In Platoul BZI LIVE, un dialog special cu doi reprezentanti ai Universitatii ”Al. I. Cuza” Iasi

 Joi, 25 iulie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00 a fost programata cea de-a 354-a editie BZI LIVE axata pe segmentul educational, cultural, artistic, muzical, istoric, religios respectiv al ideilor si mentalitatilor! De aceasta data, in prim-plan au fost doi reprezentanti ai Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza (UAIC) din Iasi. Este vorba de conf. univ. dr. Nicoleta Popa – prodecan al Facultatii de Psihologie si de Stiinte ale Educatiei respectiv sef lucrari dr. Gabriel Ionut Plavan – Facultatea de Biologie si proaspat coordonator – interimar al Statiunii de Practica Universitara „Vasile Bacauanu” Stefanesti – Botosani, a Universitatii Cuza. • Emisiunea cu invitatii de astazi poate fu urmarita AICI

Pe 25 iulie 2019, incepand cu ora 15.00 a fost programata o editie speciala. Invitati in Platoul BZI LIVE, conf. univ. dr. Nicoleta Popa – prodecan al Facultatii de Psihologie si de Stiinte ale Educatiei respectiv sef lucrari dr. Gabriel Ionut Plavan – Facultatea de Biologie si proaspat coordonator – interimar al Statiunii de Practica Universitara „Vasile Bacauanu” Stefanesti – Botosani, a Universitatii Cuza au abordat elemente legate de: Admiterea 2019, proiecte educationale, studentesti, realitati academice, Cercetare. Emisiunea cu invitatii de astazi poate fu urmarita AICI

Publicație : Bună Ziua Iași

Patru elevi de clasa a XI-a, admişi la facultate!

Cinci elevi ieşeni de liceu sunt deja admişi la facultate, iar alte câteva mii de absolvenţi au aflat dacă vor fi, la rândul lor, studenţi.

Nici nu au susţinut Bacalaureatul, dar cinci elevi de clasa a XI-a sunt deja admişi la Facultatea de Informatică din Iaşi, pentru anul universitar 2020 – 2021. Acest lucru a fost posibil în urma susţinerii examenului de admitere. Facultatea de Informatică este singura facultate de la Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi care oferă elevilor şansa să participe la examenul de preadmitere. Examenul a fost organizat şi susţinut în acelaşi timp cu cel al absolvenţilor de liceu. Anul acesta au fost 289 de elevi de liceu care au susţinut examenul de preadmitere la Facultatea de Informatică pentru anul universitar 2020-2021. Trei dintre ei au obţinut medii de 10, alţii doi având medii de 9,75şi 9,80. Acest fapt, le-a asigurat un loc la facultate pentru anul universitar următor.

La Facultatea de Informatică, pentru anul universitar 2019 – 2020 s-au înscris 939 candidaţi, însă doar 201 dintre ei au reuşit să intre la studiile bugetate. Mediile la buget au variat între 9,97 şi 8,72 pentru studiile în limba română, şi între 9,53 şi 8.37 pentru studiile în limba engleză. La studiile cu taxă, ultima medie a fost de 8.27. Examen de admitere au susţinut şi absolvenţii de liceu care au dorit să intre la Facultatea de Drept. Anul acesta, mediile de admitere la varianta bugetată au variat între 9,60 şi 8,48, iar la taxă între 8,47 şi 8,27. Cu medii mari s-a intrat şi la Facultatea de Fizică. Aici vor studia 11 olimpici, iar alături de ei, la studiile la buget, sunt absolvenţi de liceu care în urma concursului de dosare au medii între 9,85 şi 8,56. Alţi patru olimpici au preferat să studieze la Facultatea de Matematică, unde mediile de admitere la buget sunt între 9,98 şi 9.43.

Cu medii între 9,93 şi 8,95 s-a intrat şi la facultatea de Biologie, iar la Geografie cu medii între 9,94 şi 8,61, la Istorie s-a intrat cu medii între 10 şi 8,33, la Facultatea de Litere, funcţie de specializare, mediile au variat între 9,93şi 6,38. La Facultatea de Filosofie s-a intrat cu medii între 9,70 şi 6,33, la Asistenţă Socială mediile de admitere au variat între 9,56 şi 8,53, la Sociologie cu medii între 9,10 şi 7,51, la Resurse Umane cu medii între 9,75 şi 9,05, laŞtiinţe Politice cu medii între 9,51 şi 7,78, la Relaţii Internaţionale cu medii între 9,81 şi 8,71, iar la Comunicare şi relaţii publice s-a intrat cu medii între 9,80 şi 8,76.

