As a result of the Parliamentary elections held on October 1st, 2012 the „Georgian Dream” Coalition supported by the majority of population came to power of the country. The new authorities did many good things out of the promises given to society, but unfortunately, what was done is still far from those expectations the society waited for and the promises made by the coalition of „Georgian Dream” before coming to power. Today’s government voluntarily or involuntarily didn’t manage to change the vicious system of country’s governing introduced by the United National Movement. All of this entirely touched the higher education system in Georgia. Unfortunately, higher education in Georgia is still administered by the law passed by the „Nationals” that immensely damaged
25
ზოგიერთი მოსაზრება საქართველოს კანონზე „ უმაღლესი განათლების შესახებ “
education and science and, which in the near past was blasted by the political forces being today in power. Proceeding from the higher education interests we consider it necessary to abolish the current law on higher education in Georgia and adopt a new, which will be fair and democratic and will better take into account national and international experience in higher education development and management sphere. Briefl y about some of them: 1) According to the article 15, paragraph 2, the governing bodies of higher educational institutions are: the Academic Council, Senate, Rector, Head of Administration and Quality Assurance Service. According to the same article, paragraph 3, the governing bodies of faculty are: the Council of Faculty, Dean, and Faculty Quality Assurance Service. We have the following remarks on the given article: a) It seems that educational institution’s management scheme is too complicated. According to this law, the management body includes 2 Senates, one of which (academic council) is the highest representative body, while the other (representative body) - ordinary. If this is so, then why it is needed and by what logic it is justifi ed that most of the decisions made by the Academic Council are approved by the Senate which is a subordinate body. In addition to the above noted, the existence and operation of two senates are related to such negative consequences, as: unjustifi ed division of management functions and, therefore, scattering of intellectual resources having management capability; extra costs of material and fi nancial resources that is associated with the increase of staff due to two senates functioning, increased staff offi ces and their maintenance, expenses related to the election of the councils’ makeup, etc. Coming out from the interests of educational institution’s effective management it is recommended that instead of the current two senates function one senate and be called not academic, but the senate of educational institution; b) We consider it also unnecessary that the chief of administration is presented as a separate organ of the management of educational institution. In our view, the chief administrative manager of human, material and fi nancial resources should be only the Rector and not someone else; c) I think that inclusion of Quality Assurance Service in higher educational institutions as well as faculty management organs is not justifi ed. It administers nobody, excepting the relevant service of faculty in case of educational institution. At faculty it administers only 2-3 employees of its staff; 2) The title of Article 16 of the current Law on Higher Education is “Higher Educational Institution’s Management Principles.” In fact, 5 paragraphs formulated in this Article discuss what is provided by higher educational institution. I think, it is better for this article to be formulated in different wording; 3) The name of the 30th article of the law is „Dissertation Council.” According to the fi rst paragraph of this article, the dissertation council is the organ conferring doctoral academic degree which is set by the faculty. According to the given law, scientifi c
26
ნუგზარ პაიჭაძე
degrees and titles existing in the country were abolished before adopting this law that is completely unjustifi ed. Such nihilistic attitude towards science has negatively impacted on the development of science in the country. The motivation of people to become scientists – decreased signifi cantly. Many people think that after completion of the third cycle of educational program and gaining academic doctoral degree they are at the highest level in science. We fi rmly believe that this illusion is caused by the current law on higher education, according to which scientifi c degrees existing previously actually equated to the doctor’s academic degrees. Proceeding from the interests of science development, it is appropriate to make relevant amendments to the law of higher education which belatedly, but at least partially will rectify the above mentioned fl aw. Namely: additionally it should be introduced doctoral scientifi c degree, which can be obtained by persons holding an academic doctoral degree or a candidate degree of sciences in case of successful defense of dissertation thesis. Since after making the noted changes there will be essentially two different dissertation defence boards, it is appropriate to call one of them doctoral academic degree conferring board (as it is at present), while the other – doctoral scientifi c degree conferring board. The fi rst will function at all faculties having a third level of teaching and the other will be set up relevant higher educational and scientifi c institutions, in relevant fi elds of science considering the number of highly qualifi ed scientifi c personnel employed in them; 4) Along with the introduction of the scientifi c degree, it is appropriate to introduce the rank of professor, which can be held by the person having defended a doctoral scientifi c degree; 5) We have a remark about the third level of teaching – currently established practice of students’ recruitment for doctoral program. In our opinion, the existing rules of recruitment need to be improved in doctoral program. I think, it is necessary to introduce an entrance exam in specialty for doctoral program students with the aim of recruiting a decent contingent of them. In addition, I believe that we should be cautious with the setting of the number of contingent for doctoral program. I believe that it is now too infl ated, which can negatively affect the selection of doctoral students and their training quality. It should also be noted their future employment possibilities. At the same time, I think, the state should pay all the costs related to the training of doctoral students and take more active part in determining the number of doctoral students. It is desirable that all the above noted be refl ected as a separate paragraph in the relevant article of the law on higher education; 6) We have certain remarks on the rule of formation and working of dissertation defence board currently operating at the faculty and conferring academic doctoral degrees. Now, according to the current rules, members of the dissertation defence board are all professors and associate professors. Therefore, the number of members of the board exceeds 100 persons at some faculties. It is clear, that such expanded board is less operational. In our view, it is appropriate to establish a coordination council consisting of 10-15 leading
27
ზოგიერთი მოსაზრება საქართველოს კანონზე „ უმაღლესი განათლების შესახებ “
professors for conferring doctoral academic degree; the board will involve representatives of separate modules of doctoral program. There will be formed groups of 5-7 people according to the modules of doctoral program. The coordination council will set up onetime dissertation board (presumably of 10-15 persons) for concrete dissertation defence; the board will consist of the members of the relevant module of the coordination council and other specialists from similar profi le. A single decision of the dissertation defence board must be approved by the noted coordination council. Dissertation defence boards which are formed by such a principle will be disburdened from extra formalism existing today and will be more competent, effi cient and fl exible. 7) We have remarks on Article 5 of the law regarding personnel. Briefl y about some of them: a) According to Article 33 of the law, the higher educational institution’s academic staff members are professors (professors, associate professors, assistant professors). The question is – why are not teachers included in the composition of the academic personnel? According to the same law their function is an important activity with student, such as: conduction of seminars, practical and laboratory works. Perhaps, it will be better if in the relevant article of the law there is written that the higher educational academic staff consists of professors and teachers, or coming out from the fact that the word “professor” is of Latin origin and in Georgian it means “teacher,” in the above mentioned article there should be written that professors composition includes professors, associate professors, assistant professors, senior teachers and teachers; b) I think that introduction of the age limit provided for in Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the academic staff should be abolished. Keywords: Georgia, education, reforms, higher educational institutions, management. JEL Codes: I20, I21, I28, I29