LUMINITA NICOLESCU

A number of changes took place in Romanian higher education after 1989. The first major change in higher education was the emergence of private universities. The phenomenon appeared immediately after the fall of communism in a context of high demand for higher education (as places in universities were centrally planned and limited prior to 1989) and little legislation in this respect. There were a number of motives considered to contribute to the increase in the demand for higher education: a) there was a large number high-school graduates from past generations whose aspirations to get into an university were not fulfilled prior to 1990 due to the limited number of places and the tough entry examinations; b) new opportunities arose by the opening of Romanian society which attracted more people to study further in order to be able to benefit from them; and c) having a university diploma was seen as a prerequisite to get jobs in the labour market, jobs that could be obtained on the basis of networks and connections but for which the basic requirement was to have a university diploma. Private initiative was first to respond to the increased demand. The first private universities were established in 1990, and the first legislation regulating private higher education was enacted only in 1993. Under these circumstances newly established private universities had no quality requirements to comply with. Private universities were the result of private initiatives of individuals and group of individuals who, starting 1990, designed and organized courses in whatever available places (cinema halls, canteens, etc) with mainly sub-contracted professors from state universities and called themselves universities. The level of quality of the educational services depended on the organizers and on whatever the market was prepared to accept. Given the scarcity of the past on the one hand and the strong desire of getting a higher education the market accepted any service that would provide a university diploma. Only lately, processes like authorization and accreditation were initiated. Still, these universities continued their activities and “produced” the first generation of private university graduates in 1994.

The entire education system, state and private institutions, experienced growth and reorganization. The number of public higher education institutions increased from 44 in 1989-1990 to 57 in 1999-2000. At the same time, the number of private higher institutions grew even faster starting from 0 in 1989 and reaching 63 in 1999-2000 according to the National Commission of Statistics and 83 according to the Ministry of Education and Research (MER)[1].

The total number of students enrolled almost tripled in the 12 year period. While enrollments in state institutions increased by 95%, the larger increase was due to the establishment and growth of private higher education institutions.

Sources: Statistical Yearbook (2000), Ministry of Education and Research (2002).

Presently about 30% of the students enrolled in higher education study in a private higher education institution. Table 2 presents the evolution of student enrollments between 1989 and 2001.

Sources: Statistical Yearbook (2000), Novak, Jigau, Brancoveanu, Iosifescu and Badescu (1998), MER (2002)

Another aspect of higher education restructuring after 1990, is the higher degree to which private higher education responded to the structural market demand as compared to state higher education. Prior to 1990, engineering fields were in high demand as Communist Party policy at the same time was “to develop the multi-lateral developed Romania” by self-producing as many manufactured goods as possible. To fulfill this goal society needed many engineers, a need that was reflected in the higher number of study places available in engineering as well as in the better position of engineers in society (higher wages, better access to top company positions). After 1990, there was an over-inflation of engineers and the demand for qualifications in economics[2] and law[3] increased. Table 3 presents how demand increased most in fields such as law, economics and humanities. These were the fields in which most of the private universities developed.

Table 3: The structure of higher education by field (1989, 1994,1998, in percent)

The percentage of students studying economics in public universities has doubled between 1989 and 1998, while the law enrollments more than doubled in the same period. At the same time private higher education took advantage of the financial and organizational deficits of state higher education by immediately absorbing the excess demand in these fields (Edinvest, 2000). The enrolment numbers by field in private higher education show that law has the highest percentage (38%) of students followed by economics (37%). The development was also supported by the fact that for these fields no industrial equipment for laboratories is needed as in engineering, so investment costs are lower.

An important element in the changes of higher education in Romania is the introduction of an external quality evaluation system through the accreditation process. Both the state and the private higher education institutions are subject to accreditation and re-evaluation every 5 years. The accreditation process has two phases, the temporary authorization after two years or operation and depending on a number of conditions which must be fulfilled, and the full accreditation which can be granted two years after the first cohort of students has graduated and also depends on a number of additional conditions.

In 1993, when the accreditation law was enacted the quality evaluation process took place in a discriminatory way. All public higher education institutions that were operating before 1990 were automatically accredited while newly established public higher education institutions and the private higher education institutions were subject to the procedures of accreditation. In 1993, 168 private higher education institutions asked for temporary authorization. No statistical evidence was available about these institutions until 1996 when the declared number of private institutions was 36. We assume that the rest did not receive the temporary authorization to operate. Most of the latter closed down but some still remained and function illegally up to present. In 2002, there are about 20 private universities without authorization that operate nevertheless (Damian, 2002).

The 8 private higher education institutions accredited in December 2001 through approval of the Romanian Parliament were mainly those that managed to substantially improve their material base and have their own buildings (classrooms, dormitories). Even though they are fully accredited and, according to the law, have the right to organize independently their own examinations and licensing/graduation, academics from the public universities have to be members of the examination commissions at private institutions. In April 2002 the accreditation of the 8 universities was certified by law.

