Kommersant > April 08, 2009 > "Our students are not worse than our cars" // The Minister of education and science Andrei Fursenko - on how the crisis has influenced the reform in the branch

Anti-crisis measures in the sphere of education are aimed to reduce social risks. On topics, if it is necessary to conserve students at universities, who will pay for becoming poor students, of special universities, of non-willing to head the MGU and use of the USE (EGE) the head of the Minister of education and science Andrei Fursenko told the "Ъ".

- What did the Minister of education and science have to sacrifice during the crisis?

- It is not appropriate to speak about sacrifices. We had to reduce our appetites. Comparing with the last year, the budget growth on education and science turned out not as large as we would have liked it to be. As a subject of budget planning we received an increase of 30 billion. It is 8,5%. Of course, one year ago we had counted for more. In general we had to reduce our suggestions for more than 40 billion rubles. But we principally went on the path, when we did not start to cut equally from all, but we extinguished priorities. We do not have anti-crisis money itself. The government gives, for example, 43 billion rubles for retraining of specialists. This money is given through placement services, and we stimulate all our educational institutions for maximally active participation in contests to get money.

- What is a priority today and what has been reduced?

- Naturally, there were protected issues - wages, taxes, these all were saved automatically, no redistributions at the expense of this money took place. On other issues we used a reconsideration of the budget to make an analysis of projects and to correct them. For example, the fund of assisting development of small enterprise forms in scientific and technical sphere did not lose a penny, - its financing in the volume of 2,45 billion rubles was saved. If everything had been cut equally, the fund would have lost almost 650 million rubles. Why did we save it? Because it is a very efficient instrument of supporting small business in the scientific and technical sphere, in the innovative sphere, i.e. a very important anti-crisis measure. And financing of the Russian fund of fundamental researches was increased only in 0,5 billion rubles in comparison of the last year, though we had counted almost on 3 billion rubles of growth. Because of reduction we had to refuse from beginning of a number of new buildings and start of some innovative projects, but we saved financing of the direction, connected with attracting compatriots to researches and educational programs in our country, so as the projects, connected with the increase of energy efficiency.

- The project of supporting national research universities at start supposed giving 3 billion rubles to each university, which received this status. Now this sum will be divided among 10-15 universities. But the idea was in re-formatting, rebuilding of universities. And now financing looks more like an anti-crisis support of university elite.

- I would not like that talks on creating new ended exceptionally to building. At the example of supporting innovative development programs of universities within the national project we saw that relatively small money (from 300 million to 1 billion) let make a breakthrough of 10-15 years. And the prime-minister, and the president support the program of creating national research universities, one of development programs which we keep in those form as it was conceived. And it is not stopping a gap. Start positions - 3 billion rubles for 10-15 universities in 2009. But financing of five-year programs should be in the volume of 2 billion rubles of budget money for each national research universities. There is a number of universities which say: we can be given less money, the status is enough. But we will not go for that, otherwise a status devaluation of a research university may happen. We understand today that we will not be able to build 15 "sun cities" in a clear field. Firstly, there is no money for that, secondly, I am not sure there is a need for that. A university is not just walls. In some cases there will be positive decisions on creating a new campus on a new place. I hope that we will be able to provide an advancement of a new MISiS project. Now the decision on creating a new campus at the Russkiy island is prepared - within the project of the Far-East federal university. The Student games in Kazan are being prepared. And the decision has been made that the Olympic village, sports objects will become a basis for a new powerful university cluster. But the development of already existing universities in existing rooms can give a qualitatively new result.

- What are the MGU's positions, in your opinion, in the system of higher education? The university is out of financial support of university elite: a special status of the MGU has not been approved yet.

- The MGU's status is defined at least by the fact that it is the only university in Russia which has a separate line in the budget. The MGU is larger than any other university, it is singled out. The same thing, I think, should be given to the Saint-Petersburg university. I leave behind discussions about which of them is older, but if you ask a passer-by in the street, what is a higher school in Russia, I suppose, an overwhelming majority of people will remember the MGU. That is why I think that it will be fair if this status to more or less extent will be legalized. At this I cannot agree with the thing that the MGU as well as SPbGU, is out, as you say, from the system of support of our school. For example, to the MGU jubilee only from the federal budget in 2004-2005 there was given more than 1,25 billion rubles from the federal budget. I know it well, because I was the head of the organizational committee. The both universities are winners of the contest of innovative development programs of universities. At this for maximal sums - almost 1 billion rubles each of them received. Neither MGU, nor Saint-Petersburg universities have any problems with admission as to budget, as to paid places. Today it means quite a lot. They participate in all programs of the Ministry of education and science - not only on education, but also in the field of scientific researches. Besides, the position of some graduates of these universities is rather enough so that these universities would feel themselves confident.

- But the MGU and the SPbGU at the meeting with the president asked for this special status, i.e. additional money, which could confirm this status.

