Mission Impossible: Russian universities ate away 80 billion rubles, but did not make it into the ratings

Novye Izvestia found out why is it so.

Yelena Ivanova, Natalia Seibil

It is difficult for people who are far from university battles to figure out whether it is good or bad that our Russian universities were not included in the first hundred ratings evaluating world higher schools, but took worthy positions in subject and industry competitions. The Accounts Chamber says unequivocally: "The goal has not been achieved". At the Higher School of Economics, the glass is not only half full, but water overflows from it.

“When the program was conceived, the chances were high, and they were realized”, - says Isak Frumin.

If you look at the government's decree on this project, then it says that you need to be included in the Top 100 institutional, subject or industry ratings, - says Isak Frumin, scientific director of the Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

However, the HSE makes a reservation: institutional ratings seem more prestigious than subject or industry ratings. But there in the first hundred only the Lomonosov Moscow State University, and he did not participate in the program and did not receive funding. The participants of the program are 21 higher educational institutions of Russia, among them such luminaries of higher education as MIPT, Higher School of Economics, ITMO.

Criteria for evaluation

Russian universities joined the global race for the title of the best universities in the world later than others. The first ranking, the ARWU Academic Ranking of World Universities , or Shanghai Ranking, was first compiled in 2003 and is considered the most consistent and transparent. Its weight is so great that the ministers of education of France, Norway and Denmark traveled to China and discussed how to improve the position of their universities there.

The second major university ranking is British. Publisher Times Higher Education jointly with Reuters publishes it in 2010. And the third rating - Quacquarelli Symonds - like the previous two, annually determines its table of ranks. The first ten positions in all three ratings are occupied by American and British universities: Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale University, Princeton, Imperial College, MIT .

What do the ratings evaluate, and why is it so difficult for our universities to get there? Isak Frumin explains:

- Unfortunately, due to the fact that we do not know how to evaluate the results of educational activities, the criteria are mainly related to scientific activities: publications, citations, the presence of outstanding scientists, and there are also criteria for conditions, for example, the proportion of foreign students, or the proportion of foreign teachers. This shows the university's involvement in global networks; finally, expert polls play a large role in some ratings.

In 2012-2013, the 5-100 project started with a big swing. The idea was this: with the help of point funding, you can compete for places in the first hundred ratings. In 2016, it became clear that this task was impracticable, therefore, in the Regulation on the Council for Increasing the Competitiveness of Leading Universities of the Russian Federation, in addition to global, “subject ratings” were introduced as the goal of the program.

Such an adjustment can be viewed as an awareness of reality: after three years it became clear that the goals were “lifted”, and then the authors of the program decided to include more realistic tasks in the plan - to enter the subject ratings, which was done. But from a bureaucratic point of view, it was more like “hedging” - they realized that they would not do it, and decided to play it safe. There is only one problem - in the public consciousness and in communication, global ratings were equated with subject ratings, and this is sheer craftiness.

Over the years of the program, the number of participants in the ratings has also increased. If THE in 2015 included 400 universities, then in 2019 there were 1258. ARWU had 500 in 2016, and in 2018 there were already 1000 universities. Grew up and QS . Obviously, it has become easier for universities to get into the ratings themselves.

Yekaterina Trubnikova, an economist and associate professor at the St. Petersburg School of Economics and Management at the Higher School of Economics, wrote an article on Project 5-100, in which she compares the program with some national projects, the failures of which “analysts see in the discrepancy between the actual and the stated objectives and the lack of demand for results” ... The problem was the priority of the development of budgetary funds over the result, the "consumption" of funds allocated for development, the perception of the project as a gift, for which you just need to report on time. The scientist calls the project an example of "institutional corruption", when it is not about theft, but about the wrong plan that forces the participants to make decisions that run counter to the public interest.

The best, the good and the rest

The Accounts Chamber has noted a new inequality that has emerged in the higher education market. The universities selected to participate in the program received funding not only from the program fund, but also from other government support programs, such as National Research Universities, Federal Universities, and others. More money means more good shots. More money means more advertising, and then more promising students come to the university. Other, less successful competitors only lost funding. Over the years, the gap between these educational institutions has only grown.