In 1995, a new education law was passed, Law 84/1995. It was revised in 1999 through Law 151/1999. The main contribution of the latter was the launch of higher education reforms by granting more academic and financial autonomy to higher education institutions. Between 1998 and 2000 there were numerous other Government decisions, orders and ordinances enacted to help the implementation of the reform. After 2000, when the political power changed in Romania the rhythm of changes in higher education slowed down rapidly. Although no formal declaration has been made as far as the continuation of the reform is concerned, there was no abrogation of existing legislation and no radical switch in the provision of the new regulations as was the case in Bulgaria, for instance.

One significant change that occurred in public higher education, once academic and financial autonomy was granted, was the introduction of study places with tuition fees in 1997. Table 4 presents the evolution of the number of tuition fee paying students in public higher education. The number of tuition fee paying students increased 33 times in the period from 1997 to 2001, due to a change in legislation which removed restrictions on the number of fee paying places. This shows that tuition fees have started to become an important source of financing for state higher education too. Interesting is that, while the number of places in private higher education institutions has to be approved by the Ministry of Education and Research (MER) so that they do not enroll more students than their basic material capacity allows, public higher education institutions do not need approval from the MER for the number of tuition fee paying students. However, there is a recommendation of the MER that the number of tuition fee paying students should not exceed the number of students financed by state.

We can conclude that higher education in Romania has undergone numerous changes in the period from 1990 to 2002. Among them are the significant expansion of the entire higher education system; the rise of the private higher education as an important actor in higher education in Romania but seen as a provider of low quality education; the change in the distribution of students among the disciplines with an inclination towards social and economic specializations and the initiation of higher education reform.

Therefore, the study of the way the reform was implemented is of great interest and the present study was conducted in order to identify the way the provisions of the r form are perceived and implemented at academic staff level and at academic management level, in both public and private universities.

Given the situation in Romania our research question is how much do management of state universities benefit of the institutional autonomy that they were given? How much do the financial autonomy they receive by law, contribute to the diversification of sources of funding for universities? How is the academic autonomy implemented at university level? How accountable are universities given the autonomy they received?

1) To evaluate the implementation of academic autonomy by assessing its contribution to changes in academic curriculum and academic programs at university level.

2) To assess how financial autonomy at university level determined the better use of existing resources and the finding of new sources of financing.

3) To study the mechanism of decision-making regarding academic issues and financial issues within universities. Is the past model of transmitting decision top-down (from senates to faculties and individuals) preserved or there is more delegation of decision-making at faculties level and at individual level?

4) To assess the university accountability towards state for using its funds and towards students for the programs delivered, programs that have to correspond with the demand from the labor market.

Phase 1: Two detailed case studies were developed for two universities, one state university and one private university. The two universities were chosen from the economic field in order to ensure comparability. Information about employees and decision-makers at all levels within the university, about the way the financial and academic autonomy granted by law is perceived and is implemented, was to be collected.

Phase 2: A country-wide mail survey is to be conducted with the managerial staff of the 121 public and private universities in Romania (Statistical Yearbook, 2000).

Information about the new and old sources of finance and new and old educational programs; about the decision making related to these issues are to be gathered in order to assess the implementation of financial and academic autonomy at university level.

Two universities were selected to participate in the project as case studies, one public, the Academy of Economic Studies and one private, the Romanian-American University, both from Bucharest. Both universities agreed to participate. Section 4 below will shortly present the two universities. A letter of support was obtained from the rectors in order to induce higher participation of academic and managerial staff in the study. The data collection methods used were recorded in-depth interviews, and as an alternative option, filling in a questionnaire. For the in-depth interviews it was used an interview guide. See it in Appendix no. 1. The topics and questions from the interview guide were summarized and it was conceived a questionnaire to be distributed, as an alternative option for those who could not or do not wish to be interviewed.

The Academy of Economic Study, the public university has a total of 760 academic staff and an approximate 25% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 185 persons. The Romanian American University has a total of 147 academic staff and a 50% sample was envisaged to be interviewed for the present study, representing 81 persons. The percentages of 25% and 50% respectively were kept to the possible extent at the level of each academic position.

At the Academy of Economic Studies, the public university, from the total sample of 185 academic staff, 131 participated in the study, representing a response rate of 70.8%, while the non response rate was 29.2%. Table no. 5 presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.

