local content: the Bottom Line on Romanian Higher Education Reform”, Civic Education Project, Discussion Series, Budapest, vol.1, no. 1.
Daun, Holger and Dana Sapatoru (2002), Educational Reforms in Eastern Europe: Shifts, Innovation, Restoration in Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National Policies. Holger Daun (ed.). New York: Garlands.
Dima, Ana Maria. (1998), Romanian Private Higher Education Viewed from a Neo-Institutionalist Perspective, in Higher Education in Europe. Vol. XXIII, no. 3.
Eisemon, Thomas Owen, Ioan Mihailescu, Lazar Vlasceanu, Catalin Zamfir, John Sheenan, and Charles H. Davis (1995), Higher Education Reform in Romania, in Higher Education 30 (2): 135-152.
Ionita, Sorin (1998), “Against the Current: Arguments for Introducing Tuition Fees in Romanian Public Universities” (in Romanian), in Reports on Public Policies 6. Bucharest: Center for Institutional Reform.
Iordanescu, Mihai (1998), Romania may find a factor for economic re-launching in education. Interview with the Minister of Education, Andrei Marga published in the weekly magazine Economistul. Bucharest, 12 may 1998.
Korka Mihai (1999), Finantarea invatamantului superior – Tendinte actuale, (in Romanian) ed. RAO, Bucharest.
Korka Mihai (2000), Strategy and Action in the Reform of Education in Romania, (Bucharest, Paideia).
Korka (2002), Universitatile romanesti in fata integrarii in spatiul european de invatamant superior, (Bucharest, Politeia - SNSPA).
Marga, Andrei (1998) The Reform of Education in 1999, Agentia Nationala Socrates, (Bucharest Alternative).
Marga, Andrei (2000) Education in Transition, Programul PHARE Universitas (Bucharest, Paideia).
Mihailescu Ion (1996), The System of Higher Education in Romania, Editura Alternative, Bucharest
Miroiu Adrian (coordinator) (1998): Romanian education today (in Romanian), ed. Polirom, Iasi
Nicolescu Luminita (2001a) “Private Higher Education in Romania: Success or Failure”, OSI Report, Budapest, Hungary.
Nicolescu Luminita (2001b) “Contribution of Higher Education in Transition towards the Market Economy: the Case of Romania” in Kari Luihto, Ten Years of Economic Transformation”, vol. III, Societies and Institutions in Transition, LUT Studies in Industrial Engineering and Management no. 16, 2001, pp 253-281.
Nicolescu Luminita (2001c) “Higher education and the business community in Romania”, 23rd Annual EAIR Forum, 9-12 September 2001, Porto, Portugal.
Nicolescu Luminita (2002) “Reforming Higher Education in Romania:, European Journal of Education vol 37, no. 1, March 2002, pp. 91-100.
OECD (2000) Reviews of National Policies for Education, Romania.
Sapatoru Dana (2000), “Public or Private? Post Secondary Education Choices in Romania”, OSI Report, Budapest Hungary.
Sapatoru Dana (2001), “Academic Tracking and Post-Secondary Education Outcomes: Evidence from Romania.” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, School of Education, Stanford, USA.
Statistical Yearbook of Romania (2000), National Commission of Statistics, Bucharest, Romania.
Vlasceanu, Lazar, and Ana-Maria Dima (2000). A Meeting with the Students (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Paidea.
Weidman, John, Regsurengiin Bat-Erdene, John Yeager, Tsendjav Jargalmaa, and Suren Dava. 1999. Mongolian Higher Education in Transition: Planning and Responding Under Conditions of Rapid Change. Tertium Comparationis. Vol. 4, no. 2.
***, European Commission (2000), Romania - Regular Report, Bruxelles.
***, European Council (1963), Council Decision 63/266/EEC concerning general principles for the implementation of a common policy in the filed of professional formation
***, European Council (1977), Directive 77/486/EEC from 1997 regarding the education of the children of immigrants
***, European Council (1994)Decision of European Council 94/819/EC from 1994 establishing the action program for the implementation of a Community policy in the field of professional formation
***, European Council (1995), Council Decision 87/569/EEC regarding the action program in the filed of professional formation of young persons and their preparation for work
***, European Council (1995), Council Decision 95/51/EC concerning the comparability of qualifications between member states
***, European Council (1995), European Parliament and European Council Decision no. 819/1995 concerning SOCRATES European programs of actions
***, European Council (1999), Council Decision 99/51/EC regarding the promotion of modes of formation related to work
***, Ministry of Education (1996), The National Council for University Research Bulletin no. 3. Bucharest.
***, Ministry of Education (1998a), The Evolution of the Educational System in Romania: Statistical Data (in Romanian).
***, Ministry of National Education (1994 and 1998b) The White Book of Educational Reform in Romania (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Alternative.
