Henry Rosovsky - Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University (1973–1984), Acting President of Harvard University (1984–1887).

At the top of the higher education pyramid in the United States we find the public and private research universities with their special role of creating and maintaining knowledge, training graduate students in arts and sciences and professional schools, and offering a liberal education to undergraduates. There are about 125 diverse universities that fit this description. These universities play a less singular role in undergraduate education. All the institutions at the top of the American educational pyramid share six characteristics closely associated with high quality: shared governance, academic freedom, merit selection, significant human contact, preservation of culture, nonprofit status. Many academics will consider a listing of these characteristics individually familiar, obvious, and of little interest. But the characteristics of quality are almost never considered as a system even though the absence of any one of them will affect the integrity and quality of a research university. On the other hand none of these characteristics, singly or as a group, make disruptive change impossible.

Martin Finkelstein - PhD, Professor of Higher Education, Seton Hall University. E-mail: martin.finkelstein@gmail.com

Kevin W. Iglesias - PhD candidate, Senior Research Associate, Center for College Readiness, Seton Hall University. E-mail: kevin.iglesias@student.shu.edu

Address: Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.

Anna Panova - Research Fellow, International Laboratory for Institutional Analysis of Economic Reforms, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: apanova@hse.ru

Maria Yudkevich - Candidate of Sciences, Vice Rector, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Director, Center for Institutional Studies, HSE; Head International Laboratory for Institutional Analysis of Economic Reforms, HSE. E-mail: yudkevich@hse.ru

Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

We offer an analytical model to assess prospects for young faculty based on an analysis of conditions and opportunities of PhD graduates entering the academic market in ten countries: Brazil, China, India, France, Germany, Norway, Russia, Portugal, the Republic of South Africa, and the United States. We have singled out four indicators of demand: a) student enrollment growth rate; b) expenses for research and development and for education; c) the age and rank distribution of current faculty in accordance with national retirement policies; and d) development of technology, emergence of new learning models, and the extent to which these models involve students and faculty. Fundamental factors affecting the supply include: 1) the national system’s reliance on PhD production, and 2) status of post-graduate programs: whether they are the first step in academic  career or only a preparatory phase. We have assessed efficiency of faculty recruitment based on openness of search and screening processes and the relative competition for new positions. We have found that the size of national systems in terms of students and staff has expanded considerably, while their proportion in national economies of the countries has remained almost the same. Demand driven by growth is relatively low in Europe, being constrained by ever lower accessibility of entry-level positions and by the job  conditions offered there. Most countries — all except China and South  Africa — tend to recruit faculty from newly degree graduates. Supply of PhDs (either native or foreign) is quite favorable, mostly due to female academics. The best part of the ten systems that we have analyzed stick to open competition principles when hiring faculty, but at least three systems (Russia, China and India) apply a less open and competitive approach at all levels.

Yelena Kardanova - Candidate of Sciences, Director, Center of Education Quality Monitoring, Education Institute, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: ekardanova@hse.ru
Address: 13, Milyutinsky lane, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

Alyona Ponomaryova - Intern Researcher, Center for Monitoring Educational Quality, Education Institute, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: aponomareva@hse.ru
Address: 13, Milyutinsky lane, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

Ildar Safuanov - Doctor of Sciences, Professor, Department for Algebra, Geometry, and Methods of their Teaching, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Moscow
State Teacher Education University. E-mail: safuanov@yahoo.com
Address: 4, 2th Selskokhozyaystveny proyezd, Moscow, 129226, Russian Federation.

Yevgeni Osin - Candidate of Sciences, Associate Professor, Psychology Department, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: alien.existence@gmail.com
Address: 46B, Volgogradsky av., Moscow, 109316, Russian Federation.

