What is the meaning of the university accreditation procedure?

When I am in the offices of Western colleagues, I see that bookcases and/or racks in them are filled with books, magazines, and photocopies of scientific works. About ten years ago at the departments of our universities it was possible to see a similar picture (except that books and magazines were older). Since then, it has changed radically: in the rooms of the departments, almost all cabinets are clogged with voluminous folders. There are not copies of scientific papers, but numerous programs, educational and methodological materials (UMK), reports and other “official” documents that have supplanted both books and magazines. The reason for the “change of scenery” is simple: an avalanche -like propagation of documentation, which is directly or indirectly prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and/or Rosobrnadzor. For high -quality preparations for classes and scientific work, which could significantly increase the world ratings of domestic universities, there is little time (except on vacation): teachers sculpt puffy folios of various documents. This activity is especially intensified in anticipation of the so-called accreditation of universities, which does not pass any institution engaged in any form of teaching.

It seems that both the Ministry of Education and Science and Rosobrnadzor should in every possible way help students teach better and more advanced scientific research, which, ideally, should correspond to the world level or even surpass it. Or at least did not interfere with such classes. But no! In reality, much is exactly the opposite. The propagation of endless programs, teaching materials, etc. absorbs the lion's share of time that could be spent precisely on scientific research or improving teaching skills. In fairness, it should be noted that in some cases, instructions for the preparation of all papers do not go from the ministry or Rosobrnadzor, but from the universities themselves (example-the teaching materials), whose bosses want to be more holy of the pope himself: just in case, lay the straw even where it is possible to do without it.

Since our university is actually carefully prepared for accreditation and passed it in June, I can’t help but share my impressions of this “meaningless and merciless” procedure, in timid, the hope that someone from the high authorities will read this material and think about the appropriateness of its continuation. Since we were preparing for accreditation, I was vividly interested in nonresident colleagues, as it passed with them. My impressions are a kind of attempt to summarize almost all -Russian experience.

It is worth starting with the fact that dozens, hundreds of programs were prepared (updated) (so, philosophy is taught everywhere - and everywhere in the corresponding departments required copies of programs). They were signed not only by the direct authors (and the head of the department), but also in a number of universities by many unauthorized persons (in terms of “coordination” - librarians, heads of other departments, deans, employees of educational departments, etc.). Similarly and with the teaching materials. It was necessary to run in order to collect all these signatures. Thus, actually cultivated

Collective irresponsibility (if the latter was implied in this case). Often had to take into account strange details. For example, the requirement of the library associated with the inclusion of only those sources (even for absenteeisms) that are available there is a requirement that seems unnatural in the Internet era.

In the middle and even at the end of the school year, new standards were adopted (the so -called 3+). All programs, according to the order of the Ministry of Education and Science, had to be redone within ten days. According to the logic of things, these standards should be introduced from the new school year. But no: it is only given some ten days to turn the turn of such an inertial ship as education.

None of the different educational departments have gusted a convincing explanation of the purpose of compiling the CMCs, which also often demanded. Are they intended for students? Teachers? Inspectors? In one of the universities, they called the last category, and this confirms that we are talking about a primitive show.

The accreditation has been postponed for a long time. Documents for it are submitted in electronic format, but their specific content is not really spelled out. The “correct” form can only be felt by the method of painful trial and errors, and it was not easy to wedge in the queue for accreditation.

Finally, the rector announced: the commission will arrive on Monday for five days. Indeed, on Sunday, members of the commission (experts) began to arrive, and the order on the Rosobrnadzor website with the composition of the commission appeared only on Monday at 18:30, when the commission already worked with might and main. 50 people per university of medium sizes (15 thousand students) - they had to be met (sometimes I had to go for hundreds of kilometers), place, feed, provide workplaces, etc. You can estimate the amount of the amount that is spent by Rosobrnadzor on this procedure. But thousands and thousands of specialties in educational institutions are “subjected” to accreditation! I am sure that these funds would be more effective to direct to the support and development of universities, and not to bureaucratic exercises.