***, Ministry of National Education (1997), Decision no. 2/1997 of Association Council between Romania and European Communities concerning the participation of Romania to Community programs in the field of education, professional training and youth
***, Ministry of National Education (1997, 1998). The Evolution of Education in Romania: Statistical Data.
***, Ministry of National Education (1998), Order of Ministry of Education no.5050/1998 concerning strategic plans for institutional development of universities.
***, Ministry of National Education (1998), MNE notification concerning the global financing of higher education
***, Ministry of National Education (1998), Order of Ministry of Education no 4822/1998 concerning the application of ETCS
***, Ministry of National Education (1998), Order of Ministry of Education no 4836/1998 concerning the encouragement of young people to get employed in the field of higher education
***, Ministry of National Education (1998), Romanian Government Decision 538/1998 concerning the establishment of Socrates National Agency
***, Ministry of National Education (1998, 1999, 2000), MNE orders concerning the guidelines for the organization of admission contest in public universities in 1998, 1999, 2000
***, Ministry of National Education (1999), MNE Notification 12773/1999, concerning the encadrement of accredited private universities into the system of national education
***, Ministry of National Education (1999), Order of Ministry of Education no. 502/1999 concerning the connection between higher education and economic environment
***, Ministry of National Education (1999), Order of Ministry of Education no. 3418/12.03.1999 concerning the admission of academic staff from private universities into the system of continuing formation
***, Ministry of National Education (2000), MNE Informative Bulletin, no.1, 2, 3/1999, 2000
***, Ministry of National Education (2000), MNE notification no. 9056/2000 concerning academic specialization
***, Ministry of Education and Research (2002), Order of Ministry of Education and Research no.4382 /2002 for the approval of the methodological issues concerning some measures for the improvement of the higher education financing
***, Ministry of Public Finances (2002), Order of Ministry of Public Finances no.1209 /2002 for the approval of the methodological issues concerning some measures for the improvement of the higher education financing
***, Miroiu, Adrian, Vladimir Pasti, Cornel Codita, Gabriel Ivan, and Mihaela Miroiu. (1998), Romanian Education Today: A Diagnostic Study (in Romanian). Bucharest: Polirom.
***, National Centre for Vocational Guidance (2000), The Education System in Romania, Bucharest.
***, National Commission for Statistics (1999). Public and Private Higher Education at the Beginning of the 1998/99 Academic Year.
***, National Human Development Report (2000), UNDP, Country Office Romania
***, Parliament of Romania (1990), Law no. 35/1990 on the Reorganisation of State Enterprises.
***, Parliament of Romania (1924), Law no. 21/1924 on Non-profit Organisations.
***, Parliament of Romania (1993), Law no. 88/1993 on the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and Diplomas.
