1 / 28

Funding of higher education in Russia

Funding of higher education in Russia. G . Androushchak HSE. Plan for the talk. ‘Showroom’ Scale, Funding ‘Behind the curtains’ Research Contribution to the economy Incentives for change. ‘Showroom’. Scale, funding. Institutional structure, 2008.

dysis
Télécharger la présentation

Funding of higher education in Russia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Funding of higher education in Russia G. Androushchak HSE

  2. Plan for the talk • ‘Showroom’ • Scale, • Funding • ‘Behind the curtains’ • Research • Contribution to the economy • Incentives for change

  3. ‘Showroom’ Scale, funding

  4. Institutional structure, 2008 • Public universities (~ 6.2 mln. students) • ‘heads’ ~ 660 • regional offices ~ 1060 • Private universities (~ 1.3 mln. students) • ‘heads’ ~ 480 • regional offices ~ 1000

  5. Student body of universities: Number of students enrolled, thousand

  6. Number of students per 10 000 of population

  7. Public funding of higher education (65-70% of financial resources)(PPP US$)

  8. Public spending on per FTE ‘budget’ student in $US(compared to total spending per FTE student in OECD countries in 2006,$US)

  9. Private funding (30-35% of financial resources): • What families actually pay for? • Official tuition (if any) • Additional education (languages) • Sports • Private tutorship (subjects from curriculums) • Preparation for USE, “olimpiada’s” • Preparation of home assignments, essays, theses • Corruption

  10. Tuition trends in nominal terms, 2000=100%

  11. Private funding of higher education on 2000-2008

  12. ‘Behind the curtains’ Research, contribution to economy

  13. Structure of public funding and spending of public funds by universities (‘Rosobrazovaniye’)

  14. Are students going to work within the field of their education?

  15. What employers consider important for hiring decisions

  16. Quality of professional education(% of employers who consider qualification of graduates 3 and lower out of 5)

  17. Employers’ collaboration with institutions

  18. No? incentives for change Public funding momentum and accountability problems Specific requirementsand educational migration barriers

  19. Public funding momentum • The probability for a university of public funding increases in 2000-2006 was 95% due to absence of means-tested mechanisms • No need to worry about demand • Ratio of local public finance fluctuated in the range of 4-5% • No need to worry about serving local communities • University funding constitute 1/3 ofappropriations atop of interbudget transfers from federal to local governments • Great lobby of local governors pressing federal authorities to increase public appropriations

  20. Accountability problems • Most of the universities are public. The accounting principles are just the same as for any other public organizations • no ‘separate’ accounting for different programs (majors/levels) • Accountability systems are still based on the soviet ‘procurement’ principles: • counting the heads of doctors, chair- and desk-legs etc. • Student attainment is measures by the outdated ‘in-house’ tests • No relevant graduates employment data is available • no good instrument for outcomes

  21. Specific entrance requirements and educational migration barriers • Pre-2008 there was no Unified Testing of High School graduates; universities formed admission exams themselves • ‘Want to come to us – pay us to get in’ • private tutoring • ‘shadow payments’ • Shortage of dorms and no campus-culture • No educational migration • Percentage of ‘migrants’ <15% • Local (limited) competition Solved by an SAT-like Unified State Examination

  22. Nature of limited competition: what do universities compete for? • Informally for federal transfers: • Universities • admit budget-supported students, who show good results at entry exams • admit commercial students who don’t qualify for budget support • require them to pay tuition that is lower than per-pupil budgetary spending on budget-supported students • Federal transfers’ proportion on payroll is limited • Tuition compensates for the limitation • Universities compete for ‘paying’ students

  23. What might save us Demography, Unification

  24. Demographic momentum of the first half of 2010s

  25. Thank you!

  26. How to calculate in $US: exchange rate and purchasing power parity puzzle of 2000s

  27. Why exchange rate US$ instead of PPP US$? • PPP = How much economic agents directly pay for products/services • Half of the students don’t, hence education PPP low • However, about 14,5% of actual household expenditure is not visible • About 28,7% of actual household expenditures take the form of auxilary expenditure

  28. Ratio of tuition per year of studies to per year spending per yearly spending on budget supported student across regional universities In 2007 only 32of 660 universities subsidized public students with private funds

More Related