Most of the respondents
perceived that it took place a reform in higher education in
“In this particular way we had an increase of the education offer, a significant number of the new faculties related to the demand on the labor market, creating a real competition on the education market, between the private sector and public sector”
or
“ The existence of this university/faculty is the main sign of the educational reform here”.
Among the main components of the refom as identified by the respondents from the private university were: the reform of the Romanian higher education system consists in an adjustment to the European Education System or in the application of modern measures that are already applied in other countries (10%); only 10% of the respondents have identified as main trends the economical and financial autonomy.
The effects of the reform have been perceived as being: the modernization of the higher education system, the introduction the new disciplines, the introduction of the paid-education in the public education system, the introduction of the system of credits, the decrease of the number of educational hours per week, aspects identified by almost 50% of the respondents.
Almost 30% of the respondents have identified as the main effect of the reform the accreditation of the university and the fact that is the only university with these faculties in the Romanian higher education system.
Most of the respondents (90%) appreciated that the effects of the reform on the university were mainly positive, only three of the respondents have said that there were also negative effects due to the elimination of some disciplines considered to be useful and also due the decision taken by the public universities, to increase the tuition fee paying places, increasing competition for candidates.
The answers concerning this aspect have indicated that many components of the reform are not very familiar for the academic staff and also for the management in the private university, especially the aspects related to the financial autonomy. The centralization of the financial power, the lack of transparence in communication, the non-existence of the financial autonomy within the university are elements that according to the respondents charaterizes the private university, and prove that the financial autonomy is not a familiar concept and activity within this private university.
The academic and institutional autonomy
Nobody from the academic staff as well as from the academic management could not say what were the written objectives on the long or short term, explained by the fact that they did participate to their establishment.
Most of the respondents tried however to identify the aspects that they consider were the main objectives of the university: 80% mentioned that an important objective for many years was the accreditation (obtained in spring 2002), another one was, the building of the new university headquarters and campus. Half of the respondents have mentioned among the objectives of their faculty the modernization and improvement of the curricula, a better evaluation of the students, partnerships with foreign universities, attracting more students, the consolidation of the university position in the private education system (during the next three years after the accreditation); 20% of professors mentioned as objectives on the long term the organization of master programs and post graduate studies; 20% mentioned the students’ and teachers’ exchanges with foreign universities, attracting more academic staff fully employed in the university. About 10% of the junior-staff have suggested as an important objective the change of the attitude or mentality that according to them is supposed to be realized by the replacement of the older academic staff.
The respondents made no difference between the objectives and priorities of the faculties that suggests that they had only a passive position, they were probably only informed about such aspects in the senate meetings but they did not discuss them or make proposals. The lack of specific objectives for each faculty proves the absence of the autonomy inside the university and an inefficient way to disseminate the information or maybe a general indifference of the academic staff for the decisions or actions of the university management.
Seventyfive percent of the respondents appreciated the university strategy as a good one but in fact they could not mention what the strategy consisted of as it is reflected in the testimony of one respondent:
”The strategy is good, I’m sure that it exists but I don’t know what are its elements”.
Some others tried to define themeselves the strategy of the university:
“The strategy is a managerial program conceived by the rector, the strategy consist in attracting valuable staff, “it is a good and correct strategy”
or
” Maybe the strategy consist in the promotion of the university”.
The management staff have said that the operational plan and the strategy are conceived by the rector and are identical with his managerial plan, but without giving details about this plan.
Even though the management board has identified some elements of the university strategy, it seems that the only person who is defining it, is the rector and probably the strategy is not comprised in official written document, as we could not obtain one.
The university recently introducd a new program, by creating a new faculty, of which respondents are very proud as being the only one of the kind, in the context of the European integration and Romania’s aspiration to it.