Table 5. Sample and response rate at the Academy of Economic Studies

The highest rates of response was recorded in case of the Faculty of International Business and Economics (80%), the Faculty of Finance (80%) and the of Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Informatics and Statistics (74.41%), while the lowest rate in case of the faculty of Economic Studies in Foreign Languages (17%). In the case of the high responding three faculties the academic staff is more connected with the outside world than in other faculties and this can be an explanation of the higher openness and co-operation in the study. In case of the faculty of International Business, another explanation for the high rate of response is the fact that researchers were members of the academic staff of this faculty and around 60% of the persons contacted accepted to participate to the study as a personal favor to the researchers. In the case of one faculty the head of the chair insisted to control the process and to select by himself the people to be part of the sample. This transformed the process into a controlled one and the people, mostly those holding inferior academic position became reticent and concerned about their career since this was a study controlled by their head of the chair. In another faculty, one influential member of the faculty forbid the others to participate in the study.

Around 75% of the respondents that were not part of the faculties’ management or heads of the chairs even-though they agreed and participated in the study, they showed some reservation about their inclusion into the sample and they mentioned that they did not consider themselves representative for the academic staff. It was mainly the case of the assistant professors and the junior assistants who do not consider themselves as relevant for the study, due to the fact they that spent less than 5-6 years as members of the teaching staff so they were not able to catch the process of higher education reform from its very beginning,

Generally the duration of an interview was on average 45-50 minutes for the teaching assistant and junior teaching assistants, one hour for senior lecturers and lecturers and around 1 hour and 20-30 minutes for the professors and heads of the chairs. The longer duration of an interview for those holding upper academic positions can be explained by two factors: either they had more information about the topics discussed or when they did not know the answer they tried to ‘build’ an answer and to indicate the way they considered the things should be. The duration of an interview of the staff with inferior academic positions was shorter mainly due to the fact they were not aware and did not know the answers to many questions and admitted it.

In the case of questionnaires, their collection was made with difficulty as, none of the respondents handed in the completed questionnaires at the first established date, there were necessary 4-6 subsequent contacts to collect a filled in questionnaire. The most frequently mentioned motivation for the delays was the high complexity of the questions (70%).

Table no. 6 presents the response situation of the management within the Academy of Economic Studies.

Table no. 6 Management of the Academy of Economic Studies

Consequently, the 29.2% rate of non-response has as main motivations offered by our non-respondents the following:

While the overall response rate was good 70.8%, it can be noticed that the response rate was much lower at the level of management, being only 38.4%. More co-operative was the superior management at the academy level, for which we had a 66.6% rate of response, while at the level of faculties only 10 out 59 persons participated in the survey (35.5%). At the level of faculties a big difference was between heads of chairs who participated in a larger proportion 57.6% and the administrative offices (deans and vice-deans) whose participation rate was 25.6%, in spite of the fact that they been contacted on average 4-5 times (when they did not refuse from the very beginning to participate).

At the Romanian American University, the private university, from the total sample of 50% representing 81 academic staff, 63 participated in the study, representing an overall response rate of 77% and 42% of the total number of academic employees of the university. Table no. 7 presents the total number of employees, the size of the sample and the response rates for the academic staff structured on academic positions.

It can be noticed that higher response rates were registered at academics with lower academic positions, as compared to academics with higher academic positions. Also between faculties, The highest rate of respondents (more than 50%) was at the Domestic and International Commercial, Financial Relations Faculty and for Economic Integration Studies Faculty situation explained by the fact that the teachers of these faculties know very well the researcher, working as junior assistant at these faculties. This fact offered them a guarantee of the confidentially of their answers. It is also much easier to contact them many times personally, to find an opportunity to meet for the interview.

The lowest rate of response (under 50%) was at the Law Faculty and it can be explained by the fact that around 90% of the professors of this department are involved also in other juridical activities as magistrates or lawyers. They offered as refusal excuse the “lack of time” and the fact that they are “not involved in the university activities”, even though they are full-employed.

Table 7. Sample and response rate at the Romanian American University

Twenty three percent of the academic staff included in the sample, did not participate in the study. The main reasons invoked for not participating in the study were:

1. 10% of the non-respondents accepted in the beginning to fill in the questionnaire or to be interviewed, but they changed their minds after they find out details. “I don’t know to answer. I prefer to not be included in the project”

2. 20% refused to be interviewed or to fill in the questionnaire from the beginning for various reasons: “I am too old” or I am a lawyer/magistrate, so I don’t want to be included in the project”.

3. 20% of the non-respondents motivated the fear of the effects of their answers. “I don’t want to have problems, I prefer to not answer. Sorry, I hope you don’t mind”.

4. 20% of non-respondents had delayed 3 –4 times the interview. 10% of them finally refused, and 10% accepted hardly to fill in a questionnaire, but only half of them returned it.

5. 40% of the non-respondents accepted to fill in the questionnaire but it was impossible to find them after that to recuperate it, even though they were looked for many times by phone. They did not return the questionnaires. (20%).

