Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iasi, la Conferinta Anuala si Adunarea Generala a Grupului Coimbra
În perioada 4-8 iunie 2019, o delegatie a Universitatii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” (UAIC) din Iasi a participat la Conferinta Anuala si Adunarea Generala a Grupului Coimbra (CG), gazduite anul acesta de Universitatea din Cracovia, Polonia.
La evenimentul de la Cracovia au participat peste 250 de reprezentanti din cele 39 de universitati membre ale Grupului Coimbra. Evenimentul a debutat cu o zi dedicata întâlnirilor, în patru sesiuni de lucru succesive, ale celor 11 grupuri de lucru CG.
Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iasi este reprezentata în opt dintre acestea: Doctoral Studies (prof. univ. dr. Adriana Zait), Education Innovation (conf. univ. dr. Nicoleta Laura Popa), Life Sciences (conf. univ. dr. Mircea-Dan Mitroiu), Social Sciences and Humanities (conf. univ. dr. Ioana Maria Costea), STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (prof. univ. dr. Henri Luchian), Research Support Officers (dna. Alexandra Vosniuc), Academic Exchange and Mobility (dna. Ioana Serafinceanu), Employability (dr. Diana Chihaia). Programul a inclus, de asemenea, doua sesiuni cu prezentari ale rectorilor pe tema „Women in the University – the past, the present and the future”, precum si întâlnirea Rectorilor GC (Rectors’ Closed Meeting), la care au participat si înalti reprezentanti ai Comisiei Europene (dna. Sophia Eriksson, Directia Generala Educatie si dl. Phillipe Martin, Directia Generala Cercetare si Inovare). Acestia au prezentat pe larg proiectia programelor Horizon Europe si Erasmus 2021-2027 si au multumit pentru contributia Grupului Coimbra, materializata inclusiv prin documentul de pozitie „Synergy between Education and Research”, elaborat de un grup de sapte experti din universitati ale GC.
Propuneri reflectând experienta UAIC au fost incluse în document prin participarea în cadrul acestui grup a prof. univ. dr. Henri Luchian, prorector relatii internationale. La finalul întâlnirii a fost prezentat si Seminarul Rectorilor, dedicat împlinirii a 30 de ani de la caderea Cortinei de Fier si a Revolutiei române, care va fi organizat de UAIC în octombrie 2019, la care rectorii prezenti si-au exprimat interesul de a participa. A treia zi a evenimentului a inclus întâlnirea reprezentantilor GC din fiecare universitate cu Biroul Executiv al GC, precum si momentul central, Adunarea Generala anuala a Grupului Coimbra. În Adunarea Generala au fost prezentate rapoartele anuale ale Biroului Executiv, Secretariatului Coimbra Group de la Bruxelles si Comitetului Administrativ si Financiar. De asemenea, a fost prezentat câstigatorul premiului Arenberg (acordat anual unui absolvent de master al unei universitati membre a Grupului Coimbra, cu rezultate deosebite în urma unui stagiu Erasmus la o alta universitate din retea), a avut loc finala competitiei 3MT (competitie de comunicare pentru doctoranzi din Grupul Coimbra) si au fost alesi doi noi membri ai Biroului Executiv.
„Între efectele tangibile ale participarii Universitatii ca membru activ în Grupul Coimbra mentionam dezvoltarea unor programe de studiu cu diploma dubla cu parteneri din retea (Universitatile Poitiers, Franta si Groningen, Olanda) si numarul mare de proiecte europene la care UAIC este partener si care au rezultat din activitatea în cadrul grupurilor de lucru Coimbra. Peste 20 de proiecte comune cu universitati ale Grupului Coimbra au fost implementate la Universitatea «Cuza» din Iasi începând din 2007, dintre care sapte proiecte Erasmus Mundus (patru coordonate de UAIC) si proiectul de Universitati Europene – European Campus of City Universities – EC2U, aflat în faza de evaluare”, au precizat oficialii de la „Cuza”
Publicație: Bună Ziua Iași
Vin vremuri grele pentru studenții chiulangii. Prezența la cursuri, monitorizată digital
Facultatea de Economie şi Administrarea Afacerilor (FEAA) de la Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ din Iaşi (UAIC) va participa la o competiţie naţională cu un proiect digital inovator menit să monitorizeze prezenţa studenţilor la cursuri.
