HIGHER EDUCATION IN NORTH MACEDONIA AND THE NECESSITY FOR REFORMS
According to standards, at least European ones, on average, there is one public university per around one million inhabitants, whereas in our case, it comes to less than 250 thousand inhabitants! Let us be clear: we have neither the standard nor the resources, and even less the need for this over-dimensioning. Of course, the linguistic and ethnic specificities of the country inevitably influence this number, but still not to such a fragmented extent. I think, and I am convinced, that institutional optimization of higher education is necessary and will happen. The question is when and how? The sooner it begins, the better and cheaper it will be, and this must be a process, not an act! A process that will be carried out with the support of the regulator of the activity, but through inter-university agreements and with a defined transitional period (at least one undergraduate study cycle). I understand the nature of the political mindset to calculate politically (cost/benefit) from the consolidation process, but what matters is who and when it started, how the process was planned and designed, how the quality of the transformation is supervised,… rather than the administrative act of a mechanical and physical merger!
By Academician Abdylmenaf Bexheti
Higher education, as the highest link in the education system, by its importance requires continuous treatment and elaboration, because it is a determinant and a measure of the development of a country and a society in general. Over the past three decades, I have addressed this topic several times, both from an economic and a political aspect, especially in the early 1990s of the last century.
The current relevance of public debates regarding systemic changes in higher education imposes the need to revisit this topic of major importance for society. From the very beginning, I want to underline that in the higher education sector, there are positive exceptions, both institutional and individual, but this time I address the phenomenon and the overall situation. There is no doubt that the situation is not good, not to say bad! It is characterized and dominated by the quantitative component as opposed to the qualitative one. In economic terms, I would define it as a system with quantitative massiveness in supply and declining demand in quality, which mainly produces diplomas with high inflation!
Based on the large number of educational institutions, both public (six universities), one unique public-private, and even more private ones (over 20 universities, colleges, and faculties), with less than 1.5 million inhabitants present in the country, there is no way to expect better results than those we have. Even those few universities, or rather certain faculties within universities, that make efforts and still manage to successfully maintain and advance quality, are challenged by the overwhelming majority that produce diplomas and not knowledge, because the demand for this is also increasing. If we look at the number of identical faculties (law faculties lead, followed by those of economics), and not to mention the number of study programs, which exceeds the lower margins of four digits! From this situation, it is clear what we produce—look at the state of law and economics at the same time! Of course, always with respect for the exceptions, but they quickly head toward the West, since they are much better valued there!
The quality of students upon entry, in general, is characterized by an inadequate level of prior knowledge. According to all analyses and student statistics, around 60% of applicants deserve to be enrolled in terms of knowledge threshold, although the grade threshold they bring from the previous level of secondary education is asymmetrical with the level of knowledge acquired! As a lecturer with 30 years of experience in higher education, I think that the problem is not in entry without criteria, but in progression without criteria, at least with minimally necessary and equal learning outcomes for all! On the other hand, one should not forget the fact that around 10% of students are excellent—not only are they extremely good, but they remain so. This is followed by a layer of effort, no more than 30%. In fact, what we are missing today, compared to 30 or more years ago, is the stable average of 50% of students who once deservedly reached a degree, albeit with some delays! Today, this is missing and can be said to be halved.
The radical change in the way of teaching, and even more in the way of learning among new generations (Generation Z), with a low preference for reading and memorization, is a global phenomenon, even at the most elite universities in the world! Harvard complained about this situation a decade ago! Today, they prefer to learn with the newest technologies, preferably through video and audio, not in amphitheaters and classrooms, but preferably lying on a bed or a couch! However, at least in higher education, I do not think we can change them unless these habits are changed in earlier educational cycles, as Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, in particular) are currently attempting to do. In these circumstances, we must change the system, the institutions with their governing and managerial structures, as well as the educators engaged in this mission.
Thus, we conclude that we must CHANGE, all of us—from the system, leadership, teachers, all the way to adapting to the needs of the market and society! I would start with ethics and integrity, but these are topics that, by their nature and complexity, require separate elaboration, both philosophical and systemic!
Therefore, there is almost a broad consensus within the academic community (again, with certain, not insignificant exceptions) on the need for changes, even profound ones! This has been a general conclusion in almost all debates regarding the “package” of three draft laws—that on higher education, on quality in higher education, and on scientific activity (three parallel laws). In fact, we are late in this process!
In addition to the agreement on the need for changes, it should be emphasized that in no initiative for changes since 2004—of which there have been more than three (the last one in 2018)—has there been such inclusiveness or comprehensiveness in the debate process—at every public university (including SEEU together with the University of Tetova simultaneously), where the proposer, in this case the Ministry of Education and Science, led by Minister Prof. Janevska, has participated to hear the criticisms, suggestions and proposals from university staff. At the Academy of Sciences and Arts of North Macedonia, under my moderation, a very high-quality and fruitful debate was also held. We await to see how much of it will be taken into account. About 10 days before the “launch” of the draft laws, Minister Janevska invited all rectors of public universities, and two days later also the public-private university (SEEU), to inform them about the initiative. I think that there was also a warning here, in my view premature, with this “package” of laws, regarding the need for “merging” some public universities to reduce their number, which, from the very beginning, caused misunderstandings! I say premature, not in terms of the need for this, but in terms of the initiative of the laws in question, because public universities are established and function according to their own specific laws!