***, Parliament of Romania (1995), Law no. 84/1995, The Education Law.
***, Parliament of Romania (1997), Law no. 128/1997 on the Status of Teachers.
***, Parliament of Romania (1999) Law no. 155/1999, Amendments to The Education Law.
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, January 16), Law no. 62/2002 for the approval of the Government Ordinance no. 60/1998 concerning the establishment of subsidiaries of the Romanian higher education institutions abroad
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 239/2002, concerning the establishment of The “TITU MAIORESCU” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 237/2002, concerning the establishment of The “GEORGE BACOVIA” University – Bacau
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 241/2002, concerning the establishment of The “NICOLAE TITULESCU” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 240/2002, concerning the establishment of The University of West “VASILE GOLDIS” – Arad
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 238/2002, concerning the establishment of The “DIMITRIE CANTEMIR” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, April 23), Law no. 242/2002, concerning the establishment of The “CONSTANTIN BRANCOVEANU” University – Pitesti
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, May 15), Law no. 275/2002, concerning the establishment of The “HYPERION” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, May 15), Law no. 274/2002, concerning the establishment of The Romanian – American University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, June 20), Law no. 409/2002, concerning the establishment of The “DANUBIUS” University – Galati
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, June 20), Law no. 408/2002, concerning the establishment of The “PETRE ANDREI” University – Iasi
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 5), Law no. 443/2002, concerning the establishment of The “SPIRU HARET” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 483/2002, concerning the establishment of The “GEORGE BARITIU” University – Brasov
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 9), Law no. 480/2002, concerning the establishment of The “BIOTERRA” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 484/2002, concerning the establishment of The “TIBISCUS” University – Timisoara
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 481/2002, concerning the establishment of The “APOLLONIA” University – Iasi
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 485/2002, concerning the establishment of The Roman – Catholic Theological Institute – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 482/2002, concerning the establishment of The “GHEORGHE CRISTEA” University – Bucharest
***, Parliament of Romania (2002, July 11), Law no. 486/2002, concerning the establishment of The “EMANUEL” University – Oradea
***, Reviews of National Policies for education: Romania, OECD, 2000
***, Romanian Government (1998), Government Decision 191/1998 and further modifications concerning the establishment of National Centre for professional formation LEOARDO DA VINCI
***, Romanian Government (1998), Government Decision 635/1998 concerning the payments of Romanian contribution to European Communities programs SOCRATES and LEONARDO DA VINCI
***, Romanian Government (1998), Government Ordinance 102/1998 regarding the organization and functioning of the system of continuing professional formation within education establishment
***, Romanian Government (1998, 199, 2000), Ministry of National Education (1998, 1999, 2000), Government and MNE orders concerning the approval of total enrolments in higher education system for 1998, 1999, 2000
***, Romanian Government (1999), Government Decision 855/1999 concerning The establishment of national Center for the Development of Technique and Professional Education
***, Romanian Government (1999), Government Decision no. 779/1999 concerning the establishment of National Council for Occupational Standards and Attestation.
***, Romanian Government (2001, October 11), Government Decision no. 1026/2001 concerning the closure of the activity of some private higher education institutions
***, Romanian Government (2001, October 11), Government Decision no. 1027/2001 concerning the closure of the activity of some private higher education institutions
***, Romanian Government (2002, September 10), Government Decision no. 1004/2002 concerning the stimulation of the scholars and of the students who got distinctions to the international contests, organized for the preuniversitary education, and of the PhD Candidates who achieved outstanding results within the research activity
***, UNESCO (1998), Statistical Yearbook, and Ministry of National Education (1998), The White Book of Educational Reform in Romania.
*** White Paper of Education Reform in Romania" (1998).
***, National Commission of Statistics – Romania, Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2001
Academic Authorization and Accreditation Standards in Romania
According to Law no. 88/1993 on the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and Diplomas
|
Criteria/ Standards |
Provisional Authorization |
Full Accreditation |
|
FACULTY |
At least 70 percent of the faculty in each department, program, specialization must be employed full-time. |