Proiectul studenţilor de la FEAA este înscris în competiţia „Ţara lui Andrei“, fiind numit „SMART FEAA“. Proiectul se va baza pe NFC (Near Field Communication), o tehnologie dezvoltată în 2004, dar care este tot mai utilizată în ultimul timp. Acesta este folosit şi de către Universitatea de Tehnologie şi Economie din Budapesta, unde, printr-un sistem similar, s-a monitorizat activitatea a 1.100 de studenţi în cadrul a 8 cursuri care se desfăşurau în 7 amfiteatre diferite.
Ceea ce aduce nou proiectul studenţilor ieşeni este faptul că sistemul realizat la UAIC va funcţiona prin utilizarea telefoanelor personale, nu a unor carduri de student. De asemenea, vor fi plasate în sălile de curs cititoarele NFC care sunt terminale capabile să accepte date transferate de telefoane NFC prin taguri NFC. Astfel, sistemul va fi integrat cu platforma actuală de e-learning – Moodle, dar şi cu aplicaţii deja existente în cadrul facultăţii, precum aplicaţia pentru săli de curs, seminar şi laboratoare, aplicaţia de generare orare sau portalul de informare.
„Fiind un proiect pilot realizat la nivelul facultăţii doar pentru sălile de curs, urmărim ca, în viitor, proiectul să fie extins şi la nivel de săli de seminarii şi laboratoare. Estimăm că efectele proiectului vor rezista în timp şi vor avea impact asupra instituţiei, dar şi asupra comunităţii. În primul rând, acest proiect implică digitalizarea facultăţii şi a proceselor suport ale actului formativ (monitorizarea prezenţei) ceea ce este un trend necesar a fi urmat. Mai mult, inovaţia tehnologică pe care o propunem prin NFC are potenţialul de a fi aplicată pe viitor în facultate şi pe alte procese, cum ar fi examinarea studenţilor, acces la bibliotecă, acces la infrastructură de co-working sau creare de comunităţi de învăţare“, a menţionat lect. univ. dr. Patricia Bertea, iniţiatoarea proiectului.
Astfel, prin intermediul proiectului se va putea realiza prezenţa la nivel de facultate, cursuri individuale, prefesor şi student şi se va putea vedea, în timp real, care este numărul studenţilor care participă la cursuri. Competiţia „RO SMART în Ţara lui Andrei“ are un buget de 500.000 de euro, fondurile alocate pentru un proiect putând fi de maximum 45.000 euro. Competiţia se desfăşoară în perioada 5-28 iunie, iar proiectul SMART FEAA poate fi votat până pe 19 iunie pe site-ul competiţiei.
Publicație: Ziarul de Iași
Un student al Universitatii Tehnice din Iasi, participant la Universiada – Jocurile Mondiale Universitare
George Hobjila, student în anul I la Facultatea de Mecanica din cadrul Universitatii Tehnice (TUIASI) „Gheorghe Asachi” din Iasi, va participa anul acesta la proba de Taekwondo la Universiada, sau Jocurile Mondiale Universitare, competitie internationala multi-sportiva organizata de Federatia Internationala a Sportului Universitar (FISU) pentru studentii – atleti.
„Ajunsa la cea de-a 30-a editie, Universiada se va desfasura anul acesta la Napoli, între 3 – 17 iulie 2019, si va fi gazda a peste 8.000 de sportivi ai universitatilor din 124 de tari. Este deosebit de potrivit ca un oras italian sa gazduiasca aceasta editie a evenimentului, în conditiile în care Universiada de Vara a început în urma cu sase decenii în Torino. Am reprezentat Universitatea Tehnica, întâi la Campionatul National Universitar si de acolo am fost selectat mai departe pentru lotul national pe baza altor performante din anul 2019 în competitia de Taekwondo. Competitia care urmeaza e o sansa unica în viata si o oportunitate la care se ajunge foarte greu. Poate va fi ceva de viitor”, a declarat George Hobjila.
George este practicant al sportului Taekwondo (arte martiale de contact) din 2006, are centura neagra 1 dan si performante semnificative în ultimii ani la categoria „seniori”. Este Campion National Universitar Taekwondo WT 2019, Campion National Taekwondo WT 2018, câstigator al Cupei României Taekwondo 2018. Sportiv legitimat la CS Botosani, antrenor Denis Matei (centura neagra 4 dan).
