A percentage of 7% of the respondents considered that there was no reform taking place in higher education or that the reform is questionable, as their statements reflect:
“no, there was not any reform at all”
or
“... there were some changes occurred but it is hard to say if those changes can be considered as being a reform or the opposite”
or
“there was some reform…but at a little extent if we have a comprehensive view of the whole higher education sector.... in our university there was a reform at the level of internal organization and curriculla…but I don’t know if this was a part of the reform … I think that a reform of higher education should mean more than that”
or
“during the mandate of the minister Marga Andrei, there were some efforts to do some reform, but unfortunately this reform was shaped by Marga’s view and resemblance…it was a reform done in a hurry.
Components of the reform of higher education
None of the academic staff or the academic management did not mention among the components of the reform pursued in the field of higher education, the introduction of the new system of global financing since 1998. Only 2% of their respondents referred to the financial autonomy as a missing part of the reform, as stated:
“I do not know exactly what financial autonomy means, but as long as most part of the financial sources of the university come from the state…there is no financial autonomy”,
or
“…I think everything is related to money. A certain reform (mostly declarative one), on the paper, took place in our university too…but as long as the wages and many other financial aspects are imposed by Ministry of Education and Research (MER), than all you must do is to comply with its standards ...”.
The limited financial autonomy is seen as impeding the reform as stated by some:
“I think that the fact that wages are set up autonomously at Ministry level if affects (erodes) the fundamentals of the reform of higher education because one cannot pursue reform exclusively with technical endowments, but with people. But if one has not enough money to pay the academic staff, the young people in particular, the departments are going to get emptier and than with whom is the reform going to be pursued and implemented?”.
Only 6% of the respondents
considered the existance of private higher education as part of the reform of
the higher education, system the rest did not mention at all this sector of
higher ducation in
Most answers about the components and effects of the reform of higher education referred to the changes occurred at the academic level. The answers about the components of the reform may be grouped as follows:
1. Ninty percent of the respondents mentioned as part of the reform the changes occurred in the academic curricula at their faculty. All answers indicated changes in the content of academic curricula/course syllabus, the weight of each course within a curricula, the harmonization of the curricula with Western standards.
This answer is the most common as it is the most visible transformation produced in the academic area in the last years and all respondents were involved by the nature of their work in this activity, as they explained:
“there were introduced either completely new disciplines or new themes in the syllabus of courses in the areas that changed the most”,
or
“some changes took place in the sense that the content of the academic curricula became more practical oriented”.
2. Sixty percent of the respondents indicated the harmonization with western standards as one main component of the reform. The changes in the curricula and the harmonization with Western standards, were indicated simultaneously and related to each other as part of the reform by 30% of the respondents. Also other aspects of “harmonization with Western standards”, where seen as being part of the reform, such as the introduction of European transferable credits, changes in the teaching methods.
3. The diversification of the forms of enrolment in higher education, as a mean for the diversification of the educational offer, was mentioned by 43% of the respondents. The main forms of diversification were “the introduction of Open Distance Learning (ODL)” or “the introduction of paid higher education in the public sector” or “diversification of postgraduate programs of master or other short or long term postgraduate courses”.
4. The improvement/development of technical endowments was mentioned by 28% of the respondents mainly from a faculty needing IT material base for running their current activities.
5. The increased international openness of the faculty and academic exchanges was indicated by 15% of the respondents under the form of “increased international openness of the faculty” or “larger opportunities for international academic exchanges of students and professors” or “larger opportunities for scholarships abroad”.
The effects of the reform of higher education
The most frequent answers about the effect of the reform at the faculty level were as follows:
1. The improvement of the technical endowments was indicated as an effect of the reform by 25% of the respondents. The most common perceived improvements were “the development of the technical endowments in terms of computers and soft”, “improving the access of students and academic staff to information through facilities such as free access to internet”, “acquisition of books”, “the improvement of working conditions, namely non financial ones”.
2. The changes occurred in the academic curricula - were perceived both as positive and negative effects by different respondents. Among the positive perceptions about the changes in curricula were: a more practical content of the curricula based upon the market and students needs and requests (9%), “the introduction of optional courses which induce a higher flexibility of education process for the students” (18%), “the harmonization with EU standards” (30%). Among the negative perceptions about the changes in curricula was the reduction of teaching hours (8%) seen to have adverse consequences on the education process since:
“the position in time and in the curricula of various courses changed and…courses are not taught in their normal and logic order (so that each course may use the knowledge acquired in previous courses), ….the order was reversed so that parallelisms appear frequently...and this was done so that the curricula fit in the 20 weakly teaching hours”.
Other negative effects perceived were the exclusion of certain courses from the academic curricula of many faculties (usually courses that were not part of the main subject of the faculty’s specialization).
3. The increased number of students was an effect of the reform of higher education indicated by 14% of the respondents. Some respondents, tried to explain the reasons and the effects of this increase in the number of students. The fact that higer education in Romanis is in the process of transformation from an elite system (prior to 1990) to a mass system is appreciated negatively by many respondents as it is reflected in their statements:
“the main effect of the reform resides in the changing character of the admission exams which allows more enrolments with adverse effects on the quality of the students enrolled that is getting lower”
or
“the reform had a small negative connotation...since a substantial improvement of the education did not occur…students are getting worse”
or
“the effect of the reform was an increased number of illiterates”
or
“higher education became a sort of a post-secondary school”.