At least 50 percent of the faculty in each department, program, specialization must be employed full-time. |
|
At least 30 percent of the faculty must hold full-time or associate senior positions (senior lecturer or professor). |
At least 30 percent of the faculty must hold senior positions (senior lecturer or professor). |
|
|
Faculty members must carry out research materialized in publications, contracts, consulting activities etc. |
||
|
ADMINISTRATION |
|
The rector, pro-rector, dean, assistant dean, and the scientific secretary of each department, program or specialization must be senior full-time faculty members (senior lecturers or professors). |
|
CURRICULUM |
The course offerings must include compulsory, elective and optional subjects, in accordance with national standards. |
|
|
TEXTBOOKS |
|
Full-time faculty members must author a textbook in their subject areas. |
|
The administration has the obligation to reproduce the textbooks written by the full-time faculty members and to make these available to the students. |
||
|
|
Provisional Authorization |
Full Accreditation |
|
GRADUATION EXAMINATIONS |
The first three graduating classes of the higher education institution must take their graduation examinations (orals) in institutions specifically authorized by the NCAEA. Diplomas are issued by the university that organised the examination, but must specify the institution were the student was enrolled. |
51 percent of the total number of students in each of the first three graduating classes must pass the graduation examination (orals). |
|
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES |
The higher education institution must have its own or rented classrooms and labs, and its own library and reading room. |
The higher education institution must invest at least 25 percent of its revenues in educational facilities. |
|
After two academic years, the higher education institution must own at least 50 percent of the physical facilities |
List of Private Universities Accredited and Closed in the Period 2001-2002
|
No. |
Private universities accredited |
Private universities closed |
|
1. |
“TITU MAIORESCU” University – Bucharest |
The National Inventing Center – Ploiesti |
|
2. |
“GEORGE BACOVIA” University – Bacau |
The Romanian-Canadian Friendship Foundation – Brasov |
|
3. |
“NICOLAE TITULESCU” University – Bucharest |
Technological University “UNITEH” – Bucharest |
|
4. |
University of West “VASILE GOLDIS” – Arad |
University “FORTUNA” – Bucharest |
|
5. |
“DIMITRIE CANTEMIR” University – Bucharest |
National Academy for the Study of History – Bucharest |
|
6. |
“CONSTANTIN BRANCOVEANU” University – Pitesti |
European Academic Foundation “ETNOCULTURALIA” – Bucharest |
|
7. |
“HYPERION” University – Bucharest |
Academy of Arts “LUCEAFARUL” – Bucharest |
|
8. |
The Romanian – American University – Bucharest |
University “GAUDEAMUS” – Constanta |
|
9. |
“DANUBIUS” University – Galati |
The National Foundation for Children and Youth “ECATERINA TEODOROIU” |
|
10. |
“PETRE ANDREI” University – Iasi |
University “JIUL DE SUS
” – Targu Jiu |
|
11. |
SPIRU HARET” University – Bucharest |
Foundation “IRECSON” – Bucharest |
|
12. |
“GEORGE BARITIU” University - Brasov |
The Romanian Foundation for Youth “DECEBAL” – Baile Herculane, Caras Severin |
|
13. |
“BIOTERRA” University - Bucharest |
University “PRO HUMANITAS” – Bucharest |
|
14. |
“TIBISCUS” University – Timisoara |
University “EUROPA ECOR – U.S.” – Bucharest |
|
15. |
“APOLLONIA” University - Iasi |
|
|
16. |
The Roman – Catholic Theological Institute – Bucharest |
|
|
17. |
“GHEORGHE CRISTEA” University – Bucharest |
|
|
18. |
“EMANUEL” University - Oradea |
|
Source: Laws no. 237-242/2002; Laws no. 274-275/2002, Laws 408-409/2002, Law no. 443/2002, Laws no. 480-486/2002, concerning the establishment of universities; Government Decisions no. 1026/2001 and 1027/2001 concerning the closure of private higher education institutions.
Total Public Expenditure on Education, by Level, in Romania, 1985-2000
|
Year |
Total |
As % of GDP (3) |
As % of total government expenditure (4) |
Current educational expenditure by level |
||||
|
mln lei(1) |
mln $ (2) |
Pre-primary (%) |
Primary (%) |
Secondary (%) |
Higher education(6) (%) |
|||
|
1985 |
17941 |
1047 |
2.20 |
5.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
1990 |
24270 |
1082 |
2.83 |
7.3 |
7.1 |
45.0 |
22.1 |
9.6 |
|
1993 |
636952 |
838 |
3.18 |
9.1 |
8.4 |
36.5 |
23.8 |
15.9 |
|
1994 |
1490795 |
901 |
2.07 |
13.6 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
1996 |
3882000 |
1259 |
3.58 |
10.5 |
Na |
39.6 |
22.5
|
16.2 |
|
1997 (5) |
7223564 |
1008 |
2.89 |
9.5 |
6.6 |
64.6 |
16.8 |
|
|
1998 |
15151800 |
983 |
3.30 |
9.2 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
19.0 |
|
1999 |
19175600 |
765 |
3.20 |
7.8 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
16.7 |
|
2000 |
30529550 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Na |
Source: UNESCO (1998), Statistical Yearbook, and Ministry of National Education (1998), The White Book of Educational Reform in Romania.
Figures for 1998-2000 are from Andrei Marga (2001), The Years of Reform (1997-2000), Foundation of European Studies Publishing House, Cluj, 2001.
For 1985-1997, calculated by dividing total educational expenditures to the average exchange rate for the year (source for exchange rates: International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 2001.)