Publicație: Bună Ziua Iași
Aplicaţie propusă de studenţii din Iaşi. Prezenţa la cursuri, monitorizată digital
Câţiva studenţi de la Facultatea de Economie şi Administrarea Afacerilor (FEAA) a Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi au propus crearea unei aplicaţii care să monitorizeze în timp real prezenţa studenţilor la cursuri.
Sistemul ar putea funcţiona prin utilizarea telefoanelor, a căror date vor putea fi transferate cu ajutorul unor cititoare plasate în sălile de curs. Proiectul se numeşte SMART FEAA şi este un sistem digital de monitorizare pe baza NFC (n.red Near Field Communication), o tehnologie dezvoltată în 2004, care ar putea fi integrată în platforma actuală de e-learning.
Aplicaţia va putea raporta în timp real prezenţa la nivel de facultate, pentru cursuri individale, per profesor sau student. Conform organizatorilor, tehnologia folosită presupune costuri reduse şi va permite, la un moment dat, şi extinderea funcţiilor.
„Fiind un proiect pilot realizat la nivelul facultăţii doar pentru sălile de curs, urmărim ca în viitor proiectul să fie extins şi la nivel de săli de seminarii şi laboratoare. Estimăm că efectele proiectului vor rezista în timp şi vor avea impact asupra instituţiei, dar şi asupra comunităţii. În primul rând, acest proiect implică digitalizarea facultăţii şi a proceselor suport ale actului formativ (monitorizarea prezenţei) ceea ce este un trend necesar a fi urmat. Mai mult, inovaţia tehnologică pe care o propunem prin NFC are potenţialul de a fi aplicată pe viitor în facultate şi pe alte procese, cum ar fi examinarea studenţilor, acces la bibliotecă, acces la infrastructură de co-working sau creare de comunităţi de învăţare”, a precizat lectorul universitar Patricia Bertea, iniţiatoarea proiectului.
O aplicaţie asemănătoare a mai fost folosită şi la Universitatea de Tehnologie şi Economie din Budapesta, însă cu ajutorul unor carduri de student digitale, nu utilizând telefonul. „SMART FEAA” a fost înscris în competiţia RO Smart în Ţara lui Andrei, unde ar putea primi finanţare pentru realizare.
Publicație: Adevărul
Prudence is the price of the UK’s generous pensions
Asking for higher contributions is painful but unavoidable in such uncertain times, says USS chair Sir David Eastwood
Defined-benefit pensions have long been a valued element of the total reward enjoyed by colleagues in the higher education sector.
For those who hold the promise of a defined-benefits pension, it is likely to be the most valuable asset they will possess, providing certainty of a fixed income for life in retirement, a high level of protection against inflation and dedicated financial support for dependants at critical life events.
But the challenge of fulfilling a legally binding promise at a time of significant uncertainty is precisely why – outside the public sector schemes whose pensions are paid for by taxpayers – defined-benefit schemes are increasingly rare. The objective price of “guaranteed” benefits has been made much more expensive than in the past by a combination of record low interest rates, an outlook of “lower for longer” future investment returns, and the fog surrounding the global economy.
The vast majority of the UK’s private defined-benefit pension schemes are now closed, either to new members or in full: the Universities Superannuation Scheme accounts for nearly a sixth of the people still actively paying into the schemes that remain open.
But the price of certainty in delivering the extremely valuable pension promises being made by USS is now higher than at any point in the scheme’s history. The resources of our sponsoring employers may be considerable but they are not limitless, and they are subject to uncertainty themselves. We need to think only of the potential impacts of the Augar review, Brexit, the next spending review and the competition for student recruitment to understand the challenges faced by universities and their governing bodies.
The fundamental question faced by any trustee carrying out a valuation today is, therefore, how can it secure the certainty of a defined-benefits promise when, economically and politically, these are such uncertain times. The increased legislative and regulatory protections now in place for defined-benefit pensions mean that this is no longer a question of restrained optimism (as it might arguably have been in the past). It is, rather, how wrong can we afford to be?
Apart from the value of the assets we currently hold and the cost of more certain investments, such as government bonds, almost everything else is an estimate and subject to change. We can look to the past and to predictive models for guidance on how interest rates, investments, financial markets and key demographics might evolve, but this can only inform a judgement about an inherently unknowable future.