About 60% of the respondents, mostly from old academic staff and from university and faculties’ boards indicated some types of decisions which are subject to the approval of the Ministry of Education and Research such as the number of the students per year, the creation of a new department or specialization, the confirmation of superior academic degree such as senior lecturer and professor. Some 10% of the professors suggested that this subordination is also a consequence of the accreditation criteria, but in the future it is expected more autonomy, that supposes fewer decisions to be subject of approval from the ministry. Some agreed with it:
“The number of the students should be imposed by the Ministry to the universities in order to avoid the creation of too many economists or lawyers after graduation, than are really necessary in the market”
and others did not:
“I don’t think that is necessary the control of the number of the students, this number should be established by the competition between the universities”,
About 40% of the respondents agreed that at the university level may be taken decisions regarding the admittance exam, graduation exam, the level of the students’ tuition fees, investments, or curricula, organization of competitions for promotion of academic staff to different degrees, the structure of the academic year, the salary policy or the evaluation of academic staff.
As for the decisions at the faculty level, 60% of the respondents, said that there are not so many decisions to be taken at the faculty level:
“At the faculty level, we cannot take too many decisions”
or
“We take only some operational decisions regarding the academic activity”
or
“The dean practically cannot do anything without notifying the university board”
or
“We take decisions depending on the decisions taken at the university level, that are usually taken ad-hoc”.
Decentralization of the decision-making within the university almost do not exist, the deans practically decide only in case of operational matters, supervising the work in the secretaries. Despite all these few persons complained about the centralization of power and about the fact that every minor thing has to be known and approved by the rector or the university board.
The university’s concern about strengthening the standards leading to the state accreditation mainly the standards referring to the training process, faculty, scientific research, material basis and financial activity influenced positively the process of course curriculum development.
Traditionally, the academic curriculum of a specific course is realized in the first stage by the professor concerned directly (the one who teaches the subject), after that it is submit for discussions between the members of the collectives of each discipline, it is approved by the Faculty Council and then supervised by the dean and finally by the rector.
While, 90% of the older academic staff mentioned that the course curriculum is discussed also with the young staff by asking them to make proposals, at the same time the young staff (80%) said that they were only informed about curriculum and not asked to contribute. However, they mentioned that they have large freedom in conducting the seminars.
Most of the respondents (90%) appreciated that the courses are permanently adapted to the market needs, as explained:
“In comparison with the last year we have 50% new disciplines that means an adaptation to the market needs having also disciplines that are new and different from the public faculties curricula with the same profile”.
The young generations from our respondents had different opinions regarding the course content as they mentioned that the courses are not very related to the market needs most of them containing abstract issues and not practical ones.
The situation revealed was that even the young staff has formally the right to make proposals concerning the curricula, they have not a real opportunity to do this. Whatever are the causes, indifference from their part or not enough confidence from the professors working with them, their involvement is minimum, mostly concerning the way of conducting the seminars, choosing the case studies, and not concerning the content of the curricula.
Admission and graduation exams
The admission at this private university is presently based on a written exam (50%) and the baccalaureate grade (50%), with the exam subjects at the choice of candidates from a given number of disciplines: economics, geography, algebra and mathematical analysis and physics. It was a period of two years when the admission at this private university was based only on the mark obtained at the baccalaureate exam, and this was the period when the state universities increased the supply of fee paying places and at the same time increasing the competition for candidates, as one academic explains:
“The admission exam is a tradition for our university. The exception was in the last two years when unfortunatelly the Ministry of Education grew the number tuition fee paying places at the public universities. So we have to adapt to these circumstances.”
The benefic contribution of the selection based on competition is appreciated by a large number of the respondents:
“It is a visible difference between the students who have passed the exams and the ones who have not”.
The first graduation exam organized by this private university was in the academic year 2001/2002, due to the recently obtained accreditation, as previously (according to law) students from unaccredited private universities had to sitt their graduation exams at public universities. Most of the respondents (90%) stated that they have adapted the graduation process after the organization and the bibliography promoted by the public institutions. This is seen by them as a consequence of the standard criteria imposed by the ministry and it can also be due to the fact that many of the professors from this private university are at the same time professors in public higher education institutions. From 10% of the respondents it came the proposal of giving up the written graduation exams and leaving only the final dissertation as a final exam.