However, there were also
different opinions about the quality of the students and of the graduates of
higher education in
“we became well known internationally due to the quality of our students”
or
“one
effect of the reform was the increase of the competitiveness on the education
services market in
4. Positive changes occurred in the area of teaching methods (14%) expressed as “introduction of the information technology in teaching techniques”, “improving the quality of teaching through to a better access of students and academic staff to information and access to internet”. Such answers were given by respondents from some faculties, while none of the respondents from 2 of the total number of 9 faculties of the public university considered that teaching methods were improved. This is an indication that the evolutin oand the progress of chnages were different from one faculty to another.
5. Other effects of the reform of HE with a high degree of diversity but acknowledged by a small number of respondents each, were: “the possibility of the recognition of the diplomas by foreign universities”, “the development and better financing of research activities”, “the democratization of the professor-student relationship”.
To conclude, as far as the perception of the reform and its components and effects is concerned, there are a few aspects that emerge at the level of this public university:
1. Most of the respondents (including those on managerial positions) did not know very clearly what were the components of the reform and what was envisaged through it. This may suggest communication and involvement shortages as: a) The absence or the low efficiency of a public dissemination of the strategy of the Ministry regarding the reform within the academic community and/or the poor communication or dissemination of the relevant information regarding the reform within the university and faculties by their management towards the academic staff and b) the low preoccupation/interest manifested by the academic staff, generally for strategies of the government, although they are supposed to be among its beneficiaries. The academic staff became aware of the reform only when it effected them directly.
2. The reform was appreciated by most of the respondents in relationship with close changes to the work place at the level of academic, and not with its overall view. A larger of the reform was presented by the academic management.
3. Many respondents made confusion between the components of the reform and the effects of the reform by either mentioning the same aspects under both categories or replacing them with one another.
4. The evolution and progress of changes in all respects of the academic life differed to a large extent from one faculty to another within the same public university, according on the one hand to the profile of the faculty and on the other hand to the entrepreneurial spirit of the faculty’s management and the organizational culture at the level of faculty.
5. There have been indicated both positive, but also negative effects of the reform, with the positive effects having prevalence over the negative ones according to the respondents from this public university.
More than 80% of the academic staff interviewed placed the beginning of the reform in early 90’s and associated its start with the depolitizitation of the curricula. Very few mentioned as the moment of the beginning of an effective and more substantial reform the years 1995-1996 or 1997, when the reform started to have a planed agenda. Some of them mentioned the moment as “this was the moment when it became more obvious” or “it is the moment when it accelerated”.
This is generally the perception of the entire academic staff regardless its academic position or working experience in higher education. The conclusions to be drawn are:
1) they associated the beginning of the reform with the first changes in HE and the period of the adoption of the first measures that affected them professionally and had a strong impact (rather psychological)
2) the later measures adopted after mid 90s and which were more substantial had not the same psychological impact and consequently these were not considered significant by most of the respondents;
3) there was a low interest and preoccupation for publicity and information dissemination from central authorities or their measures had little effectiveness. The academic staff manifested also little interest in the reform since they did not consider themselves to be able to influence its results.
The most common answer (51%) provided to this question may be synthesized as “to provide well educated and trained economists/specialists”. In other words, the mission of the faculty is to offer a adequate theoretical background for their students so that to help them find good jobs. Other similar answers were: “to create the specialist in such a manner to shorten the period of intergrating to the work place”, or “to enforce/enhance the exigency so that to strengthen the performance”.
Most of the respondents even though offfered an answer were hesitant, showing in fact that they assumed more than they knew what was the clear mission of the university or if such a mission was stated and followed to be implemented by the university.
Each faculty in this public university has published brochures in which the mission of the faculty is presented, therefore the 33% of the respondents who did not know to answer to this question and the hesitance of the others when answering, reflect that:
· there are information an communication shortages within the faculties of this public university;
· there is a lack of preoccupation of the academic staff for this issue which they either seem to consider as not being directly connected with their professional activities or they place it under the responsibility of the faculty top management.
Over 70% of the academic staff does not know which are the long term objectives of their faculty. The share is higher in the case of the inferior academic positions such as assitants lecturers and junior assistant lecturers. The percentages differed from one faculty to another, the highest rate being 91% and 72%. In two faculties not even the heads of departments could not answer what are the long term objectives of the faculty. Others identified the long term objectives as: „the long term objectives are to develop the declared mission of the faculty” or “to find the best methods to reach the goal of our mission”.
The most common answers were referring to: “increased quality of graduates, of the education process” (15%), “better adapting to the market needs” (9%).
Strategy of the faculty
The share of respondents not knowing the strategy pursued by their faculties was over 75%. Generally it seems that some information about the strategy of the faculty is known at the level of the academic staff holding positions of professors, and rarely at those holding positions lower than senior lecturer.