Uncertainty serves to increase the premium for insuring defined-benefit pensions, and the independent conclusion of the USS trustee is that the contributions required today must increase to respond to this. Here, we are not alone. Even the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, whose pensions are “unfunded” and are, in that sense, a direct call on the taxpayer, is significantly increasing the contributions required to fund its defined-benefits pensions.
We are acutely aware of the value of the USS pensions promise to the attractiveness of the higher education sector as an employer. The trustee is determined to ensure that this continues and that pensions promised by the USS are seen as secure, regardless of the future prospects of individual employers or the sector as a whole. This must be in the long-term interests of members and the sector.
We acknowledge the challenges in levying higher contributions – that is why we have worked very hard to find ways in which these can be escalated gradually, or made contingent on events. The process has been painful and contested. Given the scale of the challenges we face, this is understandable. The trustee, though, is in a unique position where it is required to make objective judgements. It must operate in a regulated environment, it must have regard to its fiduciary responsibilities, and it must be prudent.
Because of the nature of the benefits we underwrite, the trustee must consider the possibility of adverse scenarios as well as positive ones. In short, we must ensure that the promises being made to our members will continue to hold their real value.
Publicație: The Times
The UK’s next PM should keep Theresa May’s R&D spending commitments
Raising UK outlay to international levels will reap rich technological, social and political rewards for the next Conservative Party leader, says Sarah Main
Any candidate to become the UK’s next prime minister can expect to be asked how they will enable the country to flourish over the next decade.
Some have embraced research and technology in their vision. Home secretary Sajid Javid, for instance, wants to attract the world’s “best and brightest” to the UK to build “the new industries and job-creating machines of the future”.
Theresa May’s existing target to double the UK’s spending on R&D over 10 years, creating a more scientifically enabled economy, driving productivity and making the UK a partner of choice among the world’s knowledge economies post-Brexit. This would represent the biggest shift in the contribution of science and innovation to the UK economy in decades.
But will this ambition stick? And can it be achieved?
I am more confident about the latter than the former. The Campaign for Science and Engineering recently published a report, Building on Scientific Strength – the Next Decade of R&D Investment, drawing on input from over 100 research-led businesses, professional institutions, universities and charities to make recommendations on precisely how the government can meet its aspiration. But Conservative leadership candidates should note that a compelling vision of a scientifically enabled economy will be needed, with a plan and a budget that attracts cross-government support and global attention.
Interestingly, the top request from businesses is the same as that from universities: to invest broadly in the academic science base through diverse funding models. That base is a draw for global money and talent. For R&D businesses, it is the primary reason to come to the UK; the case made at the boardroom table is to be close to the best science and to have access to the talent pool that generates it.
Other important measures include making R&D infrastructure and future skills an early priority. Business would also benefit from simplified access to support for innovation, the use of government procurement to adopt innovation faster, and the creation of a more internationally competitive fiscal environment, such as by updating R&D tax credits.
To address the trickier issue of stickiness, we need to address the “why” question. In an era of pressure on public services, why would government choose to invest billions to boost research and innovation?
Modelling by CaSE shows that meeting May’s target of increasing R&D investment from 1.7 to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027 would require roughly doubling R&D spending from £35 billion to £65 billion a year over 10 years. To reach the longer-term goal of 3 per cent of GDP by 2034, an annual £95 billion would be needed. With a spending review due, note that to keep on this trajectory the £7 billion additional public investment committed for the 2016-20 period would need to treble to £20 billion between 2020 and 2024.
So will a new prime minister back this agenda? Politically, there are both global and local reasons to do so.
Globally, developed nations are all advancing through R&D. The UK is internationally underweight on R&D investment across the economy, but punches above its weight in research outputs. Therefore, investing to reach economic R&D parity with other developed nations should reap disproportionate rewards in research and innovation performance. This will enhance the UK’s position as a research leader and may strengthen its hand in post-Brexit international trade and relations.
Domestically, investing in R&D has the potential to increase prosperity and wellbeing, both directly through the fruits of innovation and indirectly through the economic effect on productivity. The potential for R&D investment to be directed in a way that addresses regional differences in productivity and prosperity could bring new opportunities across the country and is likely to appeal to electoral strategists.
The key point, in my view, is to ensure everyone is equipped to participate in those opportunities. Complementary policies, such as in education, could help realise and amplify those benefits.
