Speech given by Mikuláš Bek, Rector of Masaryk University, on the occasion of Dies Academicus (7 May)
A year ago my speech was a response to the turbulent atmosphere surrounding the abortive preparation of a new Higher Education Act. This year the situation in academia is calmer. As I was preparing this address, I searched in vain for an external theme that would be sufficiently attractive and engaging for this day, on which we contemplate together issues of higher education at universities.
The calmer situation is thanks in no small part to skilful manoeuvring by the new leadership of the Ministry of Education and also to obvious fatigue on the part of the academic community concerning reforms debated for years on end but which again and again fail to come to fruition. At the moment no one but a professional debater is interested in discussing an amendment to the Higher Education Act limited to minor changes and action in very few areas of the workings of higher education, meaning that it obviously lacks the power to excite. I don't wish to suggest that there is nothing at stake here – in the Czech lands radical change has been wrought by 'small', incremental politics, not by the upheaval of revolution, since the time of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. There is something at stake for sure, but the suggested changes are signposts and gateways to a solution in future rather than bringers of innovation in themselves. In short, in my view the amendment – with no offence intended to its authors – is not a worthy topic for this university's Dies Academicus.
In the absence of an attractive theme from outside, I have no choice but to tread on the much thinner ice of an internal theme. And for this theme to be attractive, it must air to some degree what it is commonly referred to as dirty laundry. I'm convinced that our institution is strong enough to allow us to do this in public. Calmer external circumstances can be viewed as encouragement to engage in fundamental discussion on the direction our university should take. Thanks to the calm on the outside, discussion on the inside can proceed in a far more open fashion, leading to agreement on the direction we should take. A course that we will view with an inner conviction in the turbulent times that are bound to come. And I am convinced that Masaryk University is on the verge of a radical change in direction. Not of the full 180 degrees – no normally functioning institution behaves in such a way – but a major change nevertheless.
In the last twenty years our institution has been extremely successful in pursuit of seemingly impossible aspirations. We have done what we can to grow in quantitative terms while improving the quality of our science and teaching. And I'm convinced that we have succeeded in these aims, no matter how nonsensical such a joint strategy