Începe admiterea de toamnă. Foarte puține locuri la buget la UAIC şi TUIAȘI

Cele mai mari universităţi din Iaşi au publicat cifrele pentru admiterea din toamnă pentru anul universitar 2019-2020, iar cifrele confirmă rezultatele istorice din vară. Ambele universităţi au în jur de 500 de locuri rămase libere la buget, şi speră să ocupe cât mai multe dintre locurile la taxă pentru a-şi suplimenta veniturile în anii care urmează.

Universitatea Tehnică „Gheorghe Asachi“ din Iaşi (TUIASI) va scoate la concurs, pentru sesiunea de toamnă, un număr de 250 de locuri la buget, la licenţă, 200 de locuri la studiile de masterat şi 80 de locuri la doctorat. Reprezentanţii TUIASI au menţionat că deschiderea perioadei de admitere va avea loc pe 9 septembrie, iar numărul de locuri oferite pentru admiterea de toamnă ar putea suferi uşoare modificări, fiind absolvenţi de liceu care nu au putut confirma locul în săptămâna de după admitere şi mai au şansa să facă acest lucru până la data de 6 septembrie. Numărul de locuri de la TUIASI a fost suplimentat de către Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale, numărul de dosare depuse în prima sesiune de admitere fiind un record pentru ultimii 13 ani.

„Am actualizat împreună cu membrii Consiliului de Administraţie situaţia confirmărilor, respectiv a dosarelor care conţin acte în original. Astfel, deşi intervalul de timp dedicat confirmărilor se încheie în 6 septembrie, în acest moment putem afirma ca există la nivelul universităţii o creştere cu aproape 30% a numărului de confirmări, comparativ cu începutul de septembrie 2018“, a declarat prof. univ. dr. ing. Dan Caşcaval, rectorul TUIASI.

În ceea ce priveşte suplimentarea numărului de locuri, conform Politehnicii ieşene, reprezentanţii ministerului au dat asigurări că, în funcţie de situaţia de la nivelul întregii ţări şi de amploarea solicitărilor venite din partea candidaţilor, există posibilitatea suplimentării încă o dată a numărului de locuri alocate celor trei cicluri de studii.

„În mod clar aceste cifre indică o creştere a interesului pentru educaţia inginerească, posibil ca efect al creşterii atractivităţii salariale a profesiei de inginer, indiferent de domeniu, al ofertei mult mai diverse şi din ce în ce mai răspândite geografic pentru absolvenţii Politehnicii şi, în acelaşi timp, al perspectivei unei evoluţii profesionale dorite pentru cei care aleg o carieră de inginer şi arhitect“, a completat rectorul Dan Caşcaval.

În ceea ce priveşte modalitatea de admitere, se va utiliza acelaşi sistem implementat în 2017 la Politehnica ieşeană, care oferă candidaţilor posibilitatea de a se înscrie la oricâte facultăţi şi specializări ale Politehnicii ieşene plătind doar o singură taxă şi depunând un singur dosar de admitere. De asemenea, cu ajutorul unui formular online, care va putea fi accesat de acasă, viitorii studenţi pot bifa, în ordinea preferinţelor, toate facultăţile şi toate specializările la care vor să se înscrie şi pot alege dacă vor să intre în concurs şi pentru locurile la taxă în cazul în care nu prind un loc la buget sau doar pentru locurile bugetate. Distribuţia pe locuri se va face în timp real şi va putea fi urmărită pe site-ul universităţii pe perioada admiterii.

147 de locuri la buget, licenţă, la UAIC

În cazul Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza“ din Iaşi, înscrierile pentru locurile rămase libere au loc în perioada 9 – 11 septembrie, urmând a fi scoase la concurs 1.301 locuri la licenţă, 1.246 pentru candidaţii români, dintre care 147 la buget, 34 la buget pentru absolvenţii de licee din mediul rural, 7 pentru candidaţii etnici romi şi 14 cu bursă pentru Extensiunea din Bălţi, Republica Moldova. Sunt trei facultăţi care nu organizează admitere în această toamnă fiindcă şi-au ocupat toate locurile – Educaţia Fizică şi Sportul, Informatica şi Dreptul, în timp ce la master vor fi scoase 1.164 de locuri la toate cele 15 facultăţi. Dintre acestea sunt 226 de locuri la buget şi 766 la taxă.

„Pentru admiterea la studii de master, cele 15 facultăţi din cadrul UAIC vor scoate la concurs 1164 de locuri: 992 de locuri pentru candidaţii români (226 de locuri la buget şi 766 de locuri la taxă), 3 locuri la buget pentru candidaţii etnici romi, 153 de locuri pentru candidaţii români de pretutindeni (6 locuri la buget, cu bursă, 101 locuri la buget, fără bursă şi 46 de locuri cu taxă) şi 16 locuri la buget, cu bursă, pentru Extensiunea din Bălţi, Republica Moldova“, au precizat reprezentanţii UAIC.