Imagining “a 2.4 per cent country” and illustrating what might be enabled in disciplines, institutions or geographic areas is one way to bring the potential of this agenda to life, and help attract political and public support. I encourage everyone to contribute their own visions.
Publicație: The Times
Syrian higher education in meltdown after eight-year civil war
New research calls for greater support for exiled academics with a view to rebuilding the system
As Syria’s civil war has dragged the country further into chaos, the flow of refugee academics and students has indicated that universities will have suffered serious – perhaps irreparable – damage.
But even as the government of Bashar al-Assad reasserts control over much of Syria, it remains hard to get reliable information on the state of the country’s higher education system after eight years of deadly conflict.
Two reports published this week shed significant light on the situation, demonstrating the devastating impact of tight state control, insecurity, intimidation and ravaged infrastructure.
The reports are products of a project, led by the Council for At-Risk Academics, the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education and the British Council, that was designed to develop the capacity of Syrian academics living in exile in Turkey to undertake qualitative research and to make recommendations for the future. After taking part in workshops in Istanbul covering qualitative interview training as well as “allied ethical issues”, 11 Syrian academics carried out digital interviews with 41 staff and 76 students still in Syria.
Even when fighting started in 2011, the researchers say in their first report, Syrian higher education was already in a very poor state, “a sector where attempts at reform had been thwarted and where market-driven expansion had focused on privatisation at the expense of quality. In this highly centralised system, the Ba’ath Party and national security apparatus had been embedded within a firm authoritarian and centralised university governance structure, with outmoded curricula and textbooks promoting regime ideologies.
“Corruption, favouritism and discrimination were extensive, and heightened inequality was evident and rising rapidly in respect of both investment and access to HE across different regions…Universities played little or no role in providing practical skills or training to support student transition into an already tight labour market.”
In almost all these areas, things have now got considerably worse.
Juliet Millican, an associate fellow at the University of Sussex’s Institute of Development Studies, worked on the final version of the second report, which focuses on the impact of the war, and produced a policy brief. On the central issue of the “heightened politicisation” of the sector, she pointed to “intense surveillance on campus”, meaning that “many academics are very careful about what they say”. There was “no freedom around the curriculum or research” because these were “predetermined for academics”. Even in areas not controlled by the Assad regime, “people are afraid of who might betray their confidences, so they stick to traditional teaching, not pushing the boundaries, very aware they may be being watched at any time”.
The report adds that “university appointments in regime-controlled HE sites since 2011 have been linked ever more closely to the regime in ways not seen before 2011, with some former security officials taking on leadership roles…there are signs that governance and decision-making form a unified process which involves a substantially heightened autocratic approach to HE governance alongside a purge of those leaders and scholars who have shown signs of dissent, followed by mass HE appointments of regime supporters to leadership positions”.
Syrian academics and students now living in camps in Jordan, the report says, have reported “mass violations of human rights through assassinations of academics and violent intimidation through both official and unofficial security figures and groups”. Those based at the University of Aleppo were “cut off from other cities, arrested at checkpoints and experienced high levels of intimidation, detention and harassment. Students were also forced to negotiate highly dangerous checkpoints manned by regime troops or [Islamic State] militants to move from eastern Aleppo to the west side of the city.” Furthermore, “increasing detentions, novel forms of patronage, unprecedented human displacement and murder of students and faculty” had all contributed to “climates of fear and distrust”.
The report also addressed the linked issues of “curriculum stagnation” and the sharp decline in both research and international partnerships.
“Former strong research partnerships [with Western universities] being built prior to 2011 have all disappeared,” explained Dr Millican, something hardly compensated for by increased contact with countries such as Russia, China and Iran. Syria’s “emerging research culture, though never strong, has disappeared almost entirely. And many archives and libraries have been lost.” Given that there was “no new research and development work”, this also meant that the “curriculum can’t change”.
Much of this, as the report makes clear, arises from the brute fact that universities in Syria were focused on “institutional survival”. One staff member told the researchers that they were “no longer capable of carrying out experiments” because materials had been “destroyed or were non-existent”. Research had elsewhere ground to a halt owing to “the lack of equipment and raw materials, as well as electricity, after 2011”.