Human resources policy
The proportion of the fully employed academic staff varies from 60,9% to 71,4% from one faculty to another, however higher than the minimum of 50% stipulated by law. The proportion of the fully employed academics on senior postions (professors and senior-lecturers) varies between 30,3% and 46,6%, as compared to the 20% stipulated by law.
Around 70% of the teaching
staff is formed of young people, most of them graduates of this private university,
who have also studied in the
To improve the performance of teaching, the senate of the university has established evaluation criteria for academics such the quality of the lectures, seminars and practical works, the scientific research activity and the faithfulness towards the university. The teaching activity of academics is also evaluated by students. An expression of the faithfulness of academics towards the university is considered to be the participation of all the faculty members to the promotion of a favorable image of the university inside and outside it.
One professor was concerned about the fact that the admistration staff is too much involved in the selection and evaluation criteria of academics, by also establishing the content of teaching subjects for professors, as it was explained:
“This is unacceptable, because they (secretaries) have nothing in common with the teaching matters; this is a problem of the department, but in fact this unit has no significance at our university.”
There are both formal rules for selecting academic personnel. The selection is based on fixed rules: a CV, an interview with the rector and a written and an oral exam” and informal rules as most of the young academics said that they had a reccommendation from a professor from the university. This was also mentioned by a professor:
„…even if I have no real power in the selection and the promotion process, I always make proposals and encourage the young staff in complying with the requiered criteria”.
Almost all the respondents said that the selection and promotion process is a competitive one, based on a written exam and on the simulation of the seminar evaluated by a commission.
The university management uses as an instrument of the motivational policy of the university, the possibility for the young staff to attend master programs in the US universities:
“ this year we sent two assistants at a master program for two years to an USA university “.
Talking about the financial means of motivation, we found out that
“The salary is confidential, and very different from one person to another. I can’t say what is this, but it is acceptable and a little more in comparison with the salary given by the public university at the same academic position”.
About 20% said that the real motivation for that ones working in education system is not the financial retribution and there are others such as spare time, the possibility to improve the knowledge through permanent study required for the job, working in the university environment, working with students:
“I choose to do this not for the salary but because I like to do this”.
The fidelity criterion is seen as one of the most important in the selection, evaluation and motivational process. But this concept unique to the university is seldom explained. The rector defined it as:
“promoting the university and its values to the future students with the purpose of attracting them but also to the present students of the university during the seminars so they would know about how the university was created and the difficulties it faced during its development.”
Trying to explain the situation some respondents said:
„Anyway the human resource policy is the responsibility of the human resource department that takes into account the directives of the university board, especially the rector’s, who has the power of decision over everything”
or
„It is a common rule that the professors are entitled to choose their assistants from their best students and to make this proposal to the Faculty Council. But they have no power of decision. Even if it is discussed or not in the Faculty Council, the selection and promotion processes are not transparent, and the fulfillment of the criteria is not always based on objective criteria, for instance the fidelity criterion, that is very subjective, and creates great confusion”.
Teaching methods and documentation
All the respondents give a positive answer regarding the permanent documentation and improving of teaching methods but the most significant difference was between the professors, senior-lecturers and lecturers at the one side and junior-assistants and assistants on the other side according to the specific ways of conducting either lecturer or seminars. Depending on the nature of the discipline, the professors mentioned as methods of teaching: the lecturing, a mixture lecturing, presentation on the blackboard or discussions with students. Junior assistants and assistants conducting the seminars, would use a mix between debates, case studies and simulations. About 20% of the respondents, professors and young staff answered that, the organization of their courses and seminars differed according to interest of the group of students:
„…in some cases the seminar consists only in reformulating a part of the courses”
or
“when the students are interested more in some issues we discuss, we give examples from practice, in other cases our lecturing is enough.”
Only 10% of the respondents included the internet as a way to inform and to update their knowledge, justified partially by the fact that the access at internet is very limited wihin the university, as mentioned:
„I would like to use the information from the internet in updating the seminars but unfortunately the access is very limited. Practically there is no access to internet in the university”.
Technical endowment
The majority of the respondents (80%) stated that there is an actual low technical endowment within the university, but they all expected that the new campus will accomplish all the necessities and expressed their hope that the transition period (renting spaces) will soon be over.