- The fact is, and it touches upon all universities, which more or less are advanced, in the development programs. And a development program is not only money, it is not to a lesser degree a system of obligations, which are taken by those who suggest this program. Depending on the suggested program and taken obligations and responsibility the financing will be given. The development program of the MGU will not be for a year or two. It also should be a five-year program, with fully formulated volumes of financing and with expected results.

- One of the most cited anti-crisis measures is the support of educational credit. But yet the matter concerns exceptionally about fulfilling the "Credo" program of a bankrupt bank "Soyuz" (a structure of "Basic element"), in which elite universities took part. And what is happening with the system of mass credit with involving the rest of banks and universities?

- We think that the number of participants of the credit program should be increased. I.e. we should keep people who want to follow using the "Credo" program, but if today a large number of willing to receive educational credits appear, this opportunity should be given to them. There are several innovations. Firstly, a credit is supposed to be given on the functioning rate of a bank, at this the state will subsidize three forth of refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia (today it is 13% yearly), and for students the credit percent will be no more than 11,5% yearly. Secondly, we offer to refuse from requirements of providing deposits and guarantees from the side of students on these educational credits, so that the state would be a guarantor. Thirdly, we think that in credit policy it is necessary to orient at demanded specialties. And it is necessary to work with universities, which actually provide a good training. And fourthly, expansion of the program should happen at the expense of giving credits to students of both state and non-state universities. While we discuss the question of credit programs of approximately 10 thousand students. There are certain limitations: first of all, good results, which are the main guarantee that the student will return money.

- Do you have money for compensation of a privileged credit to banks?

- To our estimations, the size of state support of educational credits in 2009 should be around 750 million rubles, of them 500 million rubles are providing guarantees of non-return, which would let not demand from borrowers some additional provision on credits, the rest will be spent on subsidizing the percentage rate. Really most of this money most likely will not be demanded, because there will not be non-returns. Nevertheless, this means should be represented in the budget. I believe that if we cover the part of the budget rate on selling passenger cars and agricultural equipment, than our students are not worse than our cars. Though, of course, if the bank rate were lower, than it would be easier for us from the point of view of compensations. Besides, it is not advisable to overestimate demand on credits. Especially taking into consideration that this year on each thousand of graduates there will be 420 budget places at internal university departments. Each second school graduate will be able to study at university at the expense of the state. And trust me, if to exclude several, perhaps, tens of the most prestigious universities, the key problem will be not in how to select, but how to find normal students, who will study in these universities.

- What will be the price of the mass transfer of paid students to budget places? Or will it be the problem of university budgets?

- At present there are more than 90 thousand of vacant budget places at universities, i.e. places, from which budget students were sent down. And to these places students can be transferred. For example, in the Moscow Phystech the headmaster says: we have 15% of paid students on the 1st year. And on the last - there is no one. Because there is screening. It is enough to study two terms without satisfactory marks, and you are transferred to a budget place. But it is very difficult to study without satisfactory marks there. What did we demand from universities? Firstly, transparent information on existing vacant places. Secondly, transparent information, well-known to all students, on what the transfer rules from paid places to budget ones are. Clear procedures of transferring with participation of bodies of student self-government.

- Another anti-crisis measure is fixed prices for education. Headmasters remind that prices regulation is not a market instrument. But this proposition was heard from the mouth of the president. I.e., as a matter of fact, it is obligatory to be fulfilled.

- It is a recommendation, though from the mouth of the first people. It is a call, and then - it is up to each university. A university has the right not to fix. Juristically no one can prohibit it. And we do not raise the question on freezing prices in non-state universities. If you are a non-state university, please, set a price to your discretion. But at this it is worth to think about competitiveness.

- But nevertheless there is a feeling that anti-crisis measures are aimed at keeping students in universities by any price. And what about the previous idea of optimization of state university network? The idea of leaving one-and-all higher education?

- We still stand today in front of the aimed at improving the quality of education task of optimization of the network of higher school. It means that we, for example, should refuse from a number of branches. I do not exclude that we will have to close them, to transfer students form these branches to the others, to base or other universities. We should create conditions for continuing the study, but not necessarily in that university which students entered. Perhaps, there will be redistribution of control figures of admission to universities and on specialties. We, for example, continue to lessen the number of places on non-profile specialties in many universities. Roughly speaking, agricultural universities should not orient at training economists in the first hand. It is not needed for a technical university to train lawyers. In general the quantity of budget places on these specialties will continue to lessen. At this it is absolutely clear that the Moscow state law academy will not lose any budget place. As well as the MGU or the SPbGU. Simultaneously we significantly increase the number of budget places, admission of internal students to specialties, connected with informative technologies, transport technologies, energy, service. Today we orient youth at the fact that there are budget places, and a person can choose: if he/she wants to go to a more prestigious university to a paid place, and he/she will have such opportunities, or if he/she prefers to study at some other place, closer to his/her home, for example, at a budget place. It will be his/her decision. We are having two simultaneous process. At the background of rather serious demographic decline economic problems are starting to grow. And we have to do everything to keep all alive. But not everything in our higher school is of this kind. So apart from keeping we should stake on development. If we decide for one minute that it is important for us to freeze everything and to last till better days, consider that we have lost everything. I am a principal opponent of using higher school as a luggage office. We should create conditions for those who wants and is able to learn.