What was identified by the respondents as being the strategy of their faculties was: adapting the curricula to the market needs (15%), the openness of the faculty (5%) by “increasing openness, contacts and exchanges with national and foreign universities” or “continuously adapting our academic curricula to what is up to date in other Romanian and foreign universities and to the market needs”. Also some importance seems to be attached in the strategy of all the faculties to the quality of the human factor, respectively to the quality of the students admitted and to the quality of academic staff employed (21%). In relation to this issue, some professors mentioned the “need to make the young assistants more responsible”, “the need to attract the best prepared persons in the academic staff”, or the need for their strategy “to focus on attracting additional funding that will allow them to bring professors from abroad” (allowing both a higher quality of human resources of the faculty and exchanges of knowledge and information about teaching techniques).
Based on the analysis of the answers provided to the questions about the long term objectives and strategy of the faculty some conclusions may be drawn. The high rate of „I do not know” answers recorded at both questions suggests either inadequate communication, either low preoccupation of the academic staff for the aspects considered beyond their academic tasks. This might also the result of the fact that usually the academic staff, not having decisional or administrative powers, has not being asked/consulted when such strategies and objectives are set up. This may also suggests that the respondents consider that the long term evolution of their faculty should be decided at the level of the faculty management for insuring a wider vision than it could be done at departments’ level. But the paradox exists, since the long term objective of the faculty are barely known, how then the long term objectives of the component departments are integrated into the long term objective and strategy of the faculty? This may be destructive for a faculty and the quality of its activities since it is supposed that professors adjust their activities so that to help the achievement of the faculty goals. This became impossible or difficult since at the level of academic staff, the objectives of the faculty are not known. The general explanation for not knowing these aspects was that „we did not participate to the decision making process”. But this affirmation is exactly the opposite with the conclusion presented in the next sections regarding the utility of the departments reunions that are perceived as an efficient way of disseminating information from the faculty administration and Professors’ Council (bodies that are in charge with setting up these long term goals) towards the academic staff. This situation may also suggest that academic staff is rarely consulted in elaborating the faculty strategies and plans. Another explanation for this situation may be the fact that academic staff does not consider the decisions and actions of the management of their faculty as part of a coherent strategy pursued for the achievement of a certain goal.
The rate of “I do not know” remains high, around 66%-70% at the level of university.
Among those who answered, considered to be as short term objectives of their faculties: adapting the curriculum to the market and students needs (12%), increasing the quality of human factor both students and academic staff (10%), development of competitive master programs.
Adaptation to the market needs also means, in the view of the respondents “ to offer a flexible package of optional and facultative courses”, “permanent and improved communication with students”. The objective of increasing the quality of human factor was expressed as “to all members of academic staff should have good knowledge of the use of information technology”, “to complete our staff by employing valuable persons…and to promote their mobility between related disciplines so that to avoid their dependence on a single course”. Other interesting objectives connected to the human factor referred the “expansion of using students as technicians during their academic studies so that to attract them after graduation toward academic life”.
Comparing the answers provided at the three questions about long-term objectives, the strategy of the faculty and the short term priorities of the faculty, it is interesting to observe that the degree of information among the members of the academic staff is low. Therefore, neither in the case of long term objectives and strategy, nor for the short term objectives and operational plans, the respondents were not able to express their opinion upon the effectiveness of the strategies and operational plans developed by their faculties. At the same time the heads of the departments admitted that there are no written operational plans. It also seems to be a common feature that academic staff is encountering difficulties in differentiating the objectives from strategy or the long-term objectives from short term priorities. This may be also a valuable argument in supporting the hypothesis of the study of poor information and low preoccupation of academic staff for organizational aspects of academic life.
In all faculties the last educational program introduced during the last five years was a master program. However, there were between 20-33% of the respondents (depending on the faculty) who did not know what was the last program introduced. Generally, the awareness of the respondents was limited and influenced by the concrete way in which they get in touch with the respective program. The rest of the respondents indicated correctly the last educational program introduced at least as type of program even though not all details were known. Generally academic staff from the responsible departments provided the details about the administration of the program. This situation is most obvious in case of inferior academic degrees. There was one faculty where the situation was completely different, as its academic staff was much more informed about its newest educational program than in the other faculties. Their more indepth and accurate information was explained through the fact that the academic staff regardless their academic position was widely involved in the logistic of the programs and the details related were more openly discussed within the department. The strategy for administrating the postgraduate programs in this faculty relies on delegating the responsibility of each master or specialization to lower organizational level, respectively to each department of the faculty.
The decision of introducing a new educational program should normally be adopted by professors’ Councils of each faculty based on the proposals of faculty management and should be subject to validation in the Senate of the university. Most of the respondents indicated the faculty management as a decisional body entitled to adopt this decision when in fact this body is the one making the proposal for the introduction of a new educational program. This may suggest that either the Professors’ Council is controlled and highly influenced in its decisions by the faculty management or it is perceived as such, either there is little transparency in the process. Only in one faculty respondents described that the process takes place as it was suppose to. This is mainly the result of the policy of involving the academic staff in administrative and organizational life of the faculty. This may be also the result of the fact that each specialization provided for undergraduates as well as the master programs are generally administrated (curricula, organizational aspects) by one of the departments from the faculty, which means more transparency and involvement of the academic staff due to a higher degree of decentralization than in the case of the other faculties.
