Новые известия(en)
Academicians of the RAS opposed the administrative reform of Moscow State University
29 April 2020, 16:20
Academicians of the RAS opposed the administrative reform of Moscow State University
Scientists believe that the untimely and secret adoption of a draft of this reform threatens the entire system of higher education and training of scientific personnel in the country

As already was reported by Novye Izvestia, the main university of the country Lomonosov Moscow State University is preparing the most ambitious administrative reform in its recent history.

According to plans, all 40 faculties, laboratories and institutes will be united in 14 higher schools. In early April, the rector of the university Viktor Sadovnichy announced a reform to the heads of faculties and institutes. The dates of its implementation are still unknown, they told reporters in the leadership of one of the faculties, the same thing was stated in the “Initiative Group of Moscow State University”.

Combine, for example, the Faculty of Philology and the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Regional Studies (FIAR), sociological with political, philosophical with historical. Deans of faculties, heads of laboratories and institutes will become heads of directions, and higher deans will head new schools. MSU teachers have not yet been announced a new initiative, but employees of one of the faculties were shown several slides describing the upcoming reform.

The reform is supervised by vice-rector Tatyana Kortava, said the interlocutor in the leadership of Moscow State University. According to him, she is close to the daughter of Vladimir Putin Katerina Tikhonova. Tikhonov at Moscow State University is headed by the National Intellectual Development Fund under the Innopraktika brand, he is developing the concept of the scientific and technical valley of Moscow State University, the Project writes

At the same time, as Kommersant found out , the administration has kept the details of a possible reform a secret not only from ordinary employees, but also from faculty leaders. The deans of Moscow State University interviewed by journalists either did not hear anything about changing the structure of the university, or they knew about it “at the rumor level” - they did not hold an official discussion of the reform.

In this regard, members of the reputable academic club “July 1” issued a warning that the planned reform of Moscow State University could put “a point in a series of destructive transformations of the higher education system”.

"Novye Izvestia" provides the full text of the appeal of the RAS members.


The July 1 club expresses deep concern over reports of a planned reform of Moscow State University, the first university institution in all senses serving as a model and model of university education for all of Russia.

The planned changes in the structure and programs of Moscow State University will put an end to a series of destructive transformations of the higher education system that began many years ago without a clear meaning and goals and contrary to the opinion of scientists and teachers. An example of other universities in which such reforms were carried out shows their negative impact on the quality of training.

As for Moscow State University, over the past two decades a number of new faculties have appeared in its composition. It is no secret that their level in many cases cannot be compared with the traditional faculties of the university, and not all of their professors and managers are active scientists, and these faculties were often created with goals that were not related to the training of scientific personnel. There is an obvious danger that when the faculties of different levels and of different nature merge, the representatives of the “young” and “necessary” faculties will get the advantage, and university scientific schools that preserve the best traditions of national fundamental education will be lost.

The specific versions of the reorganization discussed in recent days cause extreme bewilderment: the separation of related disciplines (for example, history, philology and the history of art, a number of social sciences) and their cultivation in different schools; combining such diverse disciplines as soil science and psychology in one school; the fusion of academic disciplines with applied specialties like tourism. If plans of this kind are being prepared for implementation, then this indicates that the proposed reform was prepared without taking into account the views of specialists - scientists and teachers, and also does not take into account the interests of students. All the same indignation is caused by the same, alas, familiar to us from the 2013 reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, “undercover” method of work of the reformers: even the deans of the faculties were not allowed to discuss the draft reforms.

The “July 1” club expresses its strong protest against attempts to hastily, untimely and privately adopt the draft of this reform and believes that it threatens the entire system of higher education and training of scientific personnel in the country.