Publicație: Ziarul de Iași și Bună Ziua Iași

 

Propunere legislativă USR: Rectorii şi prorectorii nu pot deţine funcţii de conducere în partidele politice

Rectorii şi prorectorii universităţilor nu pot deţine funcţii de conducere în partide politice la nivel local, judeţean sau naţional, prevede un proiect de lege depus la Camera Deputaţilor de mai mulţi parlamentari ai USR.

Propunerea legislativă iniţiată de USR modifică art. 214 din Legea educaţiei naţionale nr.1/2011 şi este semnată de 16 parlamentari ai USR, informează agerpres.ro. 

Conform proiectului, „rectorul şi prorectorul nu pot deţine, pe perioada exercitării mandatului, funcţii de conducere în cadrul unui partid politic la nivel local, judeţean sau naţional”.

„În învăţământul universitar, depolitizarea funcţiilor de rector şi prorector este imperioasă, în contextul în care în ultima perioadă fondurile publice necesare au fost alocate discriminatoriu, inechitabil şi în contradicţie vădită cu criteriile meritocratice şi de performanţă, care ar trebui să stea la baza mecanismului de finanţare. În 2018, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale a schimbat modalitatea de alocare a fondurilor pentru cifrele de şcolarizare a universităţilor din România. Pe baza unor argumente inexplicabile din punct de vedere legal şi etic, conducerea Ministerului a alocat sumele de bani pe baza afinităţilor politice, nicidecum în funcţie de performanţele academice”, susţine senatorul USR Cristina Iurişniţi.

Senatorul USR a precizat că prin acest proiect se propune „consfinţirea prin litera legii a incompatibilităţii funcţiei de conducere politică cu cea din mediul educaţional universitar”.

„Sistemul de învăţământ românesc nu are nevoie de un management care să pună mai sus de interesele educaţionale interese politice, ci are nevoie de un leadership competent, meritocratic. Implicarea politică în spaţiul educaţional nu trebuie să existe”, a argumentat senatorul USR.

Proiectul a fost depus luni la Camera Deputaţilor şi se află în consultare publică, urmând să intre apoi în dezbaterea forului legislativ, Senatul fiind Cameră decizională.

Publicație: Adevărul

If the university regulator is reviewing admissions, it needs to tackle Oxbridge

The Office for Students has the chance to shake up Oxford and Cambridge’s baffling selection process, perhaps with a lottery

The Office for Students, the universities regulator, has announced it is reviewing the admissions system as part of its efforts to “eliminate equality gaps in higher education within 20 years”. It is a laudable ambition. Admissions are still complicated and some universities are still more difficult for poorer students to access.

Nowhere is this more true than at Oxbridge, where the baffling world of academic selection reaches the heights of complexity. So far, discussion about reforming admissions has focused on the evils of using unconditional offers and predicted grades, and on possibly allowing students to apply with their actual A-level results (PQA, or post-qualification admissions). There has been little mention of England’s two ancient universities, breeding grounds of our elites.

Oxford and Cambridge don’t get enough credit for the strides they have made in diversifying their intakes. Long before social mobility was thrust into the public debate, Oxbridge tutors tried their best to identify academic potential from all backgrounds. But the challenge they face is stark. Last year the Sutton Trust found that eight elite schools, including Eton and Westminster, secured as many Oxbridge acceptances as another 2,894 schools and colleges put together.

The system is difficult to navigate. Oxford and Cambridge are a collection of 69 independent colleges in charge of their own admissions, where tutors have the mammoth task of interviewing thousands of hopefuls. It is why students must apply three months earlier than for other universities. And they can’t apply to both Oxford and Cambridge.

Admissions tutors have amassed a dizzying array of assessments to help them make increasingly fine judgments between thousands of well qualified candidates: personal statements, teacher references, school grades, essays and bespoke admissions tests among them. Like many universities, Oxbridge have gone hyper-selective.

But how much does this add? How do you consistently tell students who have been coached from those who have achieved against the odds? How do you ensure bias-free interviews? As Oxbridge interviewers like to remind their candidates, there aren’t right or wrong answers.

Meanwhile, the system is still alienating too many potentially excellent applicants. The Sutton Trust found that half of state school teachers don’t encourage their pupils to consider Oxbridge, thinking they stand little chance of getting in.

A PQA system would enable a fresh look at Oxbridge admissions. One way to make things fairer would be to select candidates getting over a threshold of academic excellence – say three A* grades at A-level – and then pick them randomly.