According to standards, at least European ones, there is one public university per around one million inhabitants, whereas in our case, it is less than 250 thousand inhabitants! Let us be clear: we have neither the standard, nor the resources, nor the need for this. The linguistic and ethnic specificities influence this, but not to this extent. Institutional optimization is necessary. The question is when and how? The sooner, the better. It must be a process, not an act. A process carried out with regulatory support, but through inter-university agreements and with a defined transitional period (at least one four-year study cycle). I understand the political logic of calculating cost/benefit, but what matters is who and when it started, how it was designed, how quality is supervised, rather than a mechanical administrative act.
Such processes are increasingly occurring throughout the West. In 2017, in France, two of the most elite universities merged to increase visibility and global competitiveness (Sorbonne with Pierre and Marie Curie), last year in Switzerland, six public universities merged, etc.
Since the space is limited to elaborate on the “package” of draft laws that stood on the Ministry’s platform (ENER), I will try to synthesize several principled aspects of particular importance where care is needed in regulation through the basic laws of higher education and scientific activity, as well as quality in this activity.
First and conceptual: The existing specificities of universities in the country must be clearly defined and taken into account—by size, structure (number of units), status (integrated/disintegrated), age since establishment, historical background, territory and location, spatial, technical and infrastructural conditions, human resources base,… etc. It would not be logical, comparable, or even fair to install the same operational criteria for a university over 75 years old, which absorbs over 50% of the total higher education budget (over 125 million euros)—UKIM, and another that absorbs less than 2% (Apostol Pavle–Ohrid), or 3.5–4% (UNT)! Due to a conflict of interest, I must remain cautious when mentioning SEEU, with only 1% (state budget) compared to the results it produces in the labor market and society. In fact, we are in a 3:1 ratio as net contributors to the budget—we give three shares and receive one! Therefore, the defined criteria must include transitional periods for compliance for specific universities, and this is regulated through transitional provisions of the laws!
Second and most sensitive: University autonomy remains highly questionable! The supervisory and governing body, the so-called Higher Education Council, both in its composition (with a high political component) and the personal qualitative structure, as well as the responsibilities assigned to it! In fact, jurists say it directly violates the Constitution! International standards and the Magna Carta, of which both the state and universities are members, oppose such interference.
I think, although I cannot justify it, that the circumstances of governance and management of public universities so far—with inefficiency and ineffectiveness, up to phenomena of misgovernance (corruption, nepotism, lack of accountability, non-transparency, non-merit-based employment,… etc.)—have challenged political authorities to consider the need for strong intervention and supervision! In all our debates in the past, even from my position as Rector, I have tried to promote the concept that autonomy begins where responsibility and accountability end. In all staff trainings at SEEU (I believe all participants can confirm), I have always promoted and, I believe, practiced this equation. Although I want to maintain distance from the institution where I still serve, in the transparency ranking of the Forum for Education Reform, SEEU was convincingly first in North Macedonia, even ahead of UKIM! It even has its analytical budget on its website, although it is not purely public!
Third and unequal: The same criteria for employment, selection, and advancement in academic and scientific careers cannot be applied across all scientific fields, because differences and circumstances are extremely diverse. Humanities, philological and social sciences cannot publish in scientific journals with impact factors (Web of Science), not even in relevant non-ranked ones (Scopus, etc.), as medical, natural or technical sciences do! The academic and scientific community knows this very well, not only here! The Hirsch index is not even worth discussing—it measures only mechanical quantity, not quality!
Fourth and most unjust: Favoring older generations and suffocating young cadres is contrary to all needs and adaptations for the generations to come! Someone of my age may have the advantage of experience in academia and science, but not that of mindset and technology, up to artificial intelligence today! Tomorrow, even worse! Imagine the difference in mindset and culture between a 60-year-old and a 19-year-old today!
Therefore, I say that these criteria reveal rhetorical demagogy (mostly of politicians) that the future belongs to the youth! On the other hand, this causes the aging of universities, instead of the opposite.
Knowledge is very necessary, but character and humanity above all! Next time, therefore, on the aspects of integrity and ethics in education!
The text was developed within the framework of the project “Advocacy for Inclusive Development,” financially supported by the Government of Switzerland through the Civica Mobilitas program.
The content of this text is the sole responsibility of the Forum for Reasonable Policies, IOHN, and BIRC, and in no way can it be considered to reflect the views of the Government of Switzerland, Civica Mobilitas, or the implementing organizations.