The audit involved an assessment of fifty parameters, which were given to the choice in real time to each expert. The latter were exclusively interested in documents. There is paper, and necessarily correctly compiled, is wonderful. No - bad. If something is expressed not quite correctly, immediately remake.

The episode is the first. The expert, the head of the training department at his agricultural university (who, by the way, is preparing lawyers), checks the examination tickets. He notices that the tickets indicate the “specialty”, and not the “direction”. It requires remodel and imagine by tomorrow in the morning. We sit until late, remake, print tickets (500 pages!). Morning check. This time the expert notes that the forms of training are indicated incorrectly: full -time, in -person/correspondence, external resident. "Gross violation!" The call to the first vice -rector indicating this “sin”. Externate is superfluous!

I ask the expert, a lady who probably worked for a long time in Soviet times: “Tell me, please, how did we live in the USSR without Obrnadzor? Without rigidly prescribed forms of examination tickets? " Answers: "They lived well, but - order!" Demonstrates paper with an order. "Does the mention of specialty in the ticket affect the quality of education, not a direction?" Answers: "No, but - order!"

Episode second (with checking graduate school). The program of the candidate exam in history and philosophy is in order. "Show the tests for this exam!" Frankly, for the first time I hear about this kind of tests ... As far as I know, the documents of the Higher Attestation Commission does not say about any tests on candidate exams. A suspicion creeps up: what if the expert is ahead of the ministerial thought and soon we will have to use the tests in defense of dissertations?!

The “residual knowledge” of students and graduate students here is far from the first place. A separate conversation is about this knowledge, since Tabula Rasa is judged by the Lokkovskaya idea in line with the Lokkovskaya idea, bearing in mind that consciousness is a clean board on which something is written in the process of education. In general, about the quality and meaning (or absence of such) new standards of education should be written especially.

And the teachers who intensively prepare expert conclusions, and they themselves must give tribute, experts on the days of accreditation work on the preparation of papers selflessly, ending almost at midnight (sometimes and later!), And expert conclusions relate to a specialty, which is completed in a number of specialties this year. The meaning of this work is also incomprehensible.

Bottom line: Expert conclusions for each specialty with a volume of about 80 to 150–160 pages! Plus, also applications, partly repeating the content of the conclusions (certificate of personnel composition, on the material and technical base, etc.). It is clear that no expert for the time allotted to him is able to give birth independently. Conclusions are compiled by those who are checked, and experts only amended. The conclusion indicates all the numbers of orders (numbers and dates of protocols for the adoption of work plans, calendar schedules, details of the approval of schedules, work programs, training practices, diaries, local normative acts confirming the annual update of programs, provisions on various university forms of activity, orders for approval of the final qualifications, the names of the developers, consolidated statements, accounting records, accounting cards students, etc., etc.). "Correct" documents in stock - everything is wonderful. For each specialty, an impressive volume and weight of the pile of papers was ultimately formed (here you have the dream of academician V. M. Glushkov at the dawn of the computer era about blond informatics!). Moreover, almost everything, I emphasize, did not have all the documents, in my opinion, nothing to do with the real quality of education and even potentially did not contribute to the improvement of this quality. Formal papers, the preparation of which required a lot of time, effort, nerves. Why all this?! Who in the Ministry of Education and Science and Rosobrnadzor is not able to read carefully - to view these monblanes of documents?

I believe that the preservation of such a practice and the vector of activity of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and Rosobrnadzor leads to the reproduction of meaningless classes: teachers, performing instructions and a kind of unspoken attitudes of these organizations, dictated by their special attitude to universities (almost wrote - “to the under investigation”), should feel like chronophages, eaters of their own time, which could be spent. With much greater benefit for them personally, and for the university, and ultimately for the country. With this format, it is extremely difficult to understand the meaning of the procedure for accreditation of universities.