La Facultatea de Psihologie, mediile de admitere la studiile la buget au variat între 9,70 şi 9,26. Cu medii mari s-a intrat şi la Facultatea de Educaţie Fizică şi Sport, acestea fiind cuprinse între 9,51 şi 8,18. Cele mai mici medii de intrare, de 5,84, au fost la Facultatea de Teologie Ortodoxă.

Publicație : Evenimentul

Punct final admiterii la UMF

Ieri s-au afişat şi rezultatele la concursul de admitere pe locuri bugetate şi pe locuri cu taxă în lei la UMF Iaşi. Ultima medie, la buget, la Medicină Generalăeste 8,79, la specializarea Asistenţă Medicală Generală – 7,63, la Nutriţie şi Dietetică – 7,64, la Medicină Dentară – 7,16, la Tehnică Dentară – 6,11, la Farmacie – 5,40, la Bioinginerie Medicală – 8,27, iar la Balneo-fiziokinetoterapie şi recuperare – 5,65.

Candidaţii admişi pe locuri fără taxă trebuie să confirme în scris locul, până la data de 9 august, prin completarea unui angajament şi a achitării taxei de înmatriculare (200 lei). Candidaţii admişi pe locuri cu taxă trebuie să confirme în scris locul până la data de 9 august, prin completarea unui angajament, a achitării taxei de înmatriculare (200 lei) şi a 1/3 din taxa de şcolarizare.

Taxele de şcolarizare: la specializările Medicină, Medicină Dentară şi Farmacie – 7.500 lei/an, la specializările Asistenţă Medicală Generală şi Bioinginerie – 5.000 lei/an, la specializările Balneofiziokinetoterapie şi recuperare, Nutriţie şi Dietetică, Tehnică Dentară – 4.000 lei/an.

Candidaţii din acest an au concurat pe 725 de locuri bugetate – 300 la Medicină, 55 la Asistenţă Medicală Generală, 10 la Nutriţie şi Dietetică, 89 la MedicinăDentară, 34 la Tehnică Dentară, 99 la Farmacie, 74 la Balneofiziokinetoterapieşi recuperare şi 64 la Bioinginerie. În plus, au fost puse la dispoziţia elevilor din mediul rural 19 locuri (2 – Medicină Dentară, 4 – Tehnică Dentară, 6 – Farmacie, 5 – Asistenţă Medicală Generală şi 2 – Nutriţie şi Dietetică), 6 locuri pentru romi (2 – Medicină, 1 – Asistenţă Medicală Generală, 1 – MedicinăDentară, 1 – Tehnică Dentară şi 1 – Farmacie) şi 34 locuri pentru români de pretutindeni

Publicație : Evenimentul și Bună Ziua Iași

Wizz Air a lansat programul prin care studenţii pot câştiga călătorii nelimitate cu această companie aeriană

Wizz Air, una dintre companiile aeriene cu cea mai rapidă creştere din Europa, lansează astăzi competiţia sa anuală dedicată studenţilor – WIZZ Youth Challenge.

În cadrul acestui concurs internaţional, studenţilor din universităţi şi colegii li se cere să-şi demonstreze abilităţile de afaceri, gândirea critică şi capacitatea de rezolvare a problemelor, răspunzând unei provocări de afaceri reale stabilite de echipa de conducere a Wizz Air.

Concursul din acest an îi provoacă pe studenţi să prezinte o idee creativă, inovatoare şi unică, care să poată fi integrată în strategia de dezvoltare durabilă a Wizz Air, reinterând  ideea că WIZZ rămâne cea mai ecologică companie aeriană din Europa.

Echipele de studenţi trebuie să se înregistreze până la 1 septembrie 2019 accesând https://www.wizzyouthchallenge.com/, timp în care vor primi detalii suplimentare despre procesul de înscriere şi concurs. Cei care vor fi selectaţi în finală, vor fi invitaţi să-şi prezinte ideea în faţa echipei de conducere a Wizz Air din Budapesta, în perioada 14-15 octombrie 2019.