Teachers’ beliefs should be changed in order to introduce modern teaching methods in education. The notion of “belief” combines the ideas, attitudes, and personal philosophies teachers apply in their work. We differentiate between traditional beliefs about teaching as a direct transfer of knowledge and constructivist beliefs assuming that students  construct their knowledge themselves through specifically organized activities. We have analyzed the key teacher belief research projects: the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the cross-cultural Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M), and the Nordic-Baltic Comparative Research in Mathematics Education (NorBA) that we borrowed a questionnaire from. Our survey involved teachers of mathematics in three countries: 390 teachers in Latvia (of which 95 with Russian as their native tongue), 332 teachers in Estonia (of which 92 with Russian as their native tongue), and 1,096 teachers in the Russian Federation. We have found that differences  between teachers in different countries were statistically important in all the variables used in the study, regardless of whether Estonian and Latvian teachers were Russian-speaking or not. All teachers implemented their beliefs in their everyday classroom practices. 36% of teachers in Russia had a high level of constructivism (as compared to 26% in Latvia and 18% in Estonia). Proportion of teachers with low levels of traditionalism in Latvia and Estonia (appr. 25% in both) was higher than the same proportion among Russian  teachers (17.5%). We have come to a conclusion that different approaches to education system reforms in Russia and in the Baltic states have resulted in a significant diversity of beliefs among teachers of mathematics. Thus, proportion of teachers with low levels of traditionalist beliefs has grown in the Baltic countries more than in Russia, which explains to some extent higher PISA points of Estonian and Latvian students.

Oleg Podolskiy - Ph.D., Candidate of Sciences, PIAAC National Coordinator in the Russian Federation; Research Fellow, Institute of Education, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: opodolskiy@hse.ru

Dmitry Popov - Candidate of Sciences, Senior Researcher, Institute of Education, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: dpopov@hse.ru

Address: 13, Milyutinsky lane, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

This paper opens a series of publications based on the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) data. Among the many tasks PIAAC is aimed on the identification and measurement of differences between citizens and countries in the area of key competencies, evaluation of the impact of skills on individual economic and social achievement, the effectiveness of various national educational and training systems in providing necessary skills as well as the creation of the conditions for lifelong learning. PIAAC draws the first “profile” and pathbreaking results of Russian adults’ key competencies on literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environment. The central part of the paper is dedicated to a general analysis of the role of competencies and competence-based approach, a description of the research method, sampling and tools used (including test samples) in the PIAAC, and particularly in Russian Federation. Finally, the paper deals with the first results of the adult competencies research in  Russian Federation. The results on identified key competencies are presented in accordance with various age groups, and include gender and qualification level differences.  IAAC is a long-term research project. Russia participated in the programme in 2009–2013. Over 5000 adults aged between 16 and 25 from 25 regions and 94 localities participated in the programme in Russia. The total sample included 3800 respondents; it is representative for the whole country except Moscow and Moscow Oblast. The average points Russia obtained in reading and mathematical literacy are comparable to those obtained in OECD countries. Nearly half of working-age adults in Russia either don’t have any computer experience or are incompetent users. As compared to OECD citizens, computer skills of Russian adults are more often restricted to doing only simple tasks (like logging in and out of their email boxes). As the level of education grows, so does the level of competencies of adult population in Russia. Similarly, competencies seem to accumulate with ageing, until the peak age of 45–49 years is reached. The discussion of the first PIAAC results and brief statement of research questions for future studies are presented.

Yevgeni Knyazev (1955–2013) - Doctor of Science, Professor, CEO, Center for University Management, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics.

Natalya Drantusova (1971–2013) - Candidate of Science, Senior Researcher, Center for University Management, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics.

We have analyzed how integration into the European education space affects the Russian higher education system. Two common European trends have been studied as driving forces of transformation: 1) institutional differentiation based on introducing the multi-level education system and 2) reform of the relationship between the higher education and the mass public. It appears that the multi-level system is implemented in Russian higher education through a State-initiated vertical differentiation of higher education institutions based on their research and development achievements and through a concentration of resources in a limited number of leading universities. We believe that an institutional differentiation like that, with different program levels, discards some crucial points: heterogeneity in the group of leading universities that get the pre-emption right to implement Master’s programs; inherent heterogeneity of individual higher education institutions that may have both high R&D potential departments and mass-market oriented ones; the  danger of inhibiting the enthusiasm of universities by imposing rigid limitations on their activities, while Master’s degrees remain merely a source of profit for them. We are convinced that no consistent cooperation between employers and higher education in Russia is explained by the fact that, being guided by the Bologna Process principles, higher education outstripped employers by developing educational standards long before most industries adopted their occupational standards. We have singled out four models of  university activities in the context of higher education system transformation: 1) research university, 2) system integration university, 3) regional integration university, and 4) human resource construction university.

Tatyana Rogozina - Doctor of Science, Associate Professor, Department for Management and Economics in Education, Leningrad Oblast Institute of Educational Studies; Director of Research and Analytics, Private Educational Institution “Saint Petersburg gymnasium ‘Alma Mater’”. E-mail: dg8625@yandex.ru

Tatyana Shchur - Director General, Private Educational Institution “Saint Petersburg gymnasium ‘Alma Mater’”. E-mail: school@alma-mater-spb.ru

Address: 50a, Shpalernaya str., Saint Petersburg, 191015, Russian Federation.