While the lack of time, the fear of the consequences and the reluctance to be questioned, were the main reasons for non-responses, these aspects were also affecting those who did participate in the study. 80% of the respondents accepted to cooperate because they knew the researcher and not because they wanted to be included in the sample or to cooperate at any project. Some of them (20%) did not see any utility of the study asking questions such as “Why do you do this? What are your advantages?” Other 10% of the respondents limited the length of the interview to 20 minutes.

However in spite of the difficulties the overall response rate was high, 77% with 100% response rate at the level of the board of the university and 82% response rate at the level of faculties board and 75% at the level of faculties.

If we look at the two universities, we can notice that the response rates were in the similar range for both, with a higher rate at the private university 77%, as compared to 70.8% at the public university. One explanation can be in the much larger size of the public university 760 academics in total, as compared to 147 in the private one and correspondingly the differences in sample size, 185 in the public university and 81 in the private university where the same academics were teaching in more faculties.

However the large difference was in case of management, who participated to the study to a larger extent in the private university 85.2% than in the public university 38.4%.

The same difficulties can be encountered in both universities: reluctance to participate, the need to contact the persons numerous times (5-6 times) before getting participation or a ferm negative answer, failing to keeping appointments from some of the respondents.

Similarly in the two universities, the belonging of the researchers to the academic communities of the universities made the data collection easier. Another similarity was the fact that in both universities those who had extra university activities (teaching in other universities, research, business, community work) were more open to participate and frankly discuss with the interviewers, while those whose only job was within the universities were more reluctant to participate and were more rigid while talking and trying to avoid answers. At the same time from those with extra university activities (especially those involved in politics, law and those with managerial positions outside the university) refused from the very beginning to participate due to the lack of time and some could not even be found at all.

To conclude, in both universities in spite of the difficulties, a high proportion of academics participated in the study and a good picture over the perception of the reform and its implementation can be obtained from it.

4. The presentation of the two higher education institutions researched as case studies

4.1. The Academy of Economic Studies, the public higher education institution

The Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest (AES) is the largest university all over the country that offers tertiary education at all levels (Bachelor, Master, PhD) exclusively in the field of economic sciences.

The academy was founded in 1913. The date of 6 April 1913 is a landmark in the history of higher economic education in Romania, marking the setting up, in compliance with the law promulgated by the Royal Decree No. 2972, of the Academy of Higher Commercial and Industrial Studies of Bucharest. The actual name of the academy, respectively Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest dates since 1967.

At the moment the AES comprises 9 faculties and three university colleges. The AES coordinates over 30 postgraduate programs (advanced studies, masters and short term post-graduate programs. and 24 PhD programs in various economic fields. The 9 faculties of AES are: the Faculty of Management, the Faculty of Accounting, Bookkeeping Information System, the Faculty of Finance, Insurance, banking and Stock Exchange, the Faculty of Computer Science, Statistic and Economic Informatics, the Faculty of Trade, the Faculty of International Business and Economics, the Faculty of Economics, the Faculty of Economy and Food and Agricultural Production Bookkeeping, the Faculty of Economic Studies in Foreign Languages.

The educational process in the Academy of Economic Studies is organised in two main sections:

· long term education lasting 4-5 years (structured into nine Faculties, each of them having two or more specialisations);

· short term education lasting 3 years (structured in two University Colleges).

Beginning with the academic year 1998/1999, the organization of the educational process using the transferable credit system has been introduced as it was a necessity for the actual development. This organization permits the use of an analytical system for the evaluation of the time effort necessary for developing the activities of the educational process. It presents important advantages not only for the organization and administration of the educational process, but also for its equalization with the educational process of other universities from abroad or inside the country.

By the intermediary of the new system (aligned to the European level under the name of ECTS–European Credit Transferred System), the process of the future economists training is structured on three stages:

The I-st stage, which lasts two years, having a “common body” for all the faculties specialities or for groups of faculties. This stage has the role of creating the fundamental scientific training, common for the economical university training.

The II-nd stage, which lasts 2-2,5 years, having “ramifications” on specialities and sub-specialities, with options within them. The goal of this stage is to further economic specialization.

The III-rd stage, which lasts one year, under the form of advanced studies or Master.

Beginning with the academic year 1998/1999, within the Academy of Economic Studies has been organized the open and distance learning (ODL). The students participating to the ODL have the same curricula as those from the daily courses, but courses are differently organized.

The strategy of professional, institutional and formative development adopted by the Academy of Economic Studies includes objectives and clear provisions concerning the achievement in various forms of a continuous education, the creation of a material basis specifically for these training and improvement forms, as well as the amplification of logistical assistance for profile entities which are organized in this sense (AES, internal document).

