Public University Follows Public Interest, not Profit

Vice-rector at the University of Montenegro Predrag Stanisic, PhD, in conversation with Daily Paper says that the biggest qualitative step in Draft of Higher Education Law presents leaving the specialization level and consistent implementation 3+2+3, i.e. integrated 5+3 model of studies.

"With a few elements to be improved, quality certainly is presented in recognition of needs of budget financing and wide availability of all levels of studies in public institutions as well as certain efforts made in strengthening controlling and monitoring role of state organs", Stanišić says for DP.

DP: Are suggested solutions the way to, as Minister says, make possible to enroll faculties by the ones who know not by the ones who can afford it?

STANIŠIĆ: Here at the UoM we think that all three levels of studies must be available and free of charge at all public institutions. This is the only way to fully exercise public function of higher education and to cease present deformation reflected in a very few students in master and doctoral studies. On the other hand, enrollment does not have to be free of charge for all students and all study programs. Valid public Strategy foresees solution for undergraduate and master studies until 2020, while Draft Law prescribes this already from 2017 for undergraduate studies.

We think that such solutions should not be firmly prescribed by law and that they should be introduced gradually, especially having in mind budget tendencies and insufficiently developed financial elements. Let’s just say that we are now in the middle of the budget year.

DP: What do you suggest?

We believe that at this point the approach is adequate and it is presented while defining the valid strategy for enrollment in ratio 80%-20% for the advantage of budget students, having in mind academic study programs. This solution may further be corrected having in mind current structure of institutions and characteristics of study programs and therefore this ratio may be different for applied studies. 

DP: How do private universities see the decision that all studies are free at all levels at public university?

STANIŠIĆ: Public sector has mission to achieve public good and public interest, and the private one has mission to gain profit and these two things are difficult to connect. Public education must exist, and if you want a serious private university you have to invest several millions, you have to employ several dozens of doctors of philosophy; you have to make serious studies and to fight with quality. Everything else is improvisation and selling diplomas and we can see this on every step, in Montenegro and outside.

DP: At the recent round table in CANU there were, among certain academics, advocators saying that the state should finance all students, regardless of where they study, in public or private institution.

STANIŠIĆ: Discussions in CANU are far from institutional level which is invested a lot and which intends to be scientific and artistic pillar of Montenegro. People with academic title should have more comprehensive and deeper understanding of processes and occasions and speak about social topics without laic projections which we can often witness. 

Where public academies exist, they are mainly centers of artistic and scientific development of the state being prior in productivity and results. Unfortunately, this is difficult to say here.

DP: It is announced that the Agency for Higher Education is to be established. Who is to comprise the body, what should be the activity? 

STANIŠIĆ: It is a positive intention to improve control role of public bodies, to professionalize things, but the Draft Law slightly incompletely and mechanically passes competences of Higher Education Council to the Agency. 

DP: What else is needed?

STANIŠIĆ: With these positive elements, I believe that legal changes would have to contain several more key elements aimed at raising quality of higher education in Montenegro. We should be aware that if things are not perceived in whole and if we do not react to deviations and besides good attention things may become worse.   

I think that firstly, it is absolutely necessary to stop proliferation of non-quality diplomas and uncontrolled licensing and establishing institutions and study programs of poor quality without basic standards firstly in the view of teaching staff. 

DP: What are new solutions in this area?

STANIŠIĆ: Draft Law does not offer clear solutions in this part. With UoM we suggested to the Ministry of Education to elaborate ranking of domestic and foreign institutions and to use this ranking in enrolment and in labor market. This would easily separate candidates and diplomas from institutions with higher or lower rank.

DP: In the Ministry of Education, at least we have an impression in their public appearances of their representatives, they think that introducing enrolment exam in master studies would solve the problem of negative selection and conditionally said bad diplomas…

STANIŠIĆ: Enrolment exam is generally a good way to regulate enrolment of more quality candidates at all levels of studies in an institution. There is no particular reason why it should not also exist at undergraduate studies, yet there is an attitude in the Ministry that matura presents a kind of substitute which requires additional discussion.

DP: What is the opinion in public university?

STANIŠIĆ: We cannot claim that enrolment exam is sufficient instrument for prevention of proliferation of bad diplomas and their laundry even if it is introduced in all institutions. Problem is that the exam is in nature limited to the institution and not to the whole system and institutions will have different criteria. This does not solve situation in the labor market, on contrary. Therefore we think that enrolment exam as instrument should be introduced together with ranking domestic and foreign institutions which would lead to desired result in synergy.