For 1985-1997, calculated by diving total public expenditure on education to GDP (source for GDP: International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 1998.) For 1998 and 1999, from National Human Development Report (2000), UNDP, Country Office Romania.
The source for total government expenditure used to calculate the figure for 1985 is : International Financial Statistics Yearbook (1998). Figures for 1997-2000 are from the National Human Development Report (2000), UNDP, Country Office Romania.
Total public expenditure on education in 1997 is calculated as the sum of budgetary expenditures on educational institutions and on services (room and board). Current educational expenditures by level pertain only to budgetary expenditures on educational institutions for 1997.
Figures for 1998 and 1999 are from the National Human Development Report (2000), UNDP, Country Office Romania
Number of Higher Education Institutions and Total Enrollment in Romania, 1989/90 to 2000/01
|
Fields of Education |
1989/90 |
1990/91 |
1991/92 |
1992/93 |
1993/94 |
1994/95 |
1995/96 |
1996/97 |
1997/98 |
1998/99 |
1999/00 |
2000/01 |
|
||||||||||||
|
Public Education |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
No. of institutions |
44 |
48 |
56 |
62 |
63 |
63 |
59 |
58 |
59 |
57 |
57 |
57 |
|||||||||||||
|
No. of departments |
101 |
186 |
257 |
261 |
262 |
262 |
318 |
324 |
342 |
361 |
391 |
538 |
|||||||||||||
|
Enrolment level |
164507 |
192810 |
215226 |
235669 |
250087 |
255162 |
250836 |
261055 |
249875 |
277666 |
310285 |
321458 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total Private |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
No. of institutions |
0 |
* |
* |
* |
168[8] |
* |
36 |
44 |
49/83b |
58/84c |
83 |
84 |
|||||||||||||
|
No. of departments |
0 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
119 |
161 |
174 |
195 |
* |
376 |
|||||||||||||
|
Enrolment level |
0 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
59967 |
85305 |
93434 |
110715 |
130054 |
130000 |
139339 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
No. of institutions |
44 |
* |
* |
* |
63 |
* |
95 |
102 |
108 |
111 |
140 |
141 |
|||||||||||||
|
No. of departments |
101 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
437 |
485 |
516 |
556 |
* |
914 |
|||||||||||||
|
Enrolment level |
164507 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
315129 |
336141 |
354489 |
360590 |
407720 |
440285 |
460679 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Source: Ministry of Education (1997), The Evolution of the Educational System in Romania: Statistical Data.
Figures for 1997/98 are from the Ministry of National Education (1998), The White Book of Educational Reform in Romania.
Figures for 1999/00 and 2000/01 are National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation data.
The Structure of the Faculty Body in Romania at the Beginning of the Academic Year,
1997/1998 - 1999/2000
(%)
|
Faculty Body |
Public Higher Education |
Private Higher Education |
Total |
|||||
|
1997/1998 |
1998/1999 |
1997/1998 |
1998/1999 |
1997/1998 |
1998/1999 |
1999/2000 |
2000/2001 |
|
|
REGULAR FACULTY |
96.44 |
Na |
99.38 |
Na |
96.79 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
OF WHICH: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROFESSORS |
17.33 |
18.00 |
18.51 |
18.60 |
17.46 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
SENIOR LECTURERS |
13.66 |
14.20 |
13.83 |
13.90 |
13.68 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
LECTURERS |
31.20 |
32.30 |
23.97 |
24.10 |
30.35 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
TEACHING ASSISTANTS |
|
23.80 |
21.16 |
21.30 |
22.74 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
JUNIOR TEACHING ASSISTANTS |
11.31 |
11.70 |
21.91 |
22.00 |
12.56 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
VISITING PROFESSORS |
3.52 |
Na |
0.26 |
Na |
3.13 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
RESEARCH STAFF |
0.04 |
Na |
0.36 |
Na |
0.08 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
TOTAL |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Na |
Na |
Na |
|
TOTAL NUMBER |
22955 |
23000 |
3058 |
3100 |
26013 |
26100 |
26977 |
27959 |
Source: National Commission for Statistics (1999a) and the National Centre for Vocational Guidance (2000).