Some 50% of the respondents refused to discuss about the actual situation, considering it as irrelevant because the campus is under construction.
“There is no case to say something about endowments because of the new campus it is built rapidly”
or
“We have to limit the modern teaching to our present possibilities; we have constraints due to thepresent facilities”.
The present endowments for research and academic activities are very limited, only the classes for courses and seminars, a slide-projector/faculty, a video-projector/university, no other facilities:
”We have only the halls and nothing more conduct our activities”.
Other facilities such a printers, computers, papers or writing tools and photocopies are available only for secretarial activities, the access of the academic staff being very limited.
Evaluation of the students
For an unitary evaluation of the students’ activity during the academic year, the senate of the university has established the following criteria: attendance criterion and ability criterion (participating at the discussion during the seminars, developing and upholding the projects from the curricula, developing some personal or team reviews defended within students debates, upholding the case studies, upholding reviews, overviews of the studying materials, answers given to the tests).
The majority of the professors (50%) referred to the final examination (a written exam) and the during the year activity evaluation (counting for 30% up to 50% of the final evaluation) as the main way for evaluating students. Partial exams (exams given during the year covering only part of the subjects of the discipline) exonarate partially or totally students at the final exam.
Research activity
There are a number of research centers (3) sett up in this private university according to what the academics have stated. However, most of the young academic staff (80%) did not really know about these centers, as mentioned:
“I heard about some research contracts and centers but I’m not involved”.
The main scientific research activity mentioned by most academics was the scientific communication session of the academic staff, an event that takes place regularly at the level of the university.
Referring to the research projects the answers of the management staff were very different: some mentioned that there is a number of 20 contracts run within the university, while 95% of the respondents did not mention anything about the 3 research centers functioning inside the university, when asked about the research activity. The situation was different from one faculty to another: while in most of them the research activities were conducted by smaller groups of people, in one faculty all respondents stated that they were involved in the existing research activities (including academics on lower academic positions who were not involved at all in such activities in the other faculties).
Cooperation among faculty and departments; other partnerships
The main form of cooperation between departments and faculties is seen to be the coordination of the teaching activities, as some professors teach at more than one faculty within the university.
A few professors (6) said that there is little cooperation between faculties and there are some problems in creating a real one:
“There are very few activities of cooperation between faculties, mostly informative ones, we need very much to improve this situation”
or
“Currently in our university the activities have an individual character there is not too much cooperation”.
Even if incipient forms of cooperation exist between the faculties these are mostly reduced to teaching activities and are seen as being stopped more extensive forms of cooperation because of a strong individualism.
External cooperation and
partnerships with other universities it is also developing, as the university
has 10 partnership agreements with universities from
Asked about the cooperation with companies, almost all the respondents said that it is not a real or permanent cooperation with the companies, that would be very necessary for all the faculties. As a consequence students have to find on their own companies to fulfil the internships. The contacts with companies and institutions are usually based on personal relationships of professors and not on contractual bases with the university.
Around 15% of the respondents, stated that they do not have knowledge about the financial activity of the university:
“I don’t know, only the board of the university is in charge with this”.
In terms of financial sources of the university, about 60% of the respondents said that the tuition fees are the sole income source of the budget, some 15% of the respondents added the sponsorships as a source of the budget, some 10% mentioned the credits or research contracts as another source of financing to the budget of the university and another 8% mentioned the interests for the deposits in the banks.
Almost 80% of the persons interviewed assumed what are the elements of the the budget, not really knowing what was the situation:
“I suppose that the taxes are the most important element to finance the budget”.
Very few respondents (2) suggested for the future that will be very important to increase the budget organizing the master or post-graduate courses.
The majority of the respondents (80%) mentioned as the most important direction of the allocation of funds the campus building. Some 10% added the salaries as another element of the budget allocations. The rest of 10% assumed the budget allocations are also for the material base or endowment, the improvement of staff work conditions, scholarships, student books and other learning supports, endowment of the secretary cabinets and promotion. Some (8%) mentioned that the present 0.8% of the budget allocated for promotional activities should be increased to 3% in the future.
