Эффективность различных систем конкурсного отбора студентов (大学生选拔竞赛体系的时效性)
The paper analyses determinants of efficiency of Russian universities. The analysis is based on the data from annual monitoring of performance of higher education institutions conducted by the Ministry of Education and Science. Special attention is paid to the factors that are associated with public policy in the sphere of higher education. In order to explain the variation of the efficiency scores we implement one of the most modern techniques for analysis of efficiency’ determinants – Two-Stage Semi-parametric DEA. The high level of heterogeneity in Russian higher education sector is controlled for by considering two different specifications of DEA model: with the focus on educational activity and with the focus on scientific activity. The results show that relatively less efficient universities are more likely to be affected by the considered efficiency’ determinants compared to efficient ones. Universities that are governed by the Ministry of Education and Science and by regional governments appeared to be relatively more efficient compared to the universities that are governed by another federal authorities except for the Ministry of Education and Science (Ministry of agriculture, Ministry of Healthcare, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Sport and so on). Governance by the Ministry of Education and Science has the strongest effect on efficiency level among considered factors. Governance by regional authorities has the weakest effect. The total square of buildings available for the university appeared to be positively and statistically significantly related to efficiency level. While the autonomous status has no any effect.
Higher Education in Federal Countries: A Comparative Study is a unique study of higher education in nine federal countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China and India. In this book, leading international scholars discuss the role of federalism and how it shapes higher education in major nation-state actors on the world stage. The editors develop an overarching comparative analysis of the dynamics of central and regional power in higher education, and the national case studies explain how each federal and federal-like higher education system has evolved and how it functions in what are highly varied contexts.
The book makes a major contribution to higher education studies and defines a new field of comparative analysis. It also provides important insights into comparative governance and the study of federalism and federal arrangements, with their particular historical, political, legal and economic dimensions.
anotation to the book is not available
This chapter explores horizontal diversity in higher education in the context of high participation systems (HPS), focusing on differences in institutional mission, form and type, and internal diversity within institutions. The chapter starts with an analysis of scholarly approaches to diversity. The dominance of the market diversity perspective (‘deregulate to create more choices’) indicates not its profound relevance to the diversity issue, but the tenacious hold of marketization narratives on the policy imagination. Competition in higher education is mostly associated with less, not more, diversity. The chapter discusses four propositions in relation to diversity in HPS, highlighting decline in the overall diversity of institutional form and mission despite growth in systems, the rise of large multi-purpose institutions as the dominant form, and increased internal institutional diversity. When HPS are rendered more competitive in government-fostered quasi-markets, horizontal distinctions of mission tend to become vertical.
Despite the differences in political, social, economic, and cultural histories, Brazil, Russia, India, and China share the common characteristics. The BRIC countries are very large in terms of population, territory, and economy. Each country has great economic and political influence in the regions, as well as dominance in education sphere (Altbach et al. 2013). They are emerging markets as their economies have been rapidly growing for the last decades while remaining lower middle income or upper middle income countries (World Bank 2016). The experience of these countries is critical for understanding the higher education system dynamics in large countries with limited resources.
We assess and compare computer science skills among final-year computer science undergraduates (seniors) in four major economic and political powers that produce approximately half of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates in the world. We find that seniors in the United States substantially outperform seniors in China, India, and Russia by 0.76–0.88 SDs and score comparably with seniors in elite institutions in these countries. Seniors in elite institutions in the United States further outperform seniors in elite institutions in China, India, and Russia by ∼0.85 SDs. The skills advantage of the United States is not because it has a large proportion of high-scoring international students. Finally, males score consistently but only moderately higher (0.16–0.41 SDs) than females within all four countries.
The book is a result of the first ever study of the transformations of the higher education institutional landscape in fifteen former USSR countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It explores how the single Soviet model that developed across the vast and diverse territory of the Soviet Union over several decades has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, systems that have responded to national and global developments while still bearing some traces of the past. The book is distinctive as it presents a comprehensive analysis of the reforms and transformations in the region in the last 25 years; and it focuses on institutional landscape through the evolution of the institutional types established and developed in Pre-Soviet, Soviet and Post-Soviet time. It also embraces all fifteen countries of the former USSR, and provides a comparative analysis of transformations of institutional landscape across Post-Soviet systems. It will be highly relevant for students and researchers in the fields of higher education and and sociology, particularly those with an interest in historical and comparative studies.
The paper discusses the development of the organizational practices in a Russian university under the influence of the environment. In the latter, the key factors are legislation and regulations of the Ministry of education and science. This influence is ambiguous and varies in different aspects, so to understand combined effect one needs detailed analysis using purposebuilt tools. The paper introduces such tool based on ideas of business model canvas by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur and organizational design theory by Henry Mintzberg. This instrument makes it possible to conduct a system analysis of the organizational design of the university, the integrity of this design and its fit to the environmental conditions. In particular, this analysis shows, how the system of restrictions and stimuli, created by the Ministry of education and science leads to the degradation of education quality in a classic university