An analysis of social orders that determined strategic development of gymnasium “Alma Mater” in Saint Petersburg throughout twenty years has allowed us to point out the most important changes that the gymnasium has gone through. The first social order the school responded to was teaching different children. In the 1990s, parents often sent their kids to private schools not in the search of elite education but because they didn’t have a possibility to send them in a public school. Children with learning and behavior problems made the best part of private school students. To respond to the demand for teaching different children, the gymnasium introduced subject-specific learning from the very first year at primary school in 1991. Another tangible change, introducing individual studies in 1994, was prompted by the impossibility for students to make same-level achievements at the same rate in compliance with the learning program. The gymnasium has been offering part-time and distance learning since 2003. For this purpose, the  school structure has been provided with an externship department, with more teachers, and with ICT-based workplaces. We regard introducing subject-specific learning in  primary school and individual studies at all stages of general education in the gymn asium as an embodiment of the idea of “adaptive school” engrained today in federal state educational standards. We believe that problems in private school education that arise due to changes in social orders, parental expectations and the student body forecast  similar problems in the public school to appear in the nearest future. Bearing in mind consistent transformations in Russian education, it makes sense to consider the existing  experience of private schools when designing and implementing public school development programs.

Sergey Roshchin - Candidate of Science, Associate Professor, Prorector, Head of the Subdepartment of Labour and Population Economics, Director of the Laboratory for Labor Market Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: sroshchin@hse.ru

Viktor Rudakov - Analyst, Laboratory for Labor Market Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: victor.n.rudakov@gmail.com

Address: 26 Shabolovka str., Moscow, 119049, Russian Federation.

Combining work and study by students of Russian higher education institutions is studied from the viewpoint of how university quality and the set of financial, academic, social and demographic factors affect probability of student employment, and what motivates students to enter the labor market. The paper is based on the results of a 2013 survey among graduate students of Russian universities on their educational and career strategies conducted as part of the Monitoring of Education Markets and Organizations project. Data was analyzed using descriptive analysis and regression analysis: influence of factors was assessed through a logistic binary choice model (logit regression). It is shown that the most positive effect on probability of combining work and study is given by such factors as learning in a leading university, studying a Master’s degree, specializing in areas of study connected with foreign languages, mathematics, computer programming, design, architecture, and culturology. Receiving no financial support from family, studying on a state-funded basis, and being male also increase probability of student employment significantly. The research performed has allowed to suggest hypothetically that combining work and study is most often caused by desire to gain work experience, with more talented students working more often, obviously. By doing so, students try to get to look more productive, which may later bring an economic profit to them in the labor market. These hypotheses require further examination.

Dina Migunova - Research Assistant, Institute of Statistics and Economy of Knowledge, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Address: 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: dmigunova@hse.ru

The empirical basis of the study is a 2010 survey among MBA students of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Managers and entrepreneurs studying in the business school impose different requirements to content of educational programs and to organization of teaching process, depending on what changes they expect after graduating with MBA degrees. Based on these expectations, MBA students may be classified into three categories: stable, horizontally mobile, and vertically mobile. The stable type (40%) believes that business education will give them more self-confidence and help them secure their social status and current position in the company. Horizontally mobile  students (34%) expect to change their job or field of activity after graduating from the business school. Vertically-mobile students (26%) envisage a career progress, a pay rise, an improvement of social status, or getting a job in a top corporation or in an international company. The conclusion is,  usiness education can perform different functions for different categories of students, so maximum efficiency of MBA programs may be achieved through student segmentation and educational program differentiation (more detailed elaboration of educational content to adjust it to students’  emands; diversification of the set of subjects, etc.). Modern Russian business schools are rather unwilling to initiate research to study demands of both prospective students (including their status specifics, expectations, needs, and motivation for MBA studies) and employers (e. g. their  equirements to successful candidates for specific positions), which blunts effectiveness of the business education system significantly.