The execution of the budget at this university is very centralized, there is no budget at the level of faculties. The rector himself mentioned that he is the only one person in charge with financial matters.
The fact was appreciated positively by some of the academics who mentioned that
“for the actual stage of the university development is very important to remain centralized”, while others are in favour of decentralization
“it is important to decentralize the budgets at the level of faculties, as in this way the competition between faculties can be increased and consequently their performances.”
Almost none of the respondents were able to estimate the cost of the education per student, some of them identified this cost with the current tuiton fee for that academic year, which was about 400 USD.
The financing process is not transparent in this private university even for the persons from the faculties’ board. Most of the respondents assumed only what were the elements of the budget (sources and destination). The academic staff and the faculties board are not involved in this process not interested in attracting other sources of financing.
Communication and information channels within the university
At this question, 30% of the respondents, mostly those who fill in questionnaire did not have an answer or preferred to not answer, 30% said that practically there is no communication, 20% said that even if it exists some communication is necessary a real improvement and only 1% said that there is a good communication inside the university.
The main information and communication channels used by the Faculty Council (according to the respondents) were the periodical meetings, the information meetings which followed the Senate meetings, the displays.
An important part of the respondents declared that they are not satisfied with the actual way of disseminating the information and that there are necessary major changes. Even the persons who had not answer to this question suggested a need of improvement or a lack of communication about which they do not want to discuss.
“This is the our major weak point.”
Some respondents suggested that the lack of modern way of communication such as e-mail, Internet affected also the communication inside and outside the university:
“We find out about some decisions too late“.
It seems to be a miscommunication between members of the faculties and between generations, as well. About 20% of the respondents, mostly from the young staff said that the Faculty Council reunions are usually inefficient because they only send information in only one way, top down. At the same time, persons from the old academic staff complained about the lack of proposals coming from young academics
“who had usually a passive role during the reunions”
or
”We expect all the time proposals from the assistants or junior assistants but usually they only attend the reunions and nothing more”.
Most of the respondents identified the responsibility of the university to the state with the subordination to the different public institutions, aspect appreciated by some of them (50%) as being necessary:
“We had some negative examples in the private education system, so I think that a permanent supervising from the Ministry is necessary”
or
“This permanent control improves the quality of education”
while the other part considered that it influences in a negative way the autonomy of the university as stated:
”The different mechanisms of control of the state affect very much our autonomy”
or
“I think that there are too many constraints that should not exist. For example, the accreditation it should not be signed by the president of the state”.
As for the expectations of the students from their faculty and how the university answers to their expectations, about 60% of the respondents said that the university entirely responds to the expectations of the students which are an academic staff highly prepared, new information and knowledge in the field of study, the permanent improvement of the pragmatic character of the learning, conditions offered for learning, an objective evaluation, the punctuality of the professors, to have a practical and theoretical background in order to cope to the conditions imposed by the labor market and to ease the process of finding an appropriate job after graduation.
Another part of the respondents (20%) said that currently the university does not respond to the expectations of the students, since the university does not offer the proper conditions of learning which mean laboratories, access to Internet, appropriate endowments of the classes, as stated:
“Maybe after the finishing the campus a part of their expectations will be accomplished”.
Some respondents (10%) explained that the expectations of the students are different: a part of them expects only to obtain a diploma without too much effort, while another part expects to receive educational services at a high standard of quality:
”30% of the students wish to obtain the diploma and they think that this is what they paid for and the rest of 70% of the students expect to become highly prepared, to attend courses and seminars with large practical applicability”.
A person from the academic management said that some of the difficulties on implementing the university’s strategy are related to:
„ …. the mentality of some students who think that in a private university it’s enough to pay for passing the exams”.
The evaluation of the teaching activity by the students was recently introduced in the last two years and generated contradictory opinions among academics: about 40% of the respondents appreciated as a good idea taken from the American higher education system and as a necessary thing at the same time. Other 50% from the respondents appreciated that this evaluation needs to be improved and some disagreed with it totally:
“It is a stupid idea to ask the students about a course or a seminar that they had not attend classes in proportion of 80-90%”
or
“I think that is very hard to evaluate the quality of a professor, and their evaluation is not a relevant thing to us”
or
“I think that this process should be revised or at least to put the students sign the questionnaire to increase their responsibility”.