Generally, over 66% of the interviewed persons considered that the introduction of this program was the result of the market demands, not an administrative decision as it actually was.
According to the answers of the respondents, the course curriculum is the result of discussions and debates between the so called “collectives” (namely academic staff teaching the same disciplines or group of discipline) since this methodology was indicated by over 80% of the respondents. Few respondents (below 20%) stated that a course curriculum is the result of the vision of a single person, respectively the course coordinator in the case of most faculties, while in case of one faculty there were more than 30% of the staff who declared that the course curriculum is sett up by the course coordinator (this idea was supported mainly by academic staff with inferior academic positions).
The main criteria based upon the course curriculum is set up, according to the respondents were the following:
1) market demands (seen as labor market or students) – over 60% of the respondents.
2) course curriculum in foreign universities as reflected in the following statement:
“we enforced the collaboration with universities and specialized institutes from abroad so that the course objectives and criteria that we are setting to be based upon an international openness” or “the course content is based on European standards” and
3) evaluation made by academic staff about what they consider necessary to be known by students (according to the desired level of knowledge of students).
The most synthetic way of describing the setting up a course curriculum was the following “we analyze an equivalent course curriculum from foreign universities and our existing resources (in terms of academics, technical endowments and course materials)”.
When IT subjects were involved in the content of the courses, a continuos up date of the course content to the latest development in the area of informatics took place
“we are changing annually around 20% of the content of our courses so that these are completely new once at every 4-5 years”. Academics from this faculty get informed about the latest developments in their teaching field by the contacts they have with business environment and by Internet. The contacts with the business environment are used also for adapting the courses to the existing market needs. These contacts, are rather the results of personal and informal contacts of the heads of the departments and faculty management than collected through an official/formal process.
Respondents appreciated that the process of setting up the curricula is relatively decentralized and flexible as compared to 5 years ago. The frequency in operating changes and up dates is seen as being higher than before “as compared to the same process 5 years ago…at present the process is more decentralized, transparent…it is more controllable…everything may be monitored…I was used with a more rigid course curricula”.
However the course curricula is seen as a necessery first step in assuring a good teaching process, but not as being sufficient “but a course curriculum does not provide much relevant information about the quality of the taught course”.
The course coordinators and academic staff with positions higher than senior lecturer declared that they are widely involving the academic staff with lower academic position in drafting the course curriculum and in editing background papers for the course. This opinion is not fully shared by the interviewed academic staff with inferior positions who consider that they are not involved at all in setting up course curriculum or that their suggestions are not treated seriously or are only listened but not implemented. This means that the involvement of younger staff in elaborating curriculum is mostly declarative, not properly functioning in practice. Both course coordinator and inferior academic staff may be responsible for this unequal collaboration.
Here are some desciptions of the process from academics on lower academic positions:
“I do not dare to make any suggestions…I do not have enough experience so that to be able to make appropriate suggestions or to say something different than the professor”.
The idea of “little freedom” was defined as “I have the right to conduct the seminars as I consider best but I cannot do other themes than those indicated by the professors/course coordinator”, “my suggestions for improving the core themes debated in the seminars or to renew the course curriculum are not taken into consideration”.
Adapting the course to the market needs
About 75%-80% of the interviewees identified the market needs as being identical with students’ demands regarding the utility of the content of the courses they take. Therefore, these respondents stated the relative high importance they attach to such discussions during seminars and courses.
Also some 20% of the respondents, mainly professors or senior lecturers, considered useful to remain in touch with their graduates and with employers as relevant providers of information about market demands. Such process exists at the moment in this public university, according to most respondents (70%) but is rather an informal and interpersonal relationship based, rather than a formal process managed by faculties.
Some of the young academic staff considered also as being useful their permanent collection of information about the newest soft and the latest achievements in their field.
Traditionally the introduction and the adaptation of courses would take place according to the work force available within the university. In one faculty respondents emphasized that the process changed and showed that the course curriculum and the curriculum of new educational programs are set up according to the market needs and there is no longer the case that courses are tailored for the professor “our courses and curricula are set up as the market demand, we do not have courses tailored for a certain member of our academic staff”.
Admission procedures
Only two respondents did not know what were the admission procedures in their faculty. All other respondents from all faculties regardless their academic degree, were aware of the admission criteria and types of exams.
Generally the admission criteria used at the admission exams in 2001 for all faculties within the university were:
1. written examination of a multiple choices test 70% of the final grade
2. the result at the baccalaureate exams – 20% ,
3. the avergae grade during high school years- 10%;
The last two criteria have been introduced during last 3 years since autonomy was granted.
The main changes occurred in the admission procedures identified by the interviewed staff, as compared to the existing situation prior to 1997 were:
1. the simplification of the exam
2. the increased objectivity due to the introduction of a written multiple choices examination
3. the sense of lowering exigency.
The opinions about the changes occurred differed: around 30% of the respondents considered the changes as inducing positive effects (in the sense of simplification of procedures, transparency, exigency level), while around 40% considered these changes as having a negative effect (mostly due to the lowering of the admission standards and to the irrelevant and incomplete evaluation of applicants in the new type of examination).