The Structure of Higher Education Enrolment, by Field, in Romania, 1989/90 to 2000/01 (%)
|
Fields of Education |
1989/90 |
1990/91 |
1991/92 |
1992/93 |
1993/94 |
1994/95 |
1995/96 |
1996/97 |
1997/98 |
1998/99 |
1999/00 |
2000/01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC EDUCATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TECHNICAL |
64.92 |
58.85 |
53.69 |
46.20 |
40.57 |
39.52 |
33.74 |
32.43 |
34.56 |
35.20 |
35.78 |
* |
|
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY |
3.88 |
3.67 |
3.80 |
3.91 |
3.87 |
0.00 |
4.18 |
4.06 |
4.30 |
4.30 |
4.40 |
* |
|
ECONOMICS |
9.42 |
10.37 |
11.52 |
14.97 |
15.94 |
18.70 |
20.62 |
20.88 |
18.50 |
17.60 |
18.20 |
* |
|
LAW |
1.44 |
2.06 |
3.50 |
4.61 |
5.94 |
6.04 |
4.02 |
4.46 |
4.29 |
4.00 |
6.10 |
* |
|
MEDICINE |
10.15 |
10.44 |
10.13 |
10.04 |
10.29 |
10.31 |
10.88 |
10.94 |
11.42 |
10.60 |
12.58 |
* |
|
HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES |
9.62 |
13.62 |
15.97 |
18.80 |
21.71 |
23.49 |
24.49 |
25.09 |
24.59 |
26.00 |
20.37 |
* |
|
ARTS |
0.57 |
0.98 |
1.39 |
1.47 |
1.67 |
1.93 |
2.08 |
2.14 |
2.33 |
2.30 |
2.5 |
* |
|
TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRIVATE EDUCATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TECHNICAL |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
0.08 |
0.08 |
0.23 |
0.28 |
* |
* |
* |
|
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.28 |
1.29 |
* |
* |
* |
|
ECONOMICS |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
37.65 |
37.85 |
35.29 |
36.71 |
* |
* |
* |
|
LAW |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
36.39 |
37.59 |
39.21 |
38.58 |
* |
* |
* |
|
MEDICINE |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
7.33 |
5.81 |
4.44 |
3.01 |
* |
* |
* |
|
HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
17.85 |
18.07 |
19.23 |
18.90 |
* |
* |
* |
|
ARTS |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
0.69 |
0.61 |
1.32 |
1.22 |
* |
* |
* |
|
TOTAL PRIVATE EDUCATION |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TECHNICAL |
64.92 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
32.01 |
25.19 |
23.95 |
24.40 |
* |
* |
21.77 |
|
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY |
3.88 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
0.00 |
3.12 |
3.06 |
3.53 |
* |
* |
4.17 |
|
ECONOMICS |
9.42 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
22.30 |
24.99 |
24.68 |
22.80 |
* |
* |
24.82 |
|
LAW |
1.44 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
11.82 |
12.54 |
13.62 |
14.88 |
* |
* |
12.91 |
|
MEDICINE |
10.15 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
9.75 |
9.59 |
9.23 |
9.30 |
* |
* |
6.18 |
|
HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES |
9.62 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
22.42 |
22.86 |
23.55 |
22.98 |
* |
* |
28.53 |
|
ARTS |
0.57 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
1.70 |
1.71 |
1.92 |
2.10 |
* |
* |
1.59 |
|
TOTAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION |
100.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
* |
* |
100.00 |
Source: Ministry of Education (1997 and 1998), The Evolution of the Educational System in Romania: Statistical Data. Figures for 1997/98 are from the Ministry of National Education (1998), The White Book of Educational Reform in Romania. Figures for 1998/99 are from the National Centre for Vocational Guidance (2000), The Education System in Romania, Bucharest. Figures for 1999/2000 are National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation data
(*) Numbers for 1994/1995 in private education are derived from enrolment levels calculated based on data from the Ministry of Education (1997), The Evolution of the Educational System in Romania: Statistical Data, by subtracting the number of first year students in 1995/96 from the total number of students in the same year.