Câştigătorii nu doar că vor primi călătorii gratuite, timp de un an,  în vasta reţea WIZZ formată din mai mult de 650 de rute către 147 destinaţii, dar vor avea satisfacţia că ideea lor va fi implementată în întreaga companie. Echipele clasate pe locurile doi şi trei vor primi şi ele bilete gratuite într-o destinaţie WIZZ preferată.

Mai multe informaţii despre concurs sunt disponibile aici [www.wizzyouthchallenge.com].

“Wizz Youth Challenge oferă o oportunitate unică pentru studenţii din universităţi şi colegii de a face cunoştinţă cu o problemă reală de afaceri. Nu numai că participanţii vor avea şansa de a dobândi experienţă profesională, dar vor avea şi ocazia de a învăţa despre industria aviatică şi de a primi sfaturi şi îndrumări de la echipa de management din Wizz Air. Sustenabilitatea este un lucru pe care îl luăm foarte serios la WIZZ şi suntem mândri că suntem cea mai <verde> companie aeriană din Europa. Suntem mereu în căutarea unor idei şi soluţii inovatoare care să completeze iniţiativele noastre deja existente în materie de sustenabilitate şi unde să le găsim dacă nu la viitorii business lideri din toată Europa”,  a declarat Stephen Jones, Deputy CEO şi Managing Director la Wizz Air.

Publicație : Adevărul

 

Majority of students think universities should take applicants’ backgrounds into account, survey finds

Undergraduates from most selective institutions more likely to back reducing grades

Nearly three-quarters of students think universities should take the backgrounds of applicants into account – but they are evenly split on whether that should mean lowering grades, survey finds.

Nearly half (47 per cent) of students back lowering the entry bar for those from disadvantaged areas, compared to 45 per cent who oppose, the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) finds.

Students at the most selective Russell Group universities were more likely to support lower entry offers to applicants due their circumstances, with 57 per cent in favour and 36 per cent against.

It comes just days after a review into the admissions process was launched by Universities UK.

The survey, of more than 1,000 full-time undergraduates, found 72 per cent of students thought university admissions should take into account an applicant’s background when offering places.

Around three-quarters (73 per cent) of students thought it was harder to achieve good exam results growing up in a disadvantaged area, rising to 81 per cent at Russell Group universities.

But the poll also found that 38 per cent of students think that those admitted with lower grades would not be able to keep up with their course, while a majority said they thought they would.

And more than a quarter (28 per cent) of students think contextual offers would make it “harder” for students like them to get into university, compared with more than half who disagreed.

Nick Hillman, director of Hepi, said: “Giving disadvantaged applicants lower entry offers is one of the most controversial things that universities do.

“But there is a secure evidence base for it, as many people underperform at school and college because of their personal circumstances.”

The survey also found that two-thirds of students did not know if their own university made contextual grade offers, with just 16 per cent certain that it did.

Mr Hillman added: “Our poll shows the principles behind contextual offers are widely accepted by students, who believe disadvantaged applicants need a boost.

“Yet most students don’t know if their own university awards contextual offers and only half of students think lower entry offers are right.”

Hugo Dale-Harris, policy officer at Hepi, said contextual offers were the “most promising tool” universities have for picking students with the most academic potential regardless of their background.

He added: “It’s striking that students at the most selective universities are most supportive, with 57 per cent supporting lower grade offers for applicants who’ve had to struggle harder.

“We might have expected students, who are typically from more advantaged backgrounds, to be more resistant to contextual offers. But these results demonstrate for the first time that most students recognise educational inequalities and want universities to address them.”

Chris Millward, fair access and participation director at the Office for Students, said: “Significant changes are needed to ensure that the admissions process looks beyond grades to identify merit, recognising the potential of talented candidates from underrepresented backgrounds who have so much to offer to their fellow students, university community and wider society.

“So it is positive to see that students broadly support universities taking applicants’ background into account when making offers – even when they will not themselves personally benefit from this practice – and don’t believe that those who receive these kinds of contextual offers will do worse.

Paul Cottrell, acting general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), said it was encouraging that students recognise that not all exam achievements are equal.

He added: “The best way to deliver fairness is better use of contextualised offers and to radically overhaul the system so students can apply to university after they receive their results.”

A Universities UK spokesperson said that its review of admissions will look at how universities’ contextual admissions can be better understood by applicants and the public.