In the domain of post-academic training/ improvement, the Academy of Economic Studies has developed, in the last few years, an ample and fruitful collaboration with foreign institutions, setting up joint programs: the National Institute of Economical Development; The School of Post-university Management Studies; the European Institute of Enterprises Administration; the Universitary Regional Center for Training of Trainers all being agreed by the National Council of Evaluation and Academically Accreditation.

Starting 1921, the Academy received the right of conferring the scientific title of a doctor in economy to its graduates as to other faculties/universities from the country, as well as of those similar institutions from abroad. In the course of the years, the Academy of Economical Studies has accorded numerous titles of doctor in economy and/or doctor honoris causa to the economists specialists or to didactic personnel from the economic field.

At present, there are more than 1100 Romanian candidates for a Doctor’s degree and over 100 candidates for a Doctor’s degree from Europe, America, Asia and Africa.

The carrying out of the educational process in the Academy of Economic Studies is ensured by its teaching staff who, in the academic year 1999/2000, totaled a number of 770 academics including 80 junior assistants, 145 assistant lecturers, 222 lecturers, 82 associate professors and 241 professors.

The size of the didactic activity in the Academy of Economic Studies of Bucharest can be appraised taking into account the number of over 500,000 students enrolled in more than eight decades of existence of the institution as well as the number of more than 100,000 economic graduates. At the end of the academic year 1998/1999 the number of the graduates was more than 6,750 and at the beginning of 1999/2000 about 20,000 students were enrolled to the Academy of Economic Studies. Currently (2002) in the AES there are over 20 000 students enrolled and the teaching and research activities are done by 760 of full time academics and 74 associate professors.

The mission of the AES is to promote the worldwide-recognized values of the science and culture, especially those of the economic science. The AES, according to its Academic Charta assumes the following tasks in the society as part of its mission (AES, internal document):

· to ensure a proper background of its students and to continuously improve the training in the field of social and economic fields;

· to promote the free thinking spirit and to permanently contribute to the renewal of the economic knowledge;

· to permanently contribute to the development of the scientific research in the filed of economics through the collaboration with similar universities and scientific establishments from all over the world;

· to preserve and disseminate the values of the culture and human civilization;

· to preserve and to defend the value of the academic democracy and autonomy based upon the respect for the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizen in a democratic state.

The managing staff of the AES consists of: 1 rector, 5 deputy rectors, 1 scientific advisor of the AES’s Senate, 1 chief Secretary of AES, and 1 general manager (theoretically in charge with the administrative issues and day to day operations management of AES).

· the AES Senate. The academic staff, students and the managing staff of the academy and of the faculties are represented in the Senate. Among the competences of the Senate are: the adoption of the AES Charta and other various internal regulations, the adoption of the AES strategy for development, the validation of the establishment or disestablishment of faculties, specializations and educational programs coordinated by AES, the approval of the AES yearly budget, validation of some academic positions etc. The members of the AES Senate are also members in various commissions of this body

· the Senate Board is formed by the managing staff and one student representing the students and students’ unions. Its main tasks include: ensuring the operational management of the AES, coordinates the activities of the Senate’s commissions, coordinates the administrative departments of the AES, etc.

· Academic College includes the members of the Senate Board and the managing staff of the faculties, chief of departments and chairs, institutes which are part of the AES. Its main tasks are more academic oriented by analyzing and validating the academic curricula, proposing and validating the criteria for the regular evaluations of teaching staff, approving the annual number of new entries, setting the criteria for admission based upon the proposals of faculties, elaborating the criteria for granting scholarships to students, etc.

· the AES Board of Administration is an advisory body with competences in the following areas administration, operational management, orientation of the major investments of the AES, budget execution, and financial management. This body has mostly administrative tasks and comprises the rector, the five deputy rectors, scientific advisor of the Senate of AES, deputy deans in charge with social and administrative issues, heads of the operating departments, the head of the legal department, one representative of the students union, one representatives of the academic staff and one representative of the technical and administrative personnel unions. The rector is the head of the AES and he ensures the academic administrative and operations and

The exchanges and the contacts with foreign universities as well as the directions received from the Ministry of Education, have triggered the introduction of new components in the economic training process, such as:

· exchanges of experience with decision makers of certain economic universities or faculties for drawing up syllabuses;

· international co-operation for the setting up of consultancy and research centres;

· international students mobility, from and to Romania by attending, at certain intervals, the courses of similar universities abroad and doing practical training abroad;

After 1990, with the opening of the society as a whole, the co-operation with international universities and organizations has been intensified. As a result of international co-operation, in October 1991 was set up the Romanian-American Consultancy Centre as a part of the Academy of Economic Studies, in order to promote private initiative in business, with the help and co-operation of the Washington State University. In February 1993 was set up the National Institute for Economic Development (INDE), through the co-operation between the Academy of Economic Studies and Conservatoire National des Arts et des Métiers (CNAM) in Paris. INDE is part of CNAM international network, which ensures the higher economic training of managers and specialists in companies. INDE awards the Diploma of post-graduate university studies and Diplôme professionnalisé approfondi in the field of Economic development of companies.