There is no systematic communication with graduates, as stated by many:
“Unfortunately, it does not exist a coherent communication program with our graduates”.
Some of the professors would have some occasional contacts with graduates but mainly based on interpersonal relationship.
However, all the respondents agreed that a formal contact with the graduates would be necessary in order to evaluate the university’s performances.
A similar situation is in the case of contacts with the business community:
”We don’t know about the expectations of the employers since there are no studies, we find only through our personal relations. Some professors have a second job by working in some companies and this help us a lot to know practical examples, to help our students to fulfil their internship and also to find a job”.
All respondents mentioned that they have the possibility to make proposals for the improvement of the university’s activity, but practically few of them are taken into consideration, in this way discouraging them from further proposals:
”Most of the proposals are ignored or the board says that there is not enough money’
or
„I propose to buy a CD player but they told me that we don’t have money for such expenses. So finally, the students helped me to buy this very useful device for my classes”.
The proposals are not initially rejected but finally are accepted only some that are not so expensive.
About 20% of the respondents said that some of their proposals were taken into consideration by the management, the aspects involved being the way of evaluating the students, intoduction of some disciplines.
About 80% of the respondents said that the role of higher education in the actual context of Romanian society, consists in offering high quality training for its students and at the same time specialists for the labor market at the same level of qualification as in the developed countries.
Other respondents mentioned as roles of the educational system: a formative role, the engine of the society, the trigger for changing mentalities, the creation of the students’ personality, a social role and some 10% of the respondents said that the higher education system has to provide a theoretical and practical background to the students that will be useful after graduation in their future workplace.
Some respondents would plead for the elite character of higher education, considering that only the persons who are interested to find out more, to learn more should attend the courses of the university:
„The higher education is not for everyone, only for those who have a passion for learning.”
The role of higher education is perceived in different ways by the academic staff. But the main idea from most academics was that the educational system should correspond to the real needs of the society in terms of well prepared workorce and the expectations of the young people who come to the university to find more in the field of their interest.
University/faculty orientation
Asked about the orientation of the faculty towards practice or theory, respondents had different opinions from which emerged 3 directions:
1) about 30% of the respondents suggested the equal orientation of the university to the theory and the practice,
2) almost 40% admited that the orientation is much more to the theory than to practice:
„Unfortunatelly the the theory is more important than the practice in our university. There should be employed more professors with practical experience”
or
„There is 90% theory and only 10% practice due to the lack of endowments, laboratories necessary for the practice” and
3) around 20% suggested that the final efforts of the university board and academic staff gave an actual orientation strongly to the practice.
Worth mentioning are the so called „special clinics”, that are courses especially created for the third and fourth years that are tought by more professors, each of them taking into discussion one by one practical cases.
Corruption in the higher education system
About 20% of the respondents said that there is no corruption in the higher education, with some exceptions, while 80% admitted that it exists in the whole Romanian economy and therefore in higher education system, too:
„I would say that the corruption is everywhere in our economy, and probably this is in higher education too”
or
„At present, in our society the corruption is everywhere.”
However, in spite of this general appreciations, most of the respondents mentioned that there were no cases in the univesity. Only one person said that corruption is everywhere in the university and more than 90% of proffesors accept favors in exchange of students’exams. Very few persons refered to corruption as to the fraud by the students or favors accepted by proffessors in change of exams.
The reason for choosing this profession
Most of the respondents stated that their main reasons for choosing this job were others than the material ones:
„There are many disadvantages in this work, as the salary, but I like what I do. It is a job with many compromises. But if you really like to teach, you have to accept them, if no tyou don’t.”
or
„You have to feel something when you chosse to do this.”
Some 20% of the respondents, mostly from young staff said that this is a transitional period in their life to the best job: „ I do this because I didn’t find anything else till now”.