Securing a place is already a lottery, masquerading as a sophisticated selection process. Lotteries are undeniably the fairest way to choose between equally deserving applicants, which is why so many state schools now use them. One option, adopted by Dutch medical schools, is to select the very highest academic performers and then use a lottery for lower achievers.

If all that is a step too far, then admissions could at least be centralised, allowing university departments, rather than individual colleges, to select students. Surely our finest minds could find a way of then sorting students into different colleges? We could do away with the special rules that mark out Oxbridge as different. At the very least, colleges should agree to adopt the same admissions criteria.

A sea change in attitudes is already taking place. Oxford is enrolling 50 students with grades as low as three Bs on its new foundation year as it aims to enrol a quarter of undergraduates from disadvantaged backgrounds within four years. Cambridge has similar plans. These would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The tide is turning.

Universities overestimate their ability to spot talent, and under-estimate the power of simplicity. Simplifying admissions is one way the Office for Students can help the students it is meant to serve.

Lee Elliot Major is professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter. His report for the Higher Education Policy Institute on social mobility and elite universities will be published later this year.

Publicație: The Guardian

EU laws on stem cell research ‘more exposed’ post-Brexit

UK’s exit removes a ‘powerful brake’ against extreme ideas at a time of increased lobbying, say experts

The UK’s departure from the European Union could lead to a shift in regulation on stem cell research, experts have warned, as new figures show the extent of lobbying by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion groups.

A recent investigation published by the EU Observer reports that “US billionaires, some of whom are friends of American president Donald Trump, are…paying anti-abortion groups in Europe tens of millions of dollars to influence policy and law”.

According to the EU transparency register, the Commission of the Episcopates of the European Union (Comece), which was created in Brussels in 1980, spent between €1 million (£900,000) and €1.25 million last year on trying to influence EU institutions. Comece suports the EU’s bans on Brussels research funding being used for scientific projects that involved embryo destruction.

Julian Hitchcock, a life sciences specialist at the law firm Bristows, said that life sciences regulation at the European level had “benefited massively through the leadership of the UK” and “having one less liberal democracy and major life science player” involved in the conversation, as a result of Brexit, meant that the “laws are more exposed than they would be” otherwise.

“In the past, the presence of strong liberal countries (including the UK) helped to ensure that extreme ideas were lost or mollified. The absence of British commissioners, MEPs and judges removes a powerful brake,” he said.

Mr Hitchcock predicted that “a great deal of the lobbying was fuelled by an exaggerated idea about the powers of the EU”, but said that “blundering away may succeed over the longer term”.

“If the Council of Ministers had been unmoved by our legal opinion on genetic testing [which argued that the EU lacked the competence to enact legislation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices], and nodded through the Passau amendments, the effect would have been to widen the scope of the Union’s competence, nibbling away at national discretion over matters that are otherwise deemed to fall exclusively to them,” he said.

Mr Hitchcock added that this “extension of power” was seen in the 2011 European Court of Justice judgment that inventions derived from human embryos were not patentable, which was justified “on the grounds that human embryo research is unethical in all member states”. The ban was lifted in 2014.

“In this way, even ham-fisted action – in this case brought by an environmental lobby group, though applauded by the Catholic Church – at the EU level may batter through to the national level,” he said.

Anne Corbett, a senior associate at LSE Consulting and an expert on higher education and the EU, said that “the UK has been a hugely valued player within science circles, reputed for world class research, and in a changing world where these things are questioned, ethical”.

“So indeed the UK’s exit will mean less ethical players have an opportunity to try and step in,” she said.

A European Commission spokeswoman said that the organisation “maintains open, transparent and regular contacts with the representatives of religious non-confessional groups”.

“It is an important part of policy-making to be open and to listen to a wide range of views from different stakeholders and to hear different points of view,” she said.

The transparency register also reveals that the New York-based World Youth Alliance, an organisation that is against abortion, contraception and IVF, received €58,000 in grants from the Erasmus+ student mobility programme in 2017.

Publicație: The Times

Catching the exam cheats

Exam invigilator Helen Soteriou reveals the elaborate schemes devised by students seeking to cheat on their tests

When I tell people I invigilate for extra income, the only response I get back is “Oh, you catch the cheats.” My answer is that we are there to support students but, yes, part of the job is to make sure they don’t cheat. To the best of our knowledge anyway.

This is the topic the media focus on, but maybe the shift should be to why some individuals feel the need to cheat or why cheating is so prevalent.

I have seen thousands of students sit exams at different universities over the past few years, from undergraduates and postgraduates to those taking professional exams.

They are all different. But when they enter the hall or classroom and sit in front of the same exam paper, they are all supposedly equal. All students must conform to the same rules. Whether they choose to or not is up to them.