In the autumn of 1993, under the aegis of the Academy of Economic Studies, the Canadian MBA Programme - the High Management School was set up. It offers one academic year courses in two specialisations: Marketing and Finance.

In May 1994, the PROSPER Language Centre was set up, as a result of the co-operation between the British Council in Romania and the Academy of Economic Studies.

The Finance and Banking Doctoral School has been functioning since 1994 as an European Centre for Excellence, and it was organised by the Secretariate of the European Union within the ACE-PHARE Programme.

In 1995 as a co-operation between the AES the Faculty of Management and le Centre Régional d’Enseignement Supérieur par Alternance from Mulhouse (France) was set up The International Centre for Alternative Training (CIISA).

Under the aegis of the European Union – and the Academy of Economic Studies are carried out numerous TEMPUS, SOCRATES/ERASMUS and LEONARDO DA VINCI projects.

4.2. The Romanian American University, the private higher education institution

The Romanian American University was established in 1991 in Bucharest, entirely committed to promoting values of American Academic education on the background of the rich traditions of the Romanian education.

The initiative of establishing this university belongs to Professor Ion Smedescu Ph.D., presently active member of the New York Academy of Sciences, the President of the Romanian-American Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Culture and the Rector of the university. In compliance with the present legal regulations, Dr. Smedescu is the founder of the university.

The university carries out its activity within the Romanian-American Foundation for Promoting of Education and Culture, its higher body and it is one of the first private universities established in Romania in 1991. The University is functioning in a sole headquarters, only in Bucharest.

§ The Faculty of Internal and International Business and Financial Relations delivers full-time (400 places) and part-time attendance (200 places).

§ The Faculty of European Economic Integration Studies, a new department established in the academic year 2000/2001 delivers only full-time studies (250 places), 4 years lasting.

§ The Faculty of Management-Marketing educates full-time (300 places) and part-time (150 places) attendance students (150 places).

§ The Faculty of Law organizes full-time (400) and part-time (200) attendance courses.

Since its establishment in 1991, the university had 4 510 graduates of which 2 974 in economics and 1536 in law.

During the eleven years since its foundation, the joint efforts belonging to the faculty and the staff resulted in the fulfillment and “over fulfillment” of the standards provided by law and required by the National Council of Academic Evaluation and Accreditation (RAU leaflet). For example, the rate of the graduates who have passed the final BA licensing exam lays within 63,5%-93,3% range (referring to the whole cohort of graduates) and within 68,8%-97,7% (referring to the whole cohort of participating graduates), comparing to the 51% provided by law. The percentage of full time academic staff is within 60,9-71,4% comparing to the 50% required by law. Also the percentage of full time professors and senior lecturers is within 30,3-47,6% range as compared to the 20% required by law.

The University has been accredited by Law no. 274 on May 15, 2002 and carries out its activity as a higher education institution, part of the national academic system. Receiving state accreditation, the American University will be integrated in the National Education System with all the rights and responsibilities which revert from. Following accreditation, the university will have the capacity to (RAU, internal document):

· organize BA exams and deliver diplomas acknowledged in Romania and abroad, in compliance with the agreements concluded between the Romanian Government and the Governments from other countries

· award honorary scientific titles, such as "Doctor Honoris Causa", to scholars who have contributed to the development of science, training and education at national and international level

· participate to the operation of European Union Programs in the area of Education such as "Leonardo", "Socrates", "Comenius", "Tempus" and others, promoted by the Ministry of Education and Research.

· receive more scholarships from other foreign universities and enjoy facilities existing in the public institutions: the access to libraries, transport tariffs, low interest loans from banks, financial support for logistics

The highest authority of the Romanian-American University is the Senate, the ruling body of the whole activity. The Senate structure consists of: rector, vice-rectors (2), scientific secretary, general manager, deans of the six faculties, students representatives (1/5 of the members), experts, professors representatives, personalities, sponsors and others.

The Senate has two ordinary annually meetings (one meeting/semester) and extraordinary meetings when necessary, called by the rector at least 7 days before. The Senate decisions are taken with the majority of the present members if their number is 2/3 of the total members.

There is also the Board of Senate which is the operating body consisting in rector, vice-rectors, scientific secretary, general manager and students representatives. The rector is the president of the Board of the Senate. The Board of the Senate has monthly meetings or whenever is necessary, being called by the rector.

