Developing a Joint Educational Program in Global Economics Policy

1. Developing a Joint Educational Program in Global Economics Policy The Stanford-Higher School of Economics Cooperation in 2009-2010 Martin Carnoy and Katherine Kuhns Stanford University

2. Goals of the Stanford-Higher School of Economics Cooperation • Develop a joint world class MA program in global economics policy at HSE. • Stimulate interest in Russian language and the Russian economy among Stanford undergraduate majors in economics and international relations. • Increase knowledge in both universities about each other’s countries’ economic policies. • Gain understanding of global changes in higher education policies through a major research project on university reform.

3. The Foundations for Collaboration • A key to the success of the collaboration between HSE and Stanford has been the respect the parties have for each other and their commitment to realizing the project’s goals. • The HSE is committed to improving its programs and to being at the cutting edge of teaching and researching economic policy. • Stanford is committed to improving its expertise and offerings in Russian economic policy as well as increasing its collaborative research with Russian academics.

4. Building the Economics Curriculum of HSE’s MA Program • Stanford and HSE faculty collaborated to frame HSE’s economics and policy studies curriculum needs for the global political economy MA program. • Stanford professors taught especially prepared seminars in Moscow for HSE students on agreed upon new courses--the economics of risk and insurance, environmental economics, the economics of education, and international relations. • This year Stanford professors will present new courses on China’s economic development and political economy. • This year’s seminars will also introduce new teaching styles. • Tapes of the seminars are made available to a wider audience on the HSE joint project website.

5. Stimulating Interest at Stanford in the Russian Economy • Visiting faculty from HSE present seminars on the Russian economy sponsored by the Stanford Center for Russian, Eastern European and Eurasian Studies and aimed at undergraduate majors in economics and international relations. • In the coming year, the project aims to have a visiting faculty member from HSE lead a credit undergraduate course on the Russian economy. • The FIPSE project has also promoted activities of the Stanford U.S.-Russia Forum (SURF), a student-run organization that explores foreign policy through student interchange between the RF and the US. • FIPSE helped support a highly successful meeting at Stanford in April that brought three HSE students and students from other RF universities to Stanford for four days of seminars and discussions with US students. • The next SURF meeting will be in Moscow in November.

6. Increasing Knowledge About Each Other’s Economic Policies • The exchange of visits and discussions among the faculty of the partner institutions has developed considerably more expertise and interest at both universities about economic research and policy questions in the two countries. • There has been a notable increase in the academic activities at Stanford related to Russia’s economy and economic policies. • Applications from undergraduates wishing to spend part of the academic year at Stanford’s Moscow campus are up sharply this year. • A joint Stanford-HSE website is in the works. An important function of this website will be to feature an interchange between Russian and US academics on global economic issues and the relevance of subjects to be taught in political economy.

7. Collaborating on Research • A major part of the Stanford-HSE collaboration is research on Russian universities--particularly on technical fields--and how they are responding to national and international pressures to improve the quality and relevance of HE in the RF. • Researchers from HSE and Stanford have conducted interviews in a large sample of RF universities and are comparing their findings with similar research underway in China, India, and Brazil. • The preliminary results should be of general interest to FIPSE participants.

8. Preliminary Findings from the Collaborative Research The Changing University System Martin Carnoy & Katherine Kuhns Moscow, June 2010

9. The 1990s & Early 2000s • Decrease in federal funding 1970s to 2002 • (11% to 3.7% GDP) (Jones 1994; Canning 2004) • Growth in public institutions • By 2007, 655 public HEIs (Higher School of Economics 2007) • 572 - federal • 55 - regional • 28 - municipal • Growth in the number of private institutions • From 193 (1996) to 645 (2006) (Zajda & Zajda 2007) • Generally much smaller enrollment • No strong quality control

10. The 1990s-2000s, continued • Ability of public institutions to charge tuition • By 2004, 54% of students paying tuition (Canning 2004) • By 2007,10-20% of HEI budgets from tuition (HSE 2007) • Growth in number of evening programs and affiliated campuses • As of 2007, more than 2,000 affiliates (64% public; 36% private). (HSE 2007) • Many instructors teach in multiple places • Impact on quality

11. Present: Higher Education and the Labor Market • The economic returns to university graduates are high compared to those with secondary schooling or even college, but the highest returns were in the early 2000s, and decreased by 2006-2008, probably because of many more graduates. • The economic returns to taking engineering and other technical degrees has been surprisingly high, higher than to law and economics. This was true in 1998-2002, but we don’t yet know whether this engineering premium was maintained later in the decade (further research).

12. Present: Higher Education System and the Labor Market • Past: center at each HEI directed graduates to industry based on central quotas • Today: disconnect, weak ties between academia and industry • Number of federal slots determined in Moscow; does not necessarily conform to local needs • “Brain Drain” within Russia from academia to business • Weak subsidization of slots in those disciplines deemed necessary by state • Market may work through through present quota and tuition system, but system may not be producing many “needed” skills because of lower government pay; I.e., teachers and technical PhDs.

13. Present: Higher Education and Government • HEIs report to Ministry of Education and Science in Moscow • No official direct mechanism for communication with local government • Depends on situation in locales • Weak mechanisms for local governments to influence federal organs re. HEIs

14. Present: Preparation for Higher Education • Criticism of quality preparation by secondary schools • Teaching for higher order thinking, group work, creativity • Introduction of Unified National Exam (UNE) • Supposed to combat corruption at HEI level; simply moved to secondary school level

15. Present: Teaching vs. Research • Dual system of Academy of Sciences and Higher Education System • Different governing bodies and funding • HEI professors expected to engage in research • Funding? Release from teaching? • Coordination between AcSci and HEIs differs by location

16. Reform Issues: Bologna • HEIs can create 50% of their curriculum • 4+2 BA/MA vs. 5-year specialist • Simultaneous dual system • Academic mobility internationally • Mobility nationally?

17. Reform Issues: Academic Mobility • Majority of institutions still hiring among their own graduates • Majority of institutions still recruit applicants from within their own region • Seen as barrier to increased quality of teaching • Problems • Propiska system • Infrastructure (housing, facilities)

18. Reform Issues: Funding • Receive funding • Merged “Federal Universities” • “National Research Universities” • Other national awards - “National Project Education” • Forego funding • Full autonomy; still “owned” by federal government • Can participate in federal grant competitions • To date, no HEI requesting autonomy • Pro-active: Locally initiated mergers • New legal status

19. Reform Issues: Mergers • Creation of “Federal Universities” in 7 + 5 regions throughout Russia • Create through merging existing institutions • More effectively utilize resources • Improve quality control • Prepare for forecasted decrease in student population • Rostov-on-Don and Krasnoyarsk • Arkhangelsk, Ekaterinburg, Kazan’, Vladivostok, Yakutia • Academies of Sciences? • Still centralized control over research funding

20. Relatively Low Funding for R&D in Russian Universities