They added: “It is good to see that many students recognise the importance of contextual admissions, which can play a key role in universities’ drive to widen access to university by reflecting an applicant’s circumstances and potential.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We want to see universities continuing to take steps to level the playing field for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“There are many good examples of institutions considering a broad range of information in their offers, including the context in which a student’s results were achieved, to ensure that opportunities are open to all.

Publicație : The Independent

Together we can make academia an environment where we thrive

Work psychologists Matthijs Bal, Edina Dóci and Zoe Sanderson outline their manifesto to conquer the mental health crisis in universities

There is a mental health crisis in universities. More than half of UK academics experience high or very high levels of work related stress according to a University and College Union survey. Meanwhile another study has found that early career academics are at least six times more likely to develop mental illness than people working outside academia.

Universities typically (if at all) address these problems by using psychological interventions to make academics more resilient to stress. Prescribing cognitive behavioural therapy or meditation for stressed-out researchers suggests that the reason we cannot cope lies with us as individuals. This approach fails to address and treat the fundamental sources of the problem.

The reason for the burnout epidemic in universities is not that overly sensitive people choose an academic career, but that work in academia is organised in ways that make us sick.

Some of these factors include an obsession with performance metrics in universities; perpetual competition among academics; the expectation of excellence in all areas; job insecurity and the rise of temporary and unstable contracts; the utilisation of free academic labour by publishing houses; the pressure to publish in high-impact journals; and the pressure to obtain external funding.

Psychology is often seen as the ultimate tool to understand and “fix” mental health problems: to improve individuals’ coping strategies, to enhance their resilience and adaptiveness, so that they can function better and become more productive in their work.

However, helping individuals adapt to the system that caused their suffering in the first place is clearly a limited and sometimes misguided use of psychological knowledge.

A more responsible approach to psychology would provide both a systemic analysis of the causes of individual suffering, support for individuals in responding to it, and the empowerment of individuals as change-makers on the institutional level.

Individuals have agency that extends beyond their ability to merely cope and function at work. We can take action aimed at changing the rules of the system that makes academics collectively miserable. For this, we need a collective form of agency.

Academia is ultimately constituted of us academics so we must recognise our own responsibility in perpetuating the competitive logic of the academic system. Instead of competing, we should envision and try to create an academic system in which we want to work. We, a group of work and organisational psychologists, have written a manifestothat describes how this might happen.

In our manifesto, we offer 10 recommendations for a sustainable future for universities, in which academics can both thrive and conduct meaningful work that delivers on academia’s social responsibilities.

We call on academics to do research that is truly independent from corporate agendas, to prioritise societal interests instead, and engage in continuous dialogue with other stakeholders to identify and research the most relevant issues.

We collectively want to stop aspiring to be the mythical, “ideal academic” who delivers excellence in every aspect of their job (and often pays with their health for pursuing this fantasy). Instead, we need to co-construct healthier objectives and standards, ways of working that are more collaborative, caring and relational, and much less individualistic, competitive and self-exploitative in nature.

We invite academics to break the silence in universities and engage in dialogue with colleagues about discrimination, bullying and other misconduct in academia.

We invite academics who are in managerial roles to remain aware of their primary responsibility for the well-being of their employees. We must strive to prevent health problems among academics, and if they occur, to notice their early signals and respond to them carefully.

The currently dominant performance management approach in academia builds on the extensive use of quantitative metrics to measure and compare the performance of academics, which promotes poor science, amplifies stress and is detrimental for academics’ intrinsic motivation for doing research.

We should set our own professional objectives and processes through democratic dialogue with each other and manage our own performance in sensible ways.

Work psychology as a field has been nearly entirely incorporated into mainstream management research in the past several decades, absorbing neoliberal assumptionsinto its core principles. With this manifesto, we are reclaiming our territory. We are reminding ourselves and fellow work psychologists of our responsibility to use our expertise to serve the well-being of employees, both in academia and in other sectors across society.

To “respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals” is a key responsibility of psychologists, as stated in the ethics code of the American Psychological Association.

We want to live up to these responsibilities by continuing the work we started with this manifesto as part of a movement for change. But we recognise that the problems we identify are common across many academic disciplines, so we invite all academics who are sympathetic to our agenda to sign the manifesto.

By building collective agency, we can begin to change our academic system from the bottom up, creating a future in which academics can do more socially relevant work in healthier ways.

Publicație : The Times