The Council of the Faculty coordinates the activity of each faculty. The board of the faculty Council is the executive body and its structure consists of dean, vice-deans, scientific secretary of the faculty Council and one student’s representatives. The dean is the president of the Council and the board of the council of the faculty. The council meetings are quarterly and are called by the dean. The Faculty Council decisions are taken with the majority of the present members if their number is 2/3 of the total members.

The university has 147 full time employed teachers and around 100 part-time ones, from which, one rector and two vice-rectors and the faculties have one dean and in some cases one or two vice-deans (Law Faculty has two vice-deans, The faculty of European Economic Integration Studies has no vice-dean and the others faculties have only one vice-dean).

Damian R. (2002) Speech at the workshop of the Phare-ACE project “"Should free entry of universities be liberalised? Estimating the value of public and private higher education in Central and Eastern Europe" held in Bucharest, 20 April 2002.

Korka, M. (2000) Strategy and Action in the Education Reform in Romania, Editura Paideia, Bucharest.

Marga, A. (2000) Education in Transition, Programul PHARE Universitas, Editura Paideia, Bucharest.

Ministry of National Education (1998) Higher Education in a Learning Society: Guidelines of the New Policy for Development of Higher Education in Romania, Bucharest.

Ministry of Education and Research (2002) Report of the National Commission of Academic Evaluation and Accreditation.

National Commission of Statistics (2000), Statistical Yearbook of Romania, Bucharest.

Nicolescu, L. (2001) “The contribution of the education to the transition towards the market economy: Romanian case” in ed. Kari Liutho, Ten Years of Economic Transformation, Studies in Industrial and Engineering and Management, volume III Societies and Institutions in Transition, 2001, pp. 253-280.

Nicolescu (2002) “Reforming Higher Education in Romania”, European Journal of Education, March 2002, pp. 91-101.

Novak, C., Jigau M., Brancoveanu R., Iosifescu, S and Badescu M. (1998), Cartea Alba a Reformei Invatamantului in Romania (The White Book of the Education Reform in Romania), Ministry of Education, Bucharest.

Sapatoru, D. (2001) Higher Education Choices in Romania: Public or Private?, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, School of Education, Stanford.

Teichler U. (2000) Graduate Employment and Work in Selected European Countries, European Journal of Education, 35/2, pp. 141-156.

1. Did a reform take place in the Romanian higher education sector in the past years? If so, please indicate the year it began and elaborate on its main directions.

2. What was, in your opinion, the main effect of the reform on your faculty/university?

2. What are the long-term and short-term objectives of your faculty? Please give details about the way they were established.

4. Which are the main measures taken in order to implement the strategy and which are the problems encountered in this process?

5. What is the last educational program that your faculty took on in the last 5 years? Please give details about the decision-making of this program. Have you noticed any difference, in the past 5 years, in the way these kinds of programs are endorsed?

6. How is the analytical program concluded? Do you consider that there have been changes, in the past 5 years, in the way these programs were concluded?

7. Please elaborate on decision-making regarding admittance/entry at your faculty. Did the process change in the last years and how? Do you have suggestions for a better-organised process of admittance?

9. Please elaborate on decision-making regarding the diploma exam/licensing exam at your faculty. Did the process change in the last years and how? Do you have suggestions for a better-organised process?

- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of hiring academic personnel. Did the process change in the last years and how?

- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of promoting the academic personnel. Did the process change in the last years and how?

- Please give details and your personal opinions about the process of licensing academic personnel?

12. Which is the newest book or magazine you used to prepare your classes and how did you acquire it?

13. What facilities is the faculty/university is offering for the academic and research activities? Have you noticed changes regarding these facilities after the reform was launched?

15. Please give details about the collaboration between faculties and/or departments.

16. Please give details about your faculty's research activity in the past 2 years and indicate in how many research programs were you implicated in.

17. Is your faculty participating in international and inter-university research/cooperation programs? In how many of them were you involved?

1. Please indicate the sources of financing of your faculty/university: state sources and extra-budgetary sources. What are your proposal for attracting more extra-budgetary sources at your faculty/university?

2. How are the faculty funds allocated? Do you participate in taking this kind of decision?

4. Please estimate the annual average cost of educating a student in your faculty.

1. Which are the main 3 decisions of the university that require approval of the Ministry of Education and Research? What was the situation before 1995?

2. What decisions do exclusively the university managers take? What decisions do exclusively the faculty managers take? What decisions do exclusively teachers and professors take? What was the situation before 1995?

3. How is the information passed on in your faculty? Please specify the efficiency of the methods used to inform the personnel.

4. Which are the main new types of decentralized decisions that can be taken by your faculty leaders as a result of the academic and financial autonomy?

6. Have you participated, in the past 2 years in a training program for university managers?

7. Do you have the possibility to make suggestions for the development of your faculty? And if so, was it taken in consideration?

9. Is the university and faculty management divided in academic and administrative management? What is your opinion about such a division?