On the final question of access and employability, the report is equally bleak. Students tended to choose universities on the basis of “safety and security considerations rather than the pursuit of quality”. Many had to deal with challenges such as “large class sizes, problems sitting exams or forced mobility to resit exams, diminished teaching, bombing during exams and teaching by poorly qualified individuals (including members of the security apparatus and students) due to the detention or forced exile of qualified academics”. With many programmes regarded as “poorly aligned with the labour market”, students regarded “the process of transitioning from HE to work unacceptable because of ‘red tape and dependency on government support’, as well as on favouritism, connections and security approvals”.
For the universities operating in areas no longer controlled by the regime, Dr Millican suggested, the lack of a Ministry of Higher Education and a system of accreditation meant that there was “no means of career development for researchers”. Because institutions “have no international recognition”, it was also difficult for students to gain degrees that “have currency outside their immediate context”.
The report incorporates some harrowing testimonies from 19 Syrian academics, who had taken refuge in Turkey and were interviewed by the Cambridge researchers.
One recalled life in a camp without heating, drinking water or toilet facilities. Another suffered from commuting between “liberated” and regime-controlled areas: “When I returned to my family home, the jihadists would say: ‘You belong to the regime and you are a spy’…And when I returned to my university…the regime army would say the same thing: ‘You are a spy for the jihadists.’ ” A third described persecution by Islamic State: “My older brother managed to escape, but his son is still held by them. My younger brother, who had a family of five children, was killed. Isis put him in one of their videos.”
In terms of what outsiders can do to help Syrian higher education, Dr Millican flagged up a number of areas. It was possible to begin “supporting individual institutions from a distance” through sharing curricula or offering guidance on ethics procedures, research protocols and the latest research, with a view to providing help on the ground if the security situation improves. Another option was to engage either with the Assad regime – although many academics had political objections to this – or the possible governments-in-waiting in areas now controlled by Turkish or Kurdish forces.
Much easier, as Dr Millican saw it, since “it doesn’t involve contact with the regime or sending people into the country”, was providing “support for academics in exile in the hope that they may eventually return home with a lot of the learning they have gained”.
Even those providing funds or otherwise responding to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, added Kate Robertson, Cara’s Middle East adviser, are “all too often guilty of not engaging with Syrian academics in exile to benefit from their local experience, knowledge, expertise and reach back into Syria. The same can be said of researchers working on issues relating to Syrian refugee communities or future challenges facing Syria.
“Cara is currently funding 21 discrete pieces of research in which Syrian academics lead with the support of UK academics in the role of mentors and principal investigators, which are not only ensuring continued academic engagement and contribution but are also supporting action-learning for a group with limited experience of international standards and good practice in research, given that the key role of academics in Syria was to teach.”
More specifically, Dr Millican is leading a project to build on the skills that exiled Syrian academics have gained from working on the research reports to examine “the contribution of different disciplines to reconstruction: energy security; food security; the maintenance of cultural heritage; education” as well as the specific role of higher education in social cohesion and peace building.
Although the Syrian higher education sector started from a low base and has declined dramatically, these academics are huge national assets who may eventually prove central in reconstruction efforts.
Publicație: The Times
Closer China-Russia ties ‘could shift academic freedom norms’
Endorsement of new partnership by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin may be reaction to US cold shoulder
Growing scholarly collaboration between China and Russia could signal a shift in the balance of power in global higher education, according to researchers who suggested that it could have significant implications for academic freedom in the region.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, were present as a cooperation agreement was signed between Beijing’s Tsinghua University and Saint Petersburg State University earlier this month in the Kremlin.
Some academics have suggested that China may be keen to build closer ties with Russian institutions because of US universities’ increasing reluctance to collaborate with Chinese academics amid anxiety about intellectual property theft.
The number of co-authored publications involving Chinese and Russian academics increased by 95.5 per cent between 2013 and 2017, according to data from Elsevier’s Scopus database, and the patronage of the two presidents indicated the importance of higher education to ties between the two countries. It was one of a number of agreements signed, in areas including trade and energy, as Mr Xi visited Russia to commemorate the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the nations.
The agreement between Tsinghua and Saint Petersburg will lead to the creation of a Russian Research Institute at the Beijing university, which will conduct research on Russia-China relations in areas such as industrial development, education, science and technology. Saint Petersburg, which said it now has more than 2,000 Chinese students, also conferred an honorary doctorate on Mr Xi.