Ivan Zabayev - Candidate of Science, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Aspects of Culture, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University of Humanities. Address: 23B, Novokuznetskaya str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation. E-mail: zabaev-iv@yandex.ru

Ivan Pavlyutkin - Candidate of Science, Associate Professor, Department of Economic Sociology, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: 3, Kochnovsky proezd, Moscow, 125319, Russian Federation. E-mail: euhominid@gmail.com

We approach higher education as a source of not only private good but also public one. An analysis of oeuvres was aimed at differentiating between formal and substantive meanings of the term “university responsibility”. Substantive meaning of responsibility appeals to criteria beyond knowledge, appreciates the crucial importance of education effects in various aspects of life, and derives from the very fact of interdependence between the university and the society. We believe that importance of university as an institution forming the society may specifically be put into question in Russia, where the high level of education coexists weirdly with the high level of social hardship. An online questionnaire was completed by more than one third of graduates of a Russian confessional (Orthodox) university residing in more than 100 localities of Russia, former Soviet Republics, and other foreign countries. The data on graduates’ shared values and attitudes obtained in the survey was compared to results of national and international surveys on family issues, civic engagement, values, employment, social capital, and consumption practices. Based on this comparison, we suggest that philosophies and attitudes of Orthodox university graduates have many common points that set them aside from the other population of Russia: they are committed to family and civic values, have a strong attitude of service, and participate in social activities to help people in need. Standardized indices of social capital in the sample of Orthodox university graduates are three times higher than those in the national sample of all higher education graduates. We propose to raise a critical discussion of the role of religion in higher education and to dwell specifically on issues of validity of theology as a scientific discipline, effects of bringing religion to high school, and the problem of confessional universities.

Marina Vetchinova - Doctor of Science, Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Professional Communication, Kursk State University. Address: 33, Radishcheva str., Kursk, 305000, Russian Federation. E-mail: marx2003@list.ru

In 1850, even Petersburg didn’t have any educational institution to teach daughters of poor noblemen and government servants. Female education became a major teaching innovation of the second half of the 19th century. Women’s colleges were established in Vologda, Tver, Ryazan, Samara, Tula, Smolensk, and Nizhny Novgorod in the late 1858. Female secondary education was organized very much due to Nikolay Vyshnegradsky, who was a Russian teacher, professor, advocate of egalitarian female education, and founder of the Russky pedagoguichesky vestnik magazine. Vyshnegradsky was the first to introduce women’s gymnasia and to develop a Charter in 1862 that was taken as a basis of gymnasium activities. The curriculum included the Divine Law, Russian grammar, Russian history and geography, arithmetic, French and German languages, calligraphy, music, dancing, and needlework. This curriculum differed considerably from the one in traditional men’s gymnasia. Although the level of education was rather high in some of women’s gymnasia, their graduates were not allowed to enter universities or any other governmental higher educational institutions. It was only in 1872–1876 when a number of higher female courses were initiated under the influence of progressive communities. In this paper, we have analyzed organization of teaching and learning processes based  on the materials from State archives of Kursk and Belgorod Oblasts. We have also provided some examples of women’s gymnasium practices in Kursk Governorate in the second half of the 19th century through the early 20th century, including the First World War period.

Anna Zavaley - Candidate of Science, Senior Teacher, Department of Culturology, National Research University - Higher School of Economics. Address: 8/2 Maly Trekhsvyatitelsky lane, Moscow, 109082, Russian Federation. E-mail: azavaley@hse.ru

The article gives an overview of foreign research on the key topics in contemporary philosophy of education. The first two sections are devoted to discussing epistemic, moral and political objectives of education. The last section discusses one of the most controversial topics of contemporary philosophy of education — the professional status of teachers. Ability to comprehend critically social and political conditions of formation and spread of knowledge appears to be one of the essential epistemic objectives of education. Attention towards implicit fundamentals of expert knowledge and ability to find relevant information to verify beliefs are epistemic virtues contributing to formation of an autonomous cognizing individual. Among ethical objectives of education, we have traditionally singled out personal autonomy, ability to live a full social and economic life, comprehensive personal development, civic (democratic) competencies, and cooperation skills. The last twenty years, largely due to feminist and communitarian criticism, have witnessed development of an attitude that consists in finding the paramount goal of education in inculcating the ideals of love, care and community spirit, instead of autonomy of a rational individual. Implicitly ethical objectives of education are closely related to “distributive” objectives that define the final provider of teaching efforts. Having analyzed discussions on professionalization of teachers’ activities, we conclude that, although teaching is characterized by some prominent features of professional activity, its specific nature makes it difficult to establish distinct criteria of professionalization.

Alexei Pleshkov - Junior Researcher, Poletayev Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. E-mail: apleshkov@hse.ru 
Address: 12 Petrovka str., 107031, Moscow, Russian Federation.