The following statements reflect the opinions of some respondents:
“the criterion of taking into consideration the grades obtained during high school and at baccalaureate examination should be eliminated…since there is no real ranking of the high schools…it is possible for an applicant to have very good grades, but this is not relevant since she/he may have graduated a high school where the level of exigency is very low…and this applicant will be more favored as compared to an applicant who has graduated a top high school where the level of exigency is very high”,
or
“I consider the multiple choices test as an adequate type for admission examination since it induces simplification and more objectivity in evaluating the results”
or
“I do not agree with the multiple choice type of test used in the admission examinations since it does not offer the possibility to fully evaluate relevant knowledge of each applicant”.
Some respondents offered suggestions for the improvement of the admission procedures:
1) the completion of the current actual examinations procedures with individual interviews with applicants or with new disciplines: “ I do not understand why knowledge in informatics of the applicants is not tested at this specialized faculty …therefore (due to the absence of this test) during first year of study I am forced to teach them knowledge that more than 50% of the students already have”,
or
“my personal suggestions is to introduce also an interview with applicants as it is the practice at foreign universities”;
2) the possibility of eliminating the selection process prior to the admission in the faculty as a students and its transfer to the period of academic studies that “the admission examinations should no more be used… all applicants should be admitted and then they should be selected through usual examinations carried out during the faculty…but this seems rather impossible at the moment due to the limited existing technical endowments of the university and the large number of applicants (such as class-rooms and so on)”,
or
“probably the admission exams will be eliminated in the future…as it is the case of most developed countries…but such an option is viable when the grades at baccalaureate will become relevant and the evaluation standards in high schools will be higher than they are at present”.
Graduation exams
The organization of the graduation procedures has a more decentralized character than the admission procedures, the university’s decisional bodies being involved mostly in drafting the general principle for these examinations, while de responsibility for organizing the process lies at the level of faculties’ management. Also in this public university, regardless the faculty, the graduation exams consist in written examination of the multiple choices type from various courses undertaken by students during their academic studies (and to which they have passed regular examinations for each course during their study period) and the public presentation of the graduation paper to a commission of professors.
In case of most faculties, the actual responsibility for carrying out the graduation exam is delegated to the core departments, while the other departments part of the faculty are not involved in the process. Consequently due to this manner of organizing graduation examinations, to the decentralized character of this process, the share of the respondents not having accurate information about this activity is high (around 35%).
Very few interviewees (12%) agreed with the manner in which graduation exams are taking place at the moment in this university. Over 75% of interviewees considered useless the theoretical written exam since:
“ it covers domains where knowledge of the students were previously evaluated during their academic years”
and consequently ”the same knowledge is tested twice”,
or
“the written exams is not relevant”,
or
“it tests the reproductive capacity of the graduates”,
or
“it raises problems since there were cases in which students of whose marks at the regular exams (at courses included in the bibliography for the graduation exams) were below 6 or 7, but they managed to get 9 or 10 at the graduation exam”
and
“it should not be part of the graduation process”.
Consequently almost all these respondents proposed the elimination of the theoretical exam and that the graduation exams should consist only of the presentation of individual dissertation. Also over 50% of the interviewees added that if the defence of the dissertation is to be the only form of licencing exam, an increase in the exigency of the evaluation of the graduation paper is needed and the standards of elaborating it should be raised. The practical part of the dissertation should be more developed and have a more eliminatory character in order to avoid the frauds. More responsibility of the professor in evaluating the papers is needed, as one professor mentioned:
“we discovered that one student presented an identical dissertation as one previously presented, few days before by another student…interesting to notice is that the coordinator for both dissertations was the same professor”,
The licencing exams were introduced at the beginning of 1990’s for both state and private universities, as one way to ensure similarity of knowledge of graduates from both state and private universities, as private universities were suspected to graduate students who do not have a comparable level of knowledge as the students from state universities. The licencing exams are organized for state universities’ students and for private universities’ students that are not accredited, at public universities. Therefore, one faculty in this public university tried to ensure a higher objectivity of the process as explained by one professor:
“there were some problems at our faculty, regarding the graduation exams since graduates from private universities came to us to pass these exams…consequently we introduced some restrictions…in the graduation commissions, professors from our departments/faculty who teach at private universities were not allowed…we also decided to proceed to a more exigent, in depth and comprehensive examination of graduates from the private universities… we have a reputation to protect….we are not willing to give a diploma/qualification with our university name on it to everybody….when we had them (graduates from private universities) they were quite perturbing and stressing elements”.
Generally the decisions regarding the graduation exams are taken at the level of the university’s Senate (core rules and principles for ensuring the coordination of the process the uniformity of evaluations) and faculties’ management (the organization of examinations and of the process).
Human resource policy
More than 90% of the respondents from all departments, including heads of the departments and regardless the academic position mentioned that the selection process of the academic staff is based upon the rules and criteria set up by the Ministry of Education and Research for each academic position and indicated that these criteria refer to individual performances of the staff in their teaching and research activities. The selection process is seen as being a competitive one, based on exams.
All respondents answered that the most common way of spreading information about vacancies is the publication “Monitorul Oficial” and also, to a much lesser extent the notices put up by the specialized department of the university. Older professors, employed prior to 1990 mentioned that they were selected automatically according to their performances during the university studies. None of the respondents did not mention that the university has its own criteria of selecting staff different form those of the Ministry.