Jonathan Sullivan, director of the University of Nottingham’s China Policy Institute, said cooperation between China and Russia has “not been smooth” and is “riven with mutual suspicion”.
But higher education was seen as a “safe issue to cooperate on”, he said, and restrictions on academic freedom in China, which might hinder collaborations with Western partners, were “not problematic” for Russia.
“Neither side needs to be mindful of issues around academic freedom and the separation of politics and academia,” added Dr Sullivan. “The success of Chinese institutions in global rankings, while already weak academic freedoms are eroded, is not a good sign for higher education globally.
“The successful cooperation of Chinese and Russian higher education would further legitimise the erosion of academic freedom and the punishment of researchers who don’t toe the party line, and that would be a damaging message regionally and globally.”
China and Russia were “dancing uneasily together at present, a natural by-product of the deepening rift between the US and China”, said Simon Marginson, professor of higher education at the University of Oxford. He questioned how significant the effect of increased collaboration would be, since the countries’ higher education systems were “in very different places, with China streets ahead”.
But Nadège Rolland, senior fellow for political and security affairs at the US-based National Bureau of Asian Research, said “it is not just about China and Russia – it is the entire Eurasian region that could be moved towards a different set of standards in terms of higher education”.
Rather than Donald Trump’s actions pushing China and Russia together, it was “their ideology pulling them together”, added the author of China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative.
“Higher education is one layer of this really dense partnership that they are building,” she said.
Publicație: The Times
Fear over Augar impact on arts, humanities and social sciences
Critics warn against equating a course’s value with its graduate earnings, of threats to universities’ autonomy on funding decisions and damage to research
England’s Augar review threatens the arts, humanities and social sciences by risking the equation of value with graduate earnings, could harm research in those fields and could replace universities’ autonomy on funding decisions with “Whitehall control”, critics have warned.
Jo Johnson, the former universities minister, has told Times Higher Education of his concerns that the new government funding recommended in the Augar report would be susceptible to a high degree of ministerial control and would not provide “a sustainable stream of money that can sustain the work of university departments doing socially valuable [courses] that perhaps don’t necessarily lead to high levels of earnings over time”.
He added: “I’m really worried about what it [the Augar report] means for creative subjects, for arts subjects, for humanities, what it means for design and technology.”
Under the report’s recommendations, the tuition fee cap would be reduced from £9,250 to £7,500. But critics point to the vagueness of the report’s statements on how to allocate replacement public funding on a course-by-course basis, which potentially leaves some momentous decisions in the hands of the government and the Office for Students.
While the Augar report says the OfS should “consider support” for “socially desirable” courses such as nursing that do not have high graduate earnings, its general close attention to Longitudinal Education Outcomes data on graduate earnings leads some to worry about the impact on disciplines deemed to perform poorly here.
Courses such as art and design or archaeology are higher cost but do not score well on graduate earnings.
James Wilsdon, interim chair of the Campaign for Social Science and professor of research policy at the University of Sheffield, said: “There will be a big worry for a lot of social science disciplines that you end up with a very narrow account that only really privileges disciplines, degrees and career paths that contribute in a very immediate and obvious way to a business bottom line or a GDP bottom line.”
Sir Nigel Carrington, vice-chancellor of the University of the Arts London, said the big fears for institutions specialising in creative subjects were that there might be no replacement funding to replace lost fee income, or that backfill funding might not be allocated to these subjects because of their low graduate earnings.
“There isn’t a creative institution in the country that could survive on £7,500 per student,” he warned.
Sir Nigel said: “The worry for all of us is the secretary of state [for education, Damian Hinds] seems to be putting undue weight on the early career earnings of graduates.”
But the LEO data, he added, have “not successfully tracked self-employed and part-time earnings” – particularly common features of employment for graduates who go on to work in the creative industries.
Professor Wilsdon said the key fear was not that the Augar plans would cut funding for lower-cost subjects, because fees in those subjects already cross-subsidised high-cost subjects. But the Augar plans would transfer these local decisions about “how flows of income should operate within the institution” to Whitehall, he argued. This “smacks of a degree of intervention and government control of the real fine detail of institutional management that…would be quite alarming in terms of removing institutional autonomy”, he added.
And this would “inevitably reduce cross-subsidies from teaching to research, which is another blind spot of the Augar review”, Professor Wilsdon continued. This was “a worry, particularly in the social sciences, arts and humanities”, where research relies heavily on internal cross-subsidy, he added.
