Ukraine’s long-troubled education system is now in a state of paroxysm. Since the nomination of the controversial Education Minister, Dmytro Tabachnyk, students and professors, especially in the country’s west, are in uproar. As if the nomination of an alleged Ukrainophobe were not enough, the minister is now planning to covertly let Russian back into universities and abandon the state entrance exam, commonly regarded as the last line of defense in the fight against university entrance-related corruption.
One may argue without end about the validity of Tabachnyk’s language-policy. Although Ukraine has a long history of multiculturalism which it should celebrate, it also has the right to defend the state language. Universities around the world are sticklers when it comes to the linguistic abilities of their pupils, and should also have a say in the matter. However, in what regards the question of removing the state exam for university entrance, there is no room for waffling. Unless a better system – which would equalize the chances of access and eliminate corruption – can be found, there is no reason to even consider the elimination of the entrance exam!
Ukraine’s current system is far from perfect, and the country can ill afford to backtrack on any of the progress made. Moreover, it has countless other problems to deal with: the distressing international performance of Ukrainian universities, the lack of international cooperation, a desolate infrastructure, the dissonance between the skills taught by higher education institutions and those needed by business, a crippling Soviet legacy, a deficit of professional workers... Resolving those problems will take more than making controversial decisions on conspicuous issues.
Not that Tabachnyk is responsible for all, or even most of the problems faced by Ukraine’s education system. Nevertheless his nomination sends out several negative signals. For one thing it shows that the sensibilities of the Western Ukrainians, especially the Halychany whom Tabachnyk loathes, are irrelevant for the incumbent president. The same can be said about the opinions of the international community, which will perceive the nomination of such a controversial and backward homo sovieticus as a step away from reform and integration into the European Higher Education Area.
Turning away from the ongoing process of harmonizing the education system with European standards would be particularly unfortunate. Ukraine’s commitment to the Bologna Process at the Bergen Conference in 2005 was one of few positive impulses in recent years. While the process in itself does not guarantee a direct improvement of the quality of education, it enhances the mobility of both students and staff – a great benefit in itself. In turn, this increased mobility helps spread knowledge, know-how, best practices, and thus ultimately improve standards. Never in the course of history has the advancement of science benefited from isolation. On the contrary, the constant exchange of ideas is one of the main factors behind a successful development of education centers.
Although most people realize that Ukraine’s higher education institutions are somewhat marginalized, it is hard to grasp the true extent of this phenomenon. The past few decades have been marked by the steady stagnation of European universities, whose previously acquired leadership was first eroded by North American institutions, and later by Asian and Australian ones. Within the continent, the East European institutions have lagged behind their Western peers. Yet even within the East European region Ukrainian institutions are isolated and fare quite poorly. No Ukrainian university appears on any of the reputed performance-based or prestige-based rankings of academic institutions. Only Webometrics, which ranks institutions based on their web contents (and is thus able to produce a much bigger ranking), actually contains any Ukrainian universities. The podium is made up of Taras Shevchenko University (number 1,346 worldwide), Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (2,055), and Ivan-Franko University in Lviv (2,099).
The poor performance of Ukrainian higher education institutions is particularly disappointing considering the country’s potential, notably in terms of bright technically-oriented minds. Thus, when gauged by the number of industrial patents registered, a commonly accepted measure of the effectiveness of a country’s technical and engineering institutions, the country turns out to be a respectable middleweight, rather than a hopeless laggard. However, bright minds are no remedy for the lack of international cooperation. Ukrainian institutions fail to figure among any of the 20 or so networks comprising leading universities from different European countries (needless to say they do not figure in global ones either). Amazingly, the Institutional Network of Universities from Capitals of Europe, which is meant to promote staff and student mobility, research and policy development, includes an Albanian university, but no Ukrainian one.
This isolation is further perpetuated by the lack of cooperation with business, a crucial factor keeping academic institutions in touch with the contemporary needs of a country. Cases of cooperation between both sides, such as the joint creation of Innovation Centers by Microsoft and the Lviv and Kharkiv universities, are exceedingly rare. All the parties involved are out of touch with reality: business representatives have trouble formulating their demands clearly, universities often distrust any collaboration with companies or else see them as a source of bribes, and the government appears to have no policy at all. Many countries around the world create technology parks, or special economic zones in order to provide preferential conditions for joint enterprises between academic institutions and corporations – Ukraine closed its special economic zones in 2005 (in any case they did not present the advantages for business-academia cooperation that would have been necessary).
Thus, the country needs measures that will improve the competitiveness of its institutions and form young minds who are able to manage on their own in a challenging world, rather than having to rely on family connections. At present ambitious Ukrainian students are in a frenzy to gain work experience during their studies, as they know that their diplomas will not be enough to get them a job. Educational institutions fail to provide people with the skills that they will need. Economic growth is increasingly contingent upon the capacity to be innovative and think outside the box. Yet there is virtually no pressure on institutions to adapt their curricula, as people have already given up hope and look for other solutions.
What makes Mr. Tabachnyk’s nomination all the more disappointing is that it has moved the debate away from the truly pressing problems plaguing the Ukrainian education system. Indeed, it appears that Yanukovych has created a cabinet filled with potential scapegoats, who will attract the wrath of voters and will be replaced before the upcoming parliamentary elections. In the mean time these people will monopolize public discourse, keeping the attention away from the president’s own failures. This would mean that Ukrainian will be faced by yet another wasted period, filled with bickering and futile conflict. Perhaps even worse, it will continue to divide the nation and weaken its resolve.
Ukraine can hardly afford to continue wasting time. Its best and brightest will increasingly vote with their feet, depriving the country of an invaluable source of development and growth. The tremendous demographic crisis will only exacerbate an already bad situation. One can only imagine how the loss of yet another generation of talented and entrepreneurial Ukrainians will affect the country’s perspectives, especially since no replacement is likely to appear any time soon. Rather than maintaining a bloated kleptocratic system, the government should do all it can to increase competition raise standards. If not, the window of opportunity may very well close forever.