Respondents from few faculties (30%) mentioned that usually professors select their future assistants from their best students and inform them about the existing vacancies.
Promotions are also based on the competencies, meaning the teaching and research performances of academic staff according also with criteria set up by Ministry, the process of promotion being similar with the one of selection.
None of the respondents, heads of the departments included, knew which is the methodology based on which they wages are set up. Most of them answered “I do not know” or “ I wish I knew”. Generally heads of the deaprtments and very few members of the academic staff mentioned or assumed that their wages are centrally determined by the Ministry. This is only partially true since according to the principle of institutional autonomy, the Ministry of Education and Research provides a basic wage according to the wages set up for state employees considered to be on similar positions, but universities may supplement these “guaranteed wages” from their own revenues according to their own performance criteria. None of the respondents in this university mentioned this aspect. All of the respondents shared the opinion according to which it should exists some differentiation of the wages among staff according with their performances and competences, but none indicated a specific manner of doing it.
All respondents answered that they are barely motivated by the faculty or the university. This answer is based on the fact that the academic staff considered the financial instruments used in the motivation policy of the university as being completely inadequate, as one statement is very suggestive:
“… the level of the wages are a shame for this occupation. We are in the disgrace of the society with this wages”.
All the respondents from the academic staff considered that they are motivated either by the possibility to participate to international academic exchange programs or by the fact that they see themselves as contributing to the professional training of the future economists (opinion shared by the largest part of the staff at all levels). None of the respondents from the academic staff considered that their faculty set up and employs a coherent policy for attracting young persons within their academic staff and there is no preoccupation for this.
All heads of departments included as instruments of motivation: financial bonuses that are granted rather on a “rotation principle” than on academic performances, so that to cover all staff within a determined period and international academic exchange programs in which the faculty is involved (in these cases young staff is preferred as stated by the head of the departments). All respondents answered that their option for working in higher education was based on their passion for teaching mainly and not for material benefits.
Documentation
In preparing their courses and seminars, various answers were provided by the respondents, differences being due to the specific character of each department and to the academic position of the respondents. For instance, most professors and senior lecturers (about 80%) use the courses written by themselves as theoretical background for their lectures (as having a written textbook is a condition for promotion to senior lecturer and professor levels), while academics on inferior positions use mostly foreign materials for preparing their seminars (either under the form of foreign books or information available on the internet which helps them to update their knowledge ). Consequently, Romanian materials used were generally published in 2001 or 2002, while the foreign books are a little older, the year of their issue being around 1998-1999. Generally written materials (about 90% of the answers) were accessed by the academic staff in their own personal library or procured in other libraries than those of the university, while information collected from the internet were accessed and were available due to the free access to internet provided by the university.
Technical endowment
All respondents considered that the technical endowment of their faculty improved considerably during the last 3 years, but they still assessed that their access to various facilities is till limited (mostly that regarding printing, writing tools and paper) and this opinion was mostly shared by the inferior academic position regardless the department they were part of. Modern tools for teaching such as videoprojectors and slideprojectors are still low exploited in the teaching activities by the staff, not being used on a regular basis in the teaching activities. There is only one videoprojector per faculty and only half of the course halls are eqquiped with slideprojectors, while for seminars are available a limited number of slideprojectors at each entrance in the university’s buildings and they can be taken by professors based on their university card. In other words the improvement of the technical base of the university (both in terms of existing facilities and access) it is seen as compared to the past but it is still not at the necessary level on the one hand and on the other hand this improvement is not yet fully reflected in the quality of teaching since these facilities are not used regularly by all academics.
Evaluating students
Generally, at all faculties in this university, the evaluation of the students consists of two parts: the grade obtained at seminars where practical activities are carried out and the grade obtained at the final examinations based on guidelines allaborated at the level of university. All respondents, with no exception indicated this method of evaluating students, regardless their academic position and faculty. What differs from one faculty to another, as well as according to each course is the weight of the grade obtained for the seminars that varies between 20% to 60%. This already reflects a change as compared to the period previous to 1989 when the evaluation was based solely on the results at the final examination. The evaluation of the activity of the students at the seminars varies from one faculty to another and from one course to another, comprising the evaluation of activities such as case studies, projects, essays and different types of home-works. The shift towards a long term evaluation, during the academic year and during the exams session is a sign of more participative methods of education by involving students all year long and by trying to teach them to make constant effort.
Cooperation among faculties and departments
Most respondents considered that the collaboration among faculties is low. The respondents, holding inferior academic position, did not even know if this cooperation exists and in what it consists. As examples of forms of cooperation among the faculties were mentioned: setting together educational plans, the adaptation of the courses to the need of the faculty the organization and functioning of master programs which requires professors from more than one faculty.
Very few respondents (3%), heads of some departments complained about the difficulties they are confronted with in collaborating with the management of other faculties or departments considering that the collaboration depends mostly on personal relationships and these affect the introduction of their disciplines to the curriculum of other faculties.