Publicație: The Times
Opera-writing ARU v-c looks for harmony on brand and Brexit
Running a university and composing music both involve ‘strategic planning’, says Roderick Watkins, composer of the ‘very dark, very violent’ Juniper Tree
The largest of Anglia Ruskin University’s four campuses is in Cambridge, a city with worldwide higher education fame, yet the institution’s name references a term for eastern England and a Victorian art critic. Two of its researchers recently won the university’s very first grants from the highly prestigious European Research Council, only for one of them to leave the UK sharpish because of Brexit.
There are a few discordant notes to harmonise for ARU’s new vice-chancellor, Roderick Watkins – surely the only university leader to have composed an opera.
ARU is “very strongly focused on our regional mission” in the east, and across its four campuses – in Cambridge, Chelmsford, Peterborough and London – the “commonality is about providing genuinely inclusive and innovative routes into higher education”, Professor Watkins, appointed in February, told Times Higher Education.
Cambridge and Chelmsford, the locations for the two largest campuses, “sit in regions of really remarkable differentiation” in wealth, where economic growth in the cities has not spread to poorer surrounding areas with low higher education participation rates, he said. “Anglia Ruskin should be absolutely an engine for tackling that problem,” he added.
In Chelmsford, the focus is on expanding the engineering offer to meet the needs of local employers, while in Cambridge “we’re putting a lot of focus on creative industries and areas like computer games”, Professor Watkins said.
At ARU’s Cambridge campus, there is a new 220-seat, high-tech “super lab” used by students in fields such as forensic science (a key growth area) and also schoolchildren gaining a taste of university-level science; a 270-seat theatre, home to student and professional productions; and the public Ruskin Gallery, where student art is on display alongside local children’s work and a Yoko Ono exhibition will feature in the autumn.
The Ruskin Gallery is part of the university’s Cambridge School of Art, where John Ruskin gave the inaugural address in 1858. When the university changed its name in 2005, it took Ruskin’s name.
While Professor Watkins said he was “delighted Ruskin is in our name” – because the great Victorian emphasised the “power of education” – he conceded that there were “challenges around a name that doesn’t have a location in it”. Overseas students have been known to talk of “Angela Ruskin”.
Hence, ARU was due to launch a new “brand” on 17 June. While keeping the university’s existing name, this new brand will also give prominence to “ARU Cambridge” – thus making better use of the city’s worldwide fame – and to similar independent identities for the other campuses.
Professor Watkins spoke to THE before news broke that an ARU graduate was paid £60,000 in settlement of claims that her degree “exaggerated the prospects of a career”, with blanket media coverage posing separate brand problems.
In terms of future challenges, “Brexit poses a serious risk to Anglia Ruskin, as it does to all universities”, particularly because European Union research funding is key for ARU, said Professor Watkins.
On that front, Susan Flavin was awarded an ERC grant for a project on food, culture and identity in Ireland as an ARU researcher last year. She has since moved to Trinity College Dublin because of Brexit uncertainty, which was “very frustrating for us and…very disappointing for her”, said Professor Watkins.
It was “fundamentally important to us” that the UK should associate to EU research post-Brexit, and a domestic replacement scheme might bring “increased hyper-concentration” that sidelines universities such as ARU, he said.
Professor Watkins was a professor of composition and contemporary music at Canterbury Christ Church University before moving to ARU in 2014, where he was initially pro vice-chancellor and dean of arts, law and social sciences.
In his life as an academic, Professor Watkins wrote the score for an opera, The Juniper Tree, which premiered at the Munich Biennale opera festival in 1997. The opera was “very dark and very violent, very entertaining”, said Professor Watkins, who described his music as involving “a lot of work with computer-generated sound”.
Is running a university anything like composing? “The obvious connections are about strategic planning…planning something large and complex, but making sure you can hold it all in your head at once,” Professor Watkins said. “The intellectual task behind both of them – there’s something in common, which I really enjoy.”
One big concern for him is preserving the combination of research and teaching at ARU. The university has “absolutely world-leading research in vision and music therapy and a number of other areas”, Professor Watkins said. He added that it was “fundamentally important that we have an HE sector in the UK that is as diverse as possible”, where a university such as ARU “committed to inclusive education…can properly foster and support really excellent research”.
Publicație: The Times