- The authors of suggestions on temporary "conservation" of students at universities, to all appearances, start from the fact that in conditions of the crisis a new category of unemployed - already of university graduates - should not be created. What is rest to be done, when there are no workplaces? To learn and wait when they appear?

- These are two different thing. One thing is to give an opportunity to study for all comers. For this we increase the number of budget places not only on the first year, we expand magistracy, post-graduate course, we create conditions for additional education. We consider the opportunity to revive the institute of probationers-researchers. But I am against the fact that people who do not want and cannot study should be kept in educational institutions by any price. If a person does not want to pass exams, he/she should be dismissed from the university.

- So let crisis be crisis, and reform be reform?

- We do not have a goal to refuse from achievements of the reform to get back to the idea of universal higher education. Our opponents call for stopping any changes. But let us see, what would happen, for example, without the USE. In 2000 there was a clear profanation of the contest entering universities. The universities completely enclosed on themselves some number of schools, so-called "admission to Preobrazhensky regiment straight from birth" took place. And those who did not get to these preliminary made lists of entrants, did not have special chances for entering. I do not speak about market of bribes, which, by the estimation of experts of the Higher school of economics, has been significantly lessened at the expense of the USE introduction. Besides, many families saved money at the expense of the fact that young people did not have to go to other cities to take entrance examination. Actually, the main question today is that in some schools people do not teach and learn. But they try to hide it by protesting against the USE. We know cases when teachers in some regions orient young people at not going to take a USE on physics, chemistry, informatics. Why? For youth it is a step without risk or loss. Even if one gets "poor", this mark does not go to the certificate! One can retake it next year. But for teachers and local officials it is an estimation of their efficiency. The USE showed a very important thing - an increased to dangerous limits irresponsibility of a significant number of people who participate in the educational process. Not less challenging the problem of quality is in the higher school, too. Since 1992 by law there was established an opportunity of opening commercial universities, and later commercial places at universities. And this law was approved with active participation of the communists, by the way. Though now they blame the executive power in unrestrained commercialization. The real social institute and institute of development has been considerably replaced by the market of selling diplomas. The really powerful growth of the number of students and universities took place in the middle of the 90s. A job market for teachers and not for those whom they teach was created.

- The question with the USE, in spite of legal approval, is it considered as reversible?

- This version is developing and promoting by some our opponents. I think the main danger for them is that this year the USE will take place in normal mode, and people will see that a large quantity of entrants will get to budget places and become students without any bribes.

- But your opponents show the statistics, that in a number of regions, for example, in Dagestan, the USE results are too exemplary. And it can be the evidence of the fact that the system, pretending for objectiveness, makes a bug.

- In view of experimental character of the USE, the statistics has been manipulative through the recent years. If in Dagestan the USE on some subject was taken by 30 people, at this from the best schools, and in Moscow it was taken by all, so the average mark in Dagestan turned to be better. As soon as everybody in Dagestan started to take the USE, that is all, the mark was lowered. But the USE is good that violations are registered at once. All materials are on the table, and when you see them, and the same mistakes are repeated at ten pupils, certain conclusions can be made towards those who hold the exam. At this I would like to remind that a university has always an opportunity to dismiss a weak student after the first session, and if his/her results are in the contrast with the USE results, it is a basis for a serious check at the place where he or she took the USE. The USE is not an absolute tool for fighting any problems of attestation. There are no such means at all. But in comparison of previous problems - it is a big difference. What is incorrectness of our opponents? They do not compare the situation with the one which was without the USE. They just say - it is bad. No one puts near the questions on the USE the variants of the questions which were asked at traditional exams at universities. And I remember, for example, the question at the exam at one of economic universities of Moscow - name a village in Turkmenistan in which fine-fleeced sheep are grown. Obviously the answer to this question was known only by the author of the question. And it was chosen exceptionally with the aim to receive the answer. Only from the person who was trained for this very answer.

- What is your attitude to the idea of heading the MSU?

- I suppose the post of the MSU headmaster is rather honorable and responsible, but I exclude the possibility of taking it for myself. I have not received such a preposition and I hope I will not receive it. The MSU headmaster needs to fully correspond to global challenges of time, to requirements and demands of the state, of scientific and educational, civil society, to expectations of people who work and study at the university. I think such a task could be offered to a person from academic environment, and to a younger one, than me.

Julia Ъ Taratuta