One conclusion that may be draw is that the cooperation among the departments within the same faculty is greater and the collaboration between faculties differs according to the faculties involved and relationship between management of faculties and departments. Very few courses of a faculty are taught by professors from another faculty within this public university, the largest part of the courses are taught by professors from that faculty. The formal cooperation among faculties and departments refers exclusively to teaching activities, the cooperation between faculties in the field of research (if any) being based on personal relationships.
Financing the activities of a faculty and the use of funds
All respondents regardless their academic position indicated as main source of financing the educational activities of their faculties, the state budget.
The non-budgetary sources, indicated by respondents were:
1. Donations and sponsorships that faculty attracted a as a result of its cooperation with various components of the business environment.
2. Fees collected from fee paying students, postgraduate programs, distance learning programs and taxes collected for repeating exams.
3. Only respondents from one faculty indicated also as a major non-budgetary source of financing the research projects that the faculty is currently involved in, but they did not make any distinction among the budgetary funds transferred for research activities through complementary financing from state and non state financing of research activities. The fact that very few respondents outside this faculty indicated the funds attracted through research projects as a major source of financing is explained by the fact that this faculty coordinates the highest number of research projects within the university and consequently the volume and the impact of funds attracted in this manner are larger and more visible than in case of the other faculties. In the same faculty, respondents indicated that they participate in research projects outside the university.
All of the respondents agreed upon two things: the funds provided through state budget are insufficient to the educational needs and the non-budgetary funds and sources should be expanded, but they could not indicate a specific way of doing it (except for very few respondents who proposed the enforcement of relations with the business environment through research projects or sponsorship). None of the respondents were familiar with the criteria used in allocating funds among various purposes and types of activities carried out in their faculty and placed the responsibility of adopting such decisions at the university management level, only few respondents placing also some responsibility at the level of the faculty management.
All respondents stated that there is a budget at the level of university, without offering details about it and at the same time no respondent could specify if there is a budget at the level of faculty or not. In fact there was no decentralization of budgets at the level of faculty in this public university.
The conclusions regarding the financial activity in this university are that: the financial decisions are highly centralized at the level of university’s management; the academic staff perceive these decisions as being centralized and therefore they pay little attention to these decisions which are no longer relevant for their activities and focuse exclusively on their teaching tasks. This situation might also be the result of the fact that they are not asked by the faculty or university management to participate to take the financial decisions.
Estimating the cost of the education of a student
None of he respondents was able to estimate the cost of the education of one student of their faculty during the current academic year. Few of them (9%) considered expensive the education of a student of their faculty but they did not know to indicate an approximate value. There was just one answer estimating this cost, from a senior lecturer who based his estimation on a study he conducted few years ago approximating the annual cost of educating a student in this university around 700 USD per year.
Decisions subject to the approval of the ministry, of the university and of the faculty level; the decentralization of decisions
Among the decisions that are subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education the only one mentioned by most of the respondents (70%) was the approval of promotion on superior academic positions (senior lecturer and professor). A few respondents (20%) included in this category the approval of new academic programs. Other relevant aspects such as approval of financing, enrolments, academic evaluation and accreditation were not mentioned by the respondents, reflecting a low involvement in these activities.
The decisions taken at the university level mentioned by the respondents were: the confirmation of the academic titles such as lecturer, teaching assistant and junior teaching assistant which are subject to the confirmation of the university’s Senate.
None of the respondents indicated the types of decisions decentralized at the faculty level, in this way not pointing out the effects induced by the decentralization process. However, academics on managerial positions mentioned that some decentralization occurred during the last five years, without concretly indicating what are the areas where decentralization occurred and its impact.
This evidence suggests the fact that at the level of the academic staff and low management level (heads of departments) there is no coherent knowledge about what institutional autonomy is and what should be the effects of the process of decentralization promoted through the reform of higher education by the authorities (MER). The academic staff was unable to make any connection between the improvement or deterioration of their working conditions, the quality of teaching, the technical endowment and the institutional autonomy the university enjoys due to the higher education reform. This may also suggests that academic staff did not know its rights and how to use them and to what extent the autonomy they are entitled to, since they do not know which are the decisions decentralized to the faculty and individual level. Another conclusion that may be drawn is that initiatives at the low management level (heads of departments) is very low since most respondents from this category did not know much about decentralized decisions. Therefore, it is hard to believe that they would act on their own initiative instead of waiting specific decisions to come from upper management level; this will lead to the perpetuation of old mentalities and will nourish the trend of centralization of decision.
Communication and information channels within the university
The general view was that the informal and interpersonal relationships prevails as comparing to formal channels.
The formal communication channels between faculty and its departments mentioned were: secretaries of departments, heads of departments and departments’ meetings, displays within the departments, and ocassionally the intranet (within only one faculty).
A common feature mentioned by all respondents from all faculties, regardless their academic position was that the formal reunion of the department is an adequate way of discussing academic (teaching or research) matters rather than discussing or solving administrative issues. Also the departments’ meetings are seen by most respondents, who are not part of decisional bodies as the only frame in which they may express their opinions and to participate to the decisional process.