The Structure of Enrolment in Higher Education, by Type, in Romania, 1989/90 to 1998/99 (%)
|
Type of Education |
1989/ 1990 |
1990/ 1991 |
1991/ 1992 |
1992/ 1993 |
1993/ 1994 |
1994/ 1995 |
1995/ 1996 |
1996/ 1997 |
1997/ 1998 |
1998/ 1999 |
1999/ 2000 |
2000/ 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC EDUCATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAY CLASSES |
57.72 |
70.57 |
74.19 |
79.10 |
83.53 |
87.13 |
89.89 |
91.17 |
92.79 |
94.6 |
Na |
Na |
|
EVENING CLASSES |
36.07 |
23.80 |
18.88 |
12.91 |
8.43 |
5.84 |
4.38 |
3.32 |
2.27 |
1.3 |
Na |
Na |
|
DISTANCE LEARNING |
6.21 |
5.63 |
6.93 |
7.98 |
8.04 |
7.03 |
5.73 |
5.52 |
4.94 |
4.1 |
Na |
Na |
|
TOTAL PUBLIC EDUCATION (NUMBER) |
164507 |
192810 |
215226 |
235669 |
250087 |
255162 |
250836 |
261054 |
249875 |
310285 |
Na |
Na |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRIVATE EDUCATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAY CLASSES |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
53.17 |
55.95 |
62.24 |
67.43 |
68.3 |
Na |
Na |
|
EVENING CLASSES |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
1.28 |
1.17 |
0.19 |
0.15 |
0.1 |
Na |
Na |
|
DISTANCE LEARNING |
0.00 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
45.56 |
42.88 |
37.58 |
32.43 |
31.6 |
Na |
Na |
|
TOTAL PRIVATE EDUCATION (NUMBER) |
0 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
59967 |
85305 |
93434 |
110715 |
130000 |
Na |
Na |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAY CLASSES |
57.72 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
80.67 |
81.28 |
83.54 |
85.00 |
86.8 |
85.67 |
80.5 |
|
EVENING CLASSES |
36.07 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
4.97 |
3.57 |
2.49 |
1.62 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
|
DISTANCE LEARNING |
6.21 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
14.36 |
15.15 |
13.97 |
13.38 |
12.0 |
13.60 |
18.88 |
|
TOTAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION (NUMBER) |
164507 |
* |
* |
* |
* |
315129 |
336141 |
354488 |
360590 |
440285 |
452621 |
533152 |
Source: Ministry of Education (1997 and 1998). Figures for 1997/98 are from the Ministry of National Education (1998). Figures for 1998/1999 are from the National Center for Vocational Guidance (2000), The Education System in Romania, Bucharest.
(*) Enrolment levels in private education for 1994/1995 are calculated based on data from the Ministry of Education (1997) by subtracting the number of first year students in 1995/96 from the total number of students in the same year.
[1] This section was ellaborated together with Dana Sapatoru.
[2]As discussed previously, the Ministry of Education had set national admission procedures and criteria, as well as enrollment levels, for each field of study in public higher education.
[3]No empirical studies have been carried out however on whether or not this reform measure also affected the relative demand for private (or public) higher education. It is possible that the increased supply and lower tuition fees at state universities would seem attractive to some high school graduates who would otherwise have applied to a private institutions to maximize his/her chances of gaining admission.
[4] The Ministry of Education and Research is the new title as of January 2001 for the former Ministry of National Education.
[5] For instance, since 1999 universities have been allowed to admit a number of students, above those funded by the state, who pay tuition. However, with the new regulations in place starting in 2002, the incentive to admit such students in reduced as a result of the requirement to relinquish part of the revenue. See Section 2 on Reforms in Higher Education in Romania.
[6] A discrepancy exists between the number of higher education institutions provided by the National Commission of Statistics and the MER. This discrepancy stems from the fact that there was no systematic recording of the number of private higher education institutions prior to 1999 and that the two do not synchronize figures in education.
[7] According to Korka (2002), formal conformity with the Bologna provisions is not sufficient, however, to ensure quality in Romanian higher education compatible with the European Higher Education Area. Fundamental changes in the means and instruments of economic, fiscal and operational areas of university functioning are also necessary (Korka, 2002).
[8] According to professor Mihai Korka, former state secretary at Ministry of National Education, unofficial estimation based on estimating the number of self evaluation reports submitted for accreditation in 1993/1994
b According to the Statistical Yearbook of Romania 2000, there were 49 universities and according to the data of the Ministry of Education and Research there were 83 universities.