Mariya Yudkevich, Ph.D. in Economics, prorector at the National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Director of the Center for Institutional Studies at the NRU HSE, tells in the interview about the conception and the history of creating the Pokoleniya VShE (HSE Generations) books published to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the university. The book Uchitelya ob uchitelyakh (Teachers about Teachers) contains reflections of famous scientists on the academic environments they made their first steps in. In Ucheniki ob uchitelyakh (Students about Teachers), young HSE researchers tell about the teachers who helped them get their idea of the university and of their academic ways. At first, the  essays that gave birth to these books had been a special supplement to the Okna rosta news bulletin and had won the readers’ love. In the end, nearly one hundred NRU HSE employees contributed to the books. The Pokoleniya VShE books make it clear that formation of the university became possible due to a combination of various traditions which coexist today within the same institution through openness, academic honesty, professionalism and without a backward glance at disciplinary, institutional or national boundaries.

Igor Zotov - freelance journalist, columnist, http://www.kultpro.ru. E-mail: pemba@list.ru

The two-volume set Pokoleniya VShE (HSE Generations) was issued to celebrate twenty years since establishing the National Research University — Higher School of Economics. The book Uchitelya ob uchitelyakh (Teachers about Teachers) allows the reader to get an idea of the academic environment that gave birth to scientists who now head scientific schools. In Ucheniki ob uchitelyakh (Students about Teachers), young HSE researchers tell about those who became their mentors and helped them pave their academic ways. The first book is aimed at those who have interest in contemporary history of Russian science and education, while the second one might be useful for prospective students, helping them understand what teachers may be like or even choose one. Expertise, ambition to raise the University’s ethos in their disciples, approachability, and self-irony are the key characteristics of a teacher described in this book.

Aleksey Lyubzhin - Doctor of Sciense, Research Fellow, The Rare Books and Manuscripts Department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University Library. E-mail: vulture@mail.ru.

Address: 9, Mokhovaya str., Moscow, 103073, Russian Federation.

We highly appreciate I. Zubkov’s book devoted to everyday life of Russian teachers in zemstvo schools, gymnasia, and realschulen at the turn of the 19th century, due to an extremely reader-friendly delivery of information and abundance of factual data. We find the most value in the narration scheme developed by the author: for each group, Zubkov first defines the legal status, then their financial situation, social characteristic (paying special attention to percentage of women in this traditionally male-dominated profession), motivation and fitness for teaching, and finally, conditions and specific aspects of working in relevant educational institutions, including contact with students’ parents, relationship with students, and conveniences. Based on the information given in the reviewed book, Zubkov compares the situations of teachers in secondary education institutions and zemstvo schools: their financial status and quality of life, their situation as compared to that of other educated class Russians, attitude of students’  arents, relationship with students at school. The conclusion is that primary village school and secondary city school are totally different worlds, and this contrast in the national education system was inevitable from the very beginning.

Alexander Sidorkin - Ph.D., Director, Department of Educational Programmes, Institute of Education, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: 13, Milyutinsky lane, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: asidorkin@hse.ru

Upbringing is regarded as a purposeful training to teach human values. By definition, upbringing engages the deep-lying moral attitudes of people, the moral and cultural values that have always been disputed by the society. Upbringing inevitably involves conflicts; moreover, its social utility is hard to measure. These two factors combined, without active interference of the State, may gradually kill the upbringing practices, which is far not the best possible option for the national policy. First, in this case general education school would stop existing as a social organization. Schools with stronger educational components are more stable. Second, upbringing only forms a part of human capital. Beside cognitive skills, human capital also includes social capital and creative capital, which are the real key players in post-industrial economies. If the upbringing component of the national education system is lost, it may degrade the quality of human capital required at the next stage of national economic development. Third, Russian upbringing practices are based on a significant experience of global importance; a lot of funds have been invested to organizational and financial structure of upbringing throughout many decades. To modernize upbringing, we should tie it closely to economic and social development needs of the country. Governmental or nonprofit grants could be provided to fund a number of projects to be implemented by regional teacher associations. The Creative Leader program, for example, consists in creating reliable instruments to measure creative and cooperation skills, developing reasonable standards to determine what creative and cooperation skills children must have and use at each age, reconciling these standards with those of general education, introducing a competitive program to create specific forms of working designed exclusively for contemporary children, and discarding without mercy everything that worked with previous generations only.