In the program itself there are equal and "more equal" project participants. The JV calculated that the universities of the first group (MIPT, NRU HSE, ITMO) received 6-7 times more funding than the participants in the third group, which mainly included regional universities. The inspectors note that the funds of the program for the majority of universities amounted to no more than 10% of their income. It is obvious that the laggards and even the middle peasants were unable to rebuild the strategy and establish research and educational processes at the global level.

One of the indicators of the entry of universities into the world table of ranks is the number of foreign students. Political science professor Yuliy Nisnevich explains that it is not Europeans or Americans who come to study here. Very often these are our closest neighbors who go for a diploma:

- As a result, we, teachers, have to suffer with this. Very often they cannot be expelled, and they themselves do not want anything. The result is not the best option with education. At our Faculty of Political Science, the number of students has increased to a size that makes no sense - 150 people on the first.

Another important criterion for rating is publications. Professor Nisnevich calls this indicator a profanation. And not only because the famous American political scientists Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the world bestseller The End of History, or the author of The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington, are not published in the journals of the Scopus or Web Of Science systems , because they write in a completely different style. Some journals print scientific papers for money without following peer review procedures. As it turned out, some participants in the 5-100 project actively used their services, as Yekaterina Trubnikova writes, and gives examples of analysis of the public procurement website. For example, KFU made a wholesale purchase for 35 thousand dollars for the publication of articles in a publishing house, which was then blacklisted. The researcher notes that some universities are trying to combat this practice, but for regional universities from the research base, the temptation is great.

There are also problems with teachers. There is no academic labor market, except in the capitals. Their associate professors and professors are under the pressure of publications. Foreign researchers were already infrequent guests of our universities, and if a new law on education is adopted, no one will want to invite them. To invite specialists from abroad, you need to agree on their candidacy with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB. The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences is protesting against the new initiative; all scientists agree with it. Isak Frumin says:

“Perhaps the legislators are making sure that our secrets and our know-how do not go somewhere. But at the same time, they deprive Russian scientists of access to advanced knowledge that is not published and transmitted through informal contacts. From our point of view, these additional barriers will be harmful to the development and competitiveness of Russian science.

If we wanted to invite Gene Sharp (died in 2018 - noted by Novye Izvestia), the father of the theory of "color revolutions", he would not be allowed, laughs Nisnevich. But for those involved in the protest movement, Sharp is an icon, like Mendeleev is for biochemists.

“This means that someone else will assess whether we need such a scientist or not. Which official can assess this?", - asks Yuliy Nisnevich.

Ratings and important tasks

Russian higher education has many unresolved problems. Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Head of the Department of Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University, Alexander Asmolov says:

"We have great tasks all the time. To get into the top ten countries in the world in the field of education, competing in general education with other countries, to get into the best universities competing with other countries".

At the same time, one must clearly understand that such a task, first of all, requires a transformation of the idea of the very mission of universities in this world. About the changed role that exists in the relationship between teachers and students, and, finally, about the format in which our universities should exist at all.

Ratings are a matter of prestige, says Professor Nisnevich. Apart from them, there are a lot of problems that need to be solved. For example, in the world, Russian diplomas of a small number of universities are recognized. Or the mutual recognition of dissertations - and this is directly related to the replenishment of scientific personnel. It is much more important for Russian higher education and Russian science that people at the level of scientific communities find a common language and mutual recognition, for example, the recognition of scientific schools.

And the most important issue in Russian science is the brain drain.

"We still have a very big problem that our staff is running. And no formal indicators, no KPIs or other indicators can compensate for the flight of personnel. Sooner or later, it probably breaks through in some indicators", - Nisnevich believes.

Apart from leftover funding, Russian higher education institutions have another fundamental problem. Alexander Asmolov recalls that in the 12th century, Friedrich Barbarossa gave a charter to universities. Russian universities do not have sufficient autonomy:

"Only then can these universities produce productive results. And they are not universities that live by the formula "what do you want?""