DP: And in the end, what do you expect from amendments of the Law on Higher Education?

STANIŠIĆ: I have already in detail explained in what spirit were our suggestions directed to the Ministry and we stand behind them.

Even though it seems that these suggestions did not encounter significant understanding, I hope that by the end of procedure there will be more complete and quality law proposal, which equally deals with all stated aspects and problems of higher education in Montenegro. On contrary, problems will be only postponed and piled and what has already been done at the University may lose its significance and have limited domains.  

BRING BACK EXAMINATION SYSTEM AND INCREASE NUMBER OF TERMS

DP: UoM advocates reaffirmation of examination system, instead of current partial collection of points. Why?

STANIŠIĆ: Public is not much acquainted with the fact that in 2004 the examination concept has been changed. Implementation of model of two then higher schools entire University, unobservant and mechanical insist on passing and distribution of grades as well as putting accent on pre examination obligations made that students choose points by themselves so to transfer 50 points and pass the exam not having a complete knowledge. 

Often happens that students get upset when a professor asks them something from “the first term exam”. This is not a good way to guarantee achievement of goals, or how it is said now; learning outcomes and these are one of the more important factors in quality decrease.  We believe that it needs to reaffirm exam giving it greater importance and that the same time to provide more examination deadlines so students have more chance to learn and show knowledge.

STOP FLOOD OF DIPLOMAS WITH POOR QUALITY

DP: You say that situation in higher education is neglected. Where is it reflected the best?

STANISIĆ: Negligence in the area of higher education through hyper production of diplomas all over ex-Yugoslavia and opening many higher education institutions with no quality all over ex-Yugoslavia is a well-known social problem. We can close our eyes, but the problem will not disappear.

It is clear that we had not been socially mature for private higher education and that the process should be regulated very carefully. Now there is nothing else but to attempt to rehabilitate the situation as possible.

DP: How to stop proliferation of diplomas with no quality and uncontrolled foundation and licensing the institutions?

STANIŠIĆ: By ranking institutions according to a fair methodology, with precisely defined minimal criteria for licensing institutions, e.g. three teachers in full employment for undergraduate and two for master study program as we suggested, things would quickly get in order. We need to quit with risky experiments.

DP: Private universities have started the initiative for applying funds allocated by the state both on private and public faculties by voucher... What do you think about it?

STANIŠIĆ: Topic on vouchers, or concept where a complete education, health and range of other public functions should be left to private sector, is a recipe for disaster and deception by the private business which wants to rely on public budget. Voucher would mean to leak budget mainly into private institutions destabilizing financing public institutions until their destruction. This would make the quality disappear immanent to mission of public institutions, and focus would be transferred to profit. 

Stories about a self-regulated market which gives quality are illusory and false, especially in our transitional society. Knowing our community, it is obvious that diplomas would be easier to acquire, black market of vouchers would occur, and marketing demand for students would be created. Maybe we could, for illustration, remind ourselves on funds in voucher privatization.

I think that Montenegro should leave risky experiments. I am glad that responsible people in the Ministry understand that.  It is interesting that extreme neoliberal ideas are announced by the ones who take in many ways substantial funds from the budget. Somebody gets a year by equalizing the level.

DP: Does UoM have a suggestion how to transfer from old to new system? What are arguments of Rector Collegium UoM against suggested leveling master and specialization studies in continuation of studies and employment?

STANIŠIĆ: It is particularly relevant to carefully design and balance transferal regime from the old to the new model of studies, and currently suggested solutions have several serious conceptual shortages, out of which is particularly emphasized leveling master and specialization degree.  

This could be discussed with Pre Bologna or the old system, but now it is not in accordance with the Bologna principles to value 240 as 300 ECTS, i.e. to give away 60 credits which are not acquired. This ruins concept of master studies, it is not fair to master students, yet it would provide a four-year master specialization students to enroll doctoral studies which is hardly acceptable. I think this is the point of populism. Specialization diploma values 240 ECTS and it should not be leveled with anything. It is the concern of an employer what kind of labor force is demanded, especially in public sector, and for long time both 2540 and 300 will still be wanted and it is individual aspiration for extra schooling.

There are still issues to be corrected in transitional norms and we offered solutions to the Ministry.