Generally academic staff from all faculties considered the teaching staff as being the main interface between departments and students. In other words, the teacher is also seen as a disseminator of information issued by the departments to the students through the seminar or courses.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the state
The largest part of the respondents (80%) had no clear idea about the issue of responsibility of the university towards the state, but they assumed that the responsibility of the faculty towards the state manifested under the form of the quality of the tertiary education that the faculty provides to the students and consequently further influences the quality of the workforce in the labour market.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the students
The largest majority of the respondents (80%) considered that the responsibility of the faculty towards students manifest in the same way as the responsibility of the faculty towards state, respectively by providing high quality education. The majority of the respondents see this issues from only this perspective.
The respondents did not presented a coherent view of the students’ expectations from the higher education. Generally the heads of the departments and some representatives of the staff (holding various academic positions) presented quite an official point of view about what they think the students expectations’ are, respectively that students expect to receive a high quality education. Most respondents from all faculties (60%) mentioned a trend towards lowering students’ standards regarding the quality of education, mentioning that generally students expect less exigency at exams. It is considered that the main purpose of the students is rather to obtain a higher education diploma that confers them a better social status and a better position on the labor market than to obtain specific knowledge.
Most respondents sharing this view agreed that this was the consequence of two elements:
1. lowering the quality of the students due to the lowering of admissions standards (generally this view was shared by staff with superior academic position) which also lowers the value of the diplomas provided and
2. the lower preoccupation of the students for the quality of their education since many of them already have jobs which consumes their largest part of the time in disfavor of their academic concerns (generally this view is shared by academic staff holding inferior positions).
The respondents, except for the heads of departments, were not certain if at the faculty level there is a formal process through which the quality of their teaching activities is evaluated. Consequently the respondents either did not know anything about the process (very few cases covering all academic positions) or heard about this process, but they had very few information about the results and the way in which the results of this process is taken into account when adopting decisions or how this influences their activity and careers.
The evaluation of the teaching process generally lacks transparency and it is seen rather as a formal process with no relevant consequences in the decisional process. Only few heads of departments declared that this process is usefull and its results are used either under the form of discussing in the departments’ meetings or in a more informal environment (generally face to face talking) about the most negative aspects revealed in order to correct them.
However, not even the heads of the departments did not make any clear reference whether the results of this evaluation are taken into account when promotions are made or proposals for promotions are done, as it is stated by the law. This process of formal evaluation is managed in this university by the students union, aspect that seemed to be known exclusively by the heads of the departments, while the other respondents either did not know whom is conducting this process or assumed that the coordination is insured by the faculty management since this is the body that they consider that uses the results of the survey.
Also the largest part of the respondents (75%) indicated that they are conducting their own process of evaluation of the quality of their teaching and the results they obtain are relevant for adjusting their future needs according to students’ requirements.
All respondents considered that there is no formal process of gathering and up dating information about the faculty graduates and this process is rather an informal one (on a very reduced scale) and is based on the interpersonal relationships between academic staff and the graduates. Only in one faculty there are plans for the future creation of an electronic data base with the faculty graduates which would allow to the faculty to follow up the careers of its graduates.
Concerning the way in which the requirements of the employers are identified and taken into account, the survey revealed three major answers:
1. Generally the academic staff affirmed that such a process does not exist and that the demands of employers are not known by the academic staff (30%).
2. The process takes place through individual interpersonal relationships of the staff with the employers, so it depends on each individual.
3. There are some formal relations established between the employers and faculty through the postgraduate programs (master programs) and research projects.
This aspect raises a question over previous allegations of the way the individual teachers adapt their course to the labor market needs, since they affirmed that the demands of the employers are hardly known.
The responsibility of the university/faculty towards the employees
The respondents were not aware about what exactly means and under which forms the responsibility of the faculty towards its employees manifests, but they were able to answer to more specific additional questions on this topic. All respondents regardless the faculty or academic position mentioned its satisfaction about the working conditions and even mentioned an obvious improvement during the last three years, although most of them connected directly this improvement of working conditions with the personal efforts of the rector rather than connecting it with any component of the reform of higher education.
Very few academics were aware of the fact that they have the possibility of procuring teaching materials or books through the special funds created by the university about whose existence and possibility of being accessed by the academic staff was mentioned by the heads of the departments. To conclude, the academic staff did not know precisely what were their rights.
Self evaluation of the faculty
A large part of the respondents regardless their academic position or faculty, did not know if such a process exists (50%) or clearly stated that such a process does not exists (30%). The remaining ones (20%), covering all academic degrees and faculties and including almost all heads of departments, stated that a process of self evaluation of the faculty performances exists as part of the process of academic evaluation and that is done according to the criteria provided by the ministry. These respondents actually indirectly admitted that the standards for performance appraisal of the faculty are external standards and not internal standards and indicated that the process that they were calling ‘self evaluation’ was in fact just an administrative task of the decanates in applying external standards, and not an actual self evaluation carried out in accordance with specific standards of each faculty or university’s internal standards.
Corruption in higher education
The main form of corruption mentioned by there respondents was influence traficking at all levels.
Job satisfaction
The academic staff was not satisfied with the financial terms of their job. Other sources of insatisfaction were: the lowering quality of the students and diminished duration of the courses or seminars which negatively affect the quality of teaching activities.
Generally job satisfaction for most respondents consisted of: the passion and dedication for this profession, working in a competitive and dynamic environment and the respect of the students.