Deterrents and checks start before candidates turn over their papers. Not only do we issue the stern warning about the consequences of cheating before the exam begins, and give the instruction that all phones must be turned off and left in bags, but as students file into the hall, we will often check hands and wrists for writing or oversee the removal of watches, and even labels from water bottles. Calculators will also be cleared of their memory, ID pictures checked against faces, and lavatories checked for notes stuffed behind sanitary bins and toilet bowls.

During the exams, invigilators have to be vigilant. Some institutions ask us to log toilet breaks, and all ask us to escort students to the cubicle door. Regular invigilators develop a sixth sense for when someone or a group of students may be a problem: looking around and playing with their pockets is a giveaway, as too can be multiple trips to the lavatory.

Despite all these safeguards, some students still choose to cheat. Their methods range from the simple to the creative, working individually or in prearranged pairs or groups. Pen clicking or pencil tapping, a kind of Morse code communication, within multiple-choice exams is an old routine: one click for A, two clicks for B will pass answers between students. Less subtle methods include swapping calculators with the answers on them, whispering the answers to a friend or simply lifting up answer booklets for others to see.

Scribbling notes on everything and anything is probably the most common method of cheating. I’ve seen words scrawled on hands, edges of fingers, arms and legs, writing hidden under baseball caps, inside shoes, skirts, socks and even underwear, with notes often unfurled while in the privacy of the toilet cubicle, where graffiti can become surprisingly academic in nature days before an exam.

Cheating using technology has become more prevalent. Bluetooth earpieces connected to an external device, smart watches and Google Glass have been detected, but many students just hide their phones on their person or simply sit on them.

One of the most devious examples I witnessed was when someone took an exam for someone else, using a fake ID card. It was another student taking the exam who reported him anonymously during the exam, stating that he had graduated the year before and it wasn’t fair to the rest of the group.

There are also the students who submit spurious complaints about mitigating circumstances to bump up their marks. One student told me the distant sound of an ice cream van jingle had been an unbearable distraction.

But it is not only the students that stand to lose out by poor performance, it is the academics and departments too. On occasion, academics present during exams are clearly helping more than is allowed.

However, such cheating should be put in context, as there is so much pressure and stress around the exam period. Students’ evident distress is often sad to see, especially during the resit period when some are in the last-chance saloon. I have seen young adults in tears, shaking and wired after drinking energy drinks solidly for days. I have even had to call an ambulance for someone having non-epileptic seizures. When caught cheating, some students get angry or entitled, bringing up the cost of tuition fees. Nearly all of this is caused by stress and adrenaline and none of it is taken personally.

Cheating is a prevalent topic now more than ever. The four exam boards responsible for GCSEs and A levels in England have launched an independent review of exam cheating, led by Sir John Dunford, the former general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders. Online testing has the potential to end much of this cat-and-mouse game, but many believe it will create new problems, not least making the system more vulnerable to hackers who have proved adept at cracking universities’ central servers.

It is unsurprising that an exam system that has changed little since the Victorian era is now creaking in our brave new online world. But maybe the solution isn’t a new one. If someone is going to cheat, they will probably give it a shot given all the resources available to them.

Strict invigilation will play its part in stopping this but maybe we need to communicate a simple message more clearly: are students on the make cheating the system or themselves?

Publicație: The Times

World University Rankings 2020: opportunity for unity

While nations compete to unlock the huge potential of quantum engineering, it is also a chance for building global partnerships, says David Awschalom

Around the world, a race is under way to develop the revolutionary potential of quantum engineering and technology.

This global quantum race has a healthy element of urgency and even national rivalry, but it will also require an extremely high level of international cooperation and collaboration spanning universities, government and industry. The opportunities for working together across borders will be immense in the coming years and global research institutions that are developing strengths in quantum engineering should start seizing those chances now.

Quantum engineering has the potential to be one of the most transformative technologies of the next half-century. This new field of applied science harnesses the strange rules of quantum mechanics that govern nature’s smallest particles. We are learning to exploit these quantum peculiarities, such as particles that exist in two states at the same time or remain entangled across long distances, to develop entirely new kinds of devices, materials and computing techniques.

One of the areas being watched closely by international observers is the potential to use quantum communication channels to transmit encoded messages that are effectively unbreakable – a use with clear national and global security implications. The construction of a communications network based on quantum states of matter offers a fundamentally new way to create and securely send information. Many of the other applications of quantum engineering have relevance for consumers. The uses include advanced medical imaging, uniquely powerful computers able to tackle new kinds of problems and sensors that could anticipate earthquakes before they strike.

Because this is such a promising new field of applied science, national governments around the world are devoting substantial resources to building a skills base and infrastructure for quantum research. The nations making strides include China, which in 2016 launched the first quantum satellite, providing proof of principle for new techniques of making virtually unhackable communication networks. Australia, the Netherlands and the UK also are very much in the hunt, and the US is launching a new National Quantum Initiative with the intention of building leading quantum centres.

But there’s a catch for this rapidly progressing work. Building deep expertise in the field is difficult for individual institutions, in part because quantum engineering is such a new concept and requires extensive resources and a sophisticated technological base spanning disciplines. Because the field is growing so quickly, quantum experts are few and in high demand.

These are some of the reasons why a global, hub-based approach to quantum research holds such promise. The cross-pollination that comes from bringing together engineers from different institutions is especially helpful when many individual programmes are just getting started.

That’s also a major reason why we founded the Chicago Quantum Exchange, a multi-institutional, public-private collaboration designed to advance the science and engineering of quantum information.

Rather than serving a single institution, the CQE is built around the idea that bringing together insights from public and private universities, federally funded laboratories and technology companies can help this young field achieve a critical mass and develop a new quantum workforce that will benefit our region as well as collaborators around the globe. The founding members are the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Illinois’ two US Department of Energy national laboratories – Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Since 2017, the CQE has grown to include academic members Northwestern University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and corporate partners that see vast potential in this field – IBM, Boeing, Applied Materials, ColdQuanta, HRL Laboratories and Quantum Opus.

Taken as whole, the initiative is bringing together hundreds of highly skilled scientists and engineers who, by collaborating on common objectives, are uniquely positioned to develop the quantum technologies of the future. Last year, we announced the development of one of the world’s longest experimental quantum network links, using fibre optic cable to connect distant quantum systems 30 miles apart between Argonne and Fermilab.

The involvement of industry is crucial, as the member companies bring in private investment in student education, research and technology development. Such corporate partners greatly value the potential to train a new kind of workforce of quantum information experts, with perspectives attuned to the novel approaches of quantum engineering.

The chance to help build such a wide-ranging foundation for quantum industry and research innovation has attracted active government interest. The state of Illinois recently approved a total of $200 million (£165 million) in capital support for the CQE, with the University of Chicago committing an additional $100 million. The federal government has shown interest in supporting similar efforts with the December 2018 passage of the National Quantum Initiative Act. This act directs the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish national centres in quantum information science to conduct basic research and education to accelerate quantum breakthroughs over the next 10 years.

At the same time, we see colleagues in other countries, such as the Netherlands and Australia, taking similar steps. In Australia, the Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (CQC2T) is drawing together universities from Australia and other nations, as well as an array of corporate partners. The Dutch initiative QuTech is having an impressive impact in developing prototype quantum computers and quantum networks along with select industrial partners.

We see these international quantum hubs as a spur to competition, but also as valued potential partners. By connecting across borders we can further build the global education and research pipeline. For example, once regional and national quantum networks show proof of concept, additional technology will be required to build a global quantum communication infrastructure. With such efforts, in the future, it’s likely that just as individual schools have particular specialties, nations will contribute to the quantum frontier in distinct ways through the talent and infrastructure that they develop. International collaboration will bring possibilities for innovation that no nation would have on its own.

Imagine our quantum future as a long foot race in which the competitors also help each other along the way. Such an outlook presents a rare opportunity for scientific and technological advancement that moves economies forward and benefits societies around the world.

Publicație: The Times

USS pension changes ‘leave typical academics £240K worse off’

Average members set to get £18,200 a year in retirement under latest changes, compared with £23,800 under pre-2011 scheme

Typical members of the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme will find themselves nearly £240,000 worse off in retirement as a result of changes made to pension contributions and benefits since 2011, according to a new analysis.

The study, commissioned by the University and College Union, says that high earners such as senior professors could end up more than £700,000 out of pocket. It was released ahead of the opening on 9 September of a ballot for industrial action over the latest changes to the scheme, which will increase members’ contributions to 9.6 per cent of their salary – up from 8.8 per cent currently, and 8 per cent before April.

The UCU modelling, conducted by First Actuarial and published on 4 September, calculates the cost of changes to contributions and benefits since the closure of the USS’ final salary scheme to new entrants in 2011, including the increase to 9.6 per cent.

It says that a typical academic with 30 years’ service who joined the scheme on point 37 of the national pay scale (currently £40,792) and retires on point 50 (£59,828) will be £239,200 worse off in retirement on the current terms, compared to the pre-2011 scheme.

This is the sum of a £40,900 increase in contributions and a £198,300 reduction in benefits, assuming annual salary growth of inflation plus 2 per cent.

For a professor who moves up to the top of the professorial pay scale, the total loss comes to £734,400.

Presuming scheme members take a lump sum on retirement, this leaves the typical academic with a net annual pension of £18,200, rather than £23,800 under the pre-2011 scheme, and senior professors with £21,100 a year, instead of £40,600.

Even if salary growth proves slower – inflation plus 1 per cent – the total losses would still be substantial, estimated at £138,000 for typical academics, leaving them with £16,700 a year, instead of £23,500. Senior professors would lose £576,200, leaving them with £19,700 annually, down from £34,700.

The USS scheme has about 200,000 active members, mainly in pre-92 institutions. Members at 65 institutions walked out for 14 days over proposed changes to pensions last year.

Jo Grady, UCU’s general secretary, said that members had “had enough”.

“Universities have to recognise the anger and frustration that members feel about the recent changes, how the scheme has been valued and how it has been run,” she said. “It is not good enough to come back time and again with proposals that force members to pay more for reduced benefits.”

The analysis was released amid growing rancour between UCU and Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors. Employer contributions are due to increase from 19.5 per cent to 21.1 per cent and UUK offered an additional 0.5 per cent for two years in return for a two-year moratorium on strikes. This would have limited employee contributions to 9.1 per cent – the level proposed by a joint expert panel set up by UUK and UCU after last year’s strike.

The UCU said that a strike moratorium was a “ludicrous” condition and UUK has since said it would offer the extra money if the upcoming strike ballot was called off. Fresh talks were due this week and Dr Grady said that any “serious” offer would be considered by the union’s higher education committee on 6 September.

However, there are fears that further increases will be necessary, with volatile financial markets being blamed for an increase in the scheme’s estimated deficit to £6.6 billion – far higher than the £3.6 billion figure used to draw up the latest proposals.

A UUK spokesman said: “Since 2011, the cost of providing defined benefit pensions has risen because people are living longer, and the economic environment has fundamentally changed. Scheme members will realise that winding the clock back to 2011 and freezing the scheme in time is just not credible.

“Compared with 2011, employers are now paying more than £400 million extra per annum into USS – having increased their contributions from 16 per cent to 21.1 per cent of salary from October 2019. This is far more than most other private pension schemes. This seems to be completely absent from the analysis.

“Crucially, members will keep their current benefits, which in monetary terms are more valuable than ever given the increased cost of providing pension promises.”

The strike ballot, covering 69 institutions, is due to run until 30 October. It will run alongside a separate ballot across 147 campuses calling for industrial action over the 2019-20 pay offer. The Universities and Colleges Employers Association offered a 1.8 per cent minimum rise, but unions wanted inflation as measured by the retail price index – currently 2.8 per cent – plus 3 per cent, or £3,349, whichever is greater.

Publicație : The Times https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uss-pension-changes-leave-typical-academics-ps240k-worse


A Shanghaï, une obsession pour la racine carrée

Le mathématicien Etienne Ghys revient sur l’étrange formule qui préside à l’établissement du classement de Shanghaï.

Carte blanche. Le fameux classement de Shanghaï des universités a été publié comme chaque année au mois d’août. On apprend que le trio de tête est constitué, comme toujours, de Harvard, Stanford et Cambridge, et que les universités Paris-Sud et de la Sorbonne occupent les 37e et 44e positions. Ce classement est critiqué de toute part, sauf bien sûr par les universités qui sont bien placées. Il est peut-être utile d’expliquer comment il est construit, pour montrer à quel point il n’a guère de sens.

Dans un premier temps, l’ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) évalue cinq « indicateurs » pour chaque université. Il s’agit du nombre de lauréats du prix Nobel ou de la médaille Fields qui y travaillent, du nombre d’anciens étudiants ayant reçu ces mêmes honneurs, du nombre total d’articles publiés, de ceux qui sont publiés dans les deux revues Nature et Science, et enfin du nombre de chercheurs « très cités ».

Chacun de ces indicateurs pose problème. Par exemple, la liste des chercheurs les plus cités recense 90 mathématiciens, dont 16 signent leurs articles… en Arabie saoudite. En revanche, on ne trouve aucun mathématicien français dans cette liste. Sans être chauvin, cela n’a aucun sens.

Bien entendu, ces cinq indicateurs privilégient les gros établissements et ne laissent que peu de chances aux petits, même s’ils sont excellents. Pour essayer de remédier à cela, on utilise un sixième indicateur qui est une espèce de moyenne des précédents, divisée par le nombre total de chercheurs dans l’université.

Comme au décathlon

La cerise sur le gâteau est la formule utilisée pour agréger tout cela et fabriquer un classement global. Le « score » attribué à une université est une moyenne des racines carrées des six indicateurs, affectées de certains coefficients. Vous avez bien lu : il s’agit d’une moyenne des racines carrées. Pour comprendre l’idée, on peut se référer au décathlon. Comment fait-on pour agréger les résultats d’un sportif dans dix disciplines aussi différentes que le saut en hauteur et le lancer de poids ? La solution consiste à commencer par transformer chacune des dix performances d’une certaine façon, spécifique à chaque discipline, avant de calculer des moyennes. Un progrès de 1 cm au saut en hauteur vous fera gagner beaucoup plus de points si vous sautez 2,45 m (record du monde) que si vous ne sautez « que » 1,50 m. Pour une université qui emploie déjà beaucoup de Prix Nobel, il est en revanche plus facile d’en recruter un de plus que pour une université qui n’en a aucun. Afin de tenir compte de ce fait, l’ARWU n’a pas cherché très loin et a décidé de transformer tous les indicateurs de la même manière et d’utiliser la racine carrée.

Publicație: Le Monde

Università, cominciano con medicina i test dei corsi a numero chiuso

Contestazioni a Roma: „Una lotteria mentre il sistema sanitario nazionale è al collasso”. Oltre 68mila i candidati per diventare medico o dentista, in aumento rispetto allo scorso anno

La protesta degli studenti a Roma (ansa)

La prima a partire, non senza polemiche, è medicina: da oggi cominciano i test di ammissione per i corsi di laurea ad accesso programmato. Medicina e chirurgia, odontoiatria e protesi dentaria in lingua italiana sono in corso di svolgimento e Link coordinamento universitario ha manifestato davanti alla Sapienza per contestare i test. Anche l’Udu, unione degli studenti universitari, richiama l’attenzione sulla situazione anomala della sanità italiana e la carenza di medici: „Nonostante il tema del superamento del numero chiuso per i corsi di area medica sia stato molto presente nel dibattito pubblico e fosse presente anche tra i punti principali del governo – dichiara Enrico Gulluni, coordinatore nazionale dell’Unione degli universitari- ci troviamo ancora una volta ad assistere all’ennesima lotteria dei test d’accesso per i corsi a numero programmato nazionale. Un evidente segnale di quanto gli investimenti in istruzione e università e ricerca siano soltanto promesse elettorali e frasi spot, che poi nella realtà non trovano mai applicazione, neanche dopo l’evidente crisi in cui il nostro servizio sanitario nazionale si è venuto a trovare a causa della carenza di medici, che manifesta ancor di più il fallimento del numero chiuso”.

Domani (4 settembre) sarà la volta di medicina veterinaria. Si continua con architettura il 5 settembre, professioni sanitarie l’11 settembre, medicina e chirurgia, odontoiatria e protesi dentaria in lingua inglese il 12 settembre, scienze della formazione primaria il 13 settembre e professioni sanitarie (laurea magistrale) il 25 ottobre.

Test medicina a Roma: in seimila per meno di mille posti: „Per superarlo devi essere un supereroe”

Quest’anno, ha fatto sapere il Miur, sono 84.716 I candidati che si sono iscritti ai test per l’ammissione ai corsi di laurea in medicina e odontoiatria, architettura e veterinaria. Nello specifico, sono 68.694 gli iscritti per medicina e odontoiatria, l’anno scorso erano 67.005. Per architettura, gli iscritti sono 8.242, Rispetto ai 7.986 Del 2018. Le iscrizioni pervenute per la prova di veterinaria sono 7.780, Un anno fa erano state 8.136.

Per quanto riguarda, invece, medicina e odontoiatria in lingua inglese, i candidati sono 10.450, Nel 2018 erano 7.660. I posti a disposizione per l’anno accademico 2019/2020 sono 11.568 per medicina e chirurgia, 1.133 per odontoiatria, 759 per medicina veterinaria, 6.802 per architettura.

Anche quest’anno sono previsti 60 quesiti a cui i candidati dovranno rispondere in 100 minuti. Ma con alcune novità: sarà ridotta la quantità delle domande di logica, che passano da 20 a 10. Mentre quelle di cultura generale saranno 12, fino allo scorso anno erano 2. Queste ultime faranno riferimento, in particolare, all’ambito storico, sociale e istituzionale, letterario. Ci saranno anche quesiti relativi all’area di cittadinanza e costituzione. Si partirà da testi di saggistica scientifica, autori classici o contemporanei, da testi di attualità comparsi su quotidiani, riviste anche specialistiche.

Publicație: La Repubblica

Università, rettore di Ferrara accusato di plagio: „Campagna di discredito”

Su siti specializzati dove i ricercatori possono segnalare chi copia sono stati rilevati grafici identici riprodotti senza specificare. Il Magnifico Zauli nega l’accesso agli atti del procedimento aperto dalla Commissione etica del suo ateneo. I vertici dell’organismo di controllo si dimettono

ROMA – C’è un blogger tedesco, Leonid Schneider, che sta mettendo in difficoltà uno dei rettori più brillanti del panoramauniversitario italiano. Schneider, che alimenta con vigore il suo sito „For better science”, già ricercatore di Medicina molecolare e oncologica (anche in Italia), da maggio 2018 sostiene che in alcuni studi del 2007 e del 2008 firmati dal professor Giorgio Zauli, oggi rettore dell’Università di Ferrara, ci siano evidenti plagi. Nello specifico, immagini scientifiche riutilizzate e riprodotte più volte. Perlopiù autoplagi, ovvero lavori dello stesso autore riproposti successivamente senza specificarlo e con finalità fraudolente.

Il professor Zauli, 59 anni, è a sua volta un clinico di Medicina molecolare, un ricercatore oncologico. Si è laureato con il massimo dei voti e poi dottorato all’Università di Bologna, quindi ha percorso tutti i gradini della carriera accademica. Il suo curriculum scientifico parla di 194 pubblicazioni sui riviste internazionali (citate sul Journal citation reports).

Il giornalista Schneider, con il suo stile aggressivo, si è focalizzato su specifici lavori di una decina di anni fa, ma la piattaforma „pubpeer.com”, che consente ai ricercatori di segnalare gli studi con potenziali contestazioni, a sua volta ha messo online quarantun ricerche degli ultimi vent’anni (1998-2018) riconducibili al professor Zauli, spesso coordinatore del progetto citato. L’arco di tempo copre l’intera carriera dell’accademico, da ricercatore a rettore, e in calce ai dossier si possono leggere commenti di „pari grado” che in alcuni casi confermano l’ipotesi del plagio: „I due istogrammi sono identici”.

In un primo tempo il professor Zauli aveva ipotizzato querela nei confronti di Schneider, poi ha rinunciato. Nel 2018 la commissione etica dell’Università di Ferrara ha aperto un procedimento nei confronti del rettore, a giugno ha giudicato inammissibile l’istanza presentata dal giornalista tedesco (per statuto si può procedere solo su atti interni) e, quindi, ha scelto di indagare sulla base dei documenti dell’accademico accusato. A gennaio 2019 la commissione ha archiviato: „Nessun plagio”. Daniele Oppo, giornalista del quotidiano onlineEstense.com, ha chiesto di poter vedere le motivazioni dell’archiviazione, ma il rettore ha negato l’accesso agli atti: „È in corso una campagna di discredito nei miei confronti, le motivazioni restano riservate”.

Non sono servite sollecitazioni arrivate dallo stesso mondo accademico (il professor Lucio Picci, dell’Università di Bologna), Zauli è irremovibile: „Da una parte c’è un oggettivo pregiudizio nella richiesta e dall’altra dobbiamo tutelare chi si rivolge alla Commissione etica perché ha subito un torto. Non abbiamo mai reso pubblici gli atti, non vedo perché dovremmo farlo in questo caso”.

Già. Venerdì scorso i vertici della commissione, che otto mesi fa aveva archiviato il procedimento, si sono dimessi. Il costituzionalista Andrea Pugiotto, presidente, ha spiegato: „Siamo in parziale dissenso con le motivazioni con le quali l’ufficio legale ha negato l’accesso agli atti”. Domani, tra l’altro, la Commissione etica porterà la relazione annuale – caso Zauli compreso – in Senato accademico.

Il rettore è in difficoltà e in un sol fiato ora dice: „Alla base di questa vicenda ci sono alcuni errori materiali commessi molti anni fa nella composizione di tabelle di controllo, a corredo di esperimenti. Per esempio un grafico, su centinaia realizzati, è stato pubblicato due volte. Il giornalista Schneider ha scritto a molte riviste scientifiche segnalando ipotetiche frodi e una soltanto ci ha chiesto spiegazioni. Le abbiamo date e i redattori si sono detti soddisfatti. La storia della scienza mondiale è piena di errori materiali. Sulla piattaforma da cui è nato tutto, „pubpeer.com”, sono stati messi in croce molti miei colleghi rettori e i top scientist del nostro Paese, compreso Carlo Maria Croce, il più famoso oncologo italiano. Spesso le contestazioni si sono rivelate fesserie”.

„Nel nostro caso – continua – nessuno di quegli errori materiali ha influenzato i dati finali. A volte le imprecisioni sono state del gruppo di ricerca, a volte degli editori: in quell’arco di carriera abbiamo fatto venticinquemila esperimenti, gran parte trasferiti su floppy disk. E vorrei dire che, a volte, le pressioni della scienza contemporanea possono portare ad alcune inaccuratezze, ma nella mia vita non ho mai taroccato un dato. Ho il sospetto che certe mie politiche accademiche espansive, vicine agli studenti, abbiano dato fastidio al mondo accademico. Non riesco a spiegare altrimenti questo attacco così pesante e reiterato”.

Publicație: La Repubblica