2. Please elaborate on the faculty's responsibility towards students. Include in your writing the process and results of students' evaluating the teaching process, as well as faculty's attempts to respond to the qualitative and quantitative requirements in the working fields.

4. Please indicate the performance indicators that your faculty is using in measuring the quality of its teaching process.

1. Please indicate the main three characteristics of the organizational culture within your faculty/university. How did it change in the last years?

1. What role should the higher education sector pursue in the present Romanian society?

2. How would you characterize your faculty, as theory-oriented or practical-oriented?

3. Please share your opinion on corruption, both of the academic personnel, and the students, in the Romanian higher education sector and at your faculty.

2. Please give details about the main difficulties that you encounter in the teaching process and suggest solutions to eliminate them.

3. Are you involved in any teaching activities outside your university? If so, please indicate the nature and location of the faculty/university.

4. Are you involved in other activities, beside teaching/research? If so, please indicate the firm you are working for, position and hours worked in a day.

7. Please indicate the number of your publications after 1990 (books and papers).

[1] There is a lack of concordance between the data published by the National Commission of Statistics and the data published more recently by the MER. Asked about this issue at a workshop held on 20 April 2002, one of the State Secretaries of the MER, explained the situation as having two causes: a) there was no thorough and precise counting of the private higher education institutions prior to 1999 and they ended up being more than thought when they were re-counted and b) there is a lack of communication between the MER and the National Commission of Statistics that resulted in figures not being up-dated and co-ordinated.

[2] The shift towards a market oriented economy required more economic thinking within the companies as compared to the prior period of central planning.

[3] There was a shortage of these qualifications at the beginning of 1990.

FIELDS OF EDUCATION	1989-1990	1994-1995	1997-1998

Public high. education (%) Technical Agriculture Economics Law Medicine Humanities Arts Total public high. education	64.92 3.88 9.42 1.44 10.15 9.62 0.57 100.00	39.52 0.00 18.70 6.04 10.31 23.49 1.93 100.00	34.56 4.30 18.50 4.29 11.42 24.59 2.33 100.00

Private high. education (%) Technical Agriculture Economics Law Medicine Humanities Arts Total private high. education	0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00	0.08 0.00 37.65 36.39 7.33 17.85 0.69 100.00	0.28 1.29 36.71 38.58 3.01 18.90 1.22 100.00

YEARS	1997-1998	1998-1999	1999-2000	2000-2001

Number of students	2292	14131	37709	77050

Faculty and professors’ academic position	Total	Number of persons in the sample		Positive answers			Negative answers		Rate of response
Faculty and professors’ academic position	Total	%	value	TOTAL	interview	quest	interview	quest	%
TOTAL	760	24.3	185	131	86	45	7	56	70.8
Professors	209	25.8	54*	27	18	9	3	33	52
Senior-lecturers	103	29.1	30	25	14	11	2	3	83.3
Lecturers	198	20.2	40	26	17	9	1	13	65
Assistant professors	148	22.9	34	29	20	9	1	4	85.2
Junior assistants	102	26.4	27	24	17	7	0	3	88.8

Academic Management	TOTAL	Positive answers			Negative answers	Rate of response (%)
Academic Management	TOTAL	TOTAL	Interviews	Questionnaires	Negative answers	Rate of response (%)
TOTAL	65	25	11	5	32	38.4
Academy level TOTAL of which:	6	4	4	0	2	66.6
Rector	1	0	0	0
Vice-rectors	5	4	4	0	1	80
Faculties’ level TOTAL of which:	59	21	7	10	30	35.5
Deans	9	1	0	1	8	11
Vice-deans	24	5	3	2	16*	20.8
Head of departments	26	15	10	5	6**	57.6

MID-TERM REPORT

August 2002

The impact of the Romanian higher education reform on the university’s financial and academic management

Table 5. Sample and response rate at the Academy of Economic Studies

Positive answers

Table no. 6 Management of the Academy of Economic Studies

Table 7. Sample and response rate at the Romanian American University

Positive answers

Faculty and professors academic position	Total	Number of persons in the sample		Positive answers			Negative answers		Rate of response
	value	%	value	TOTAL	interview	quest	interview	quest	%
TOTAL	147	55	81	63	41	22	7	19	77
Board of university	3	100	3	3	2	1	0	0	100
Academics Total	144	54	79	60	39	21	7	19	75
Board of faculties	11	100	11	9	9	0	2	0	82
Professors	18	72	13	6	3	3	1	6	46
Senior-lecturers	12	60	8	5	2	3	1	2	62
Lecturers	15	46	7	5	3	2	1	1	71
Assistant professors	51	49	26	17	11	6	2	7	65
Junior assistants	37	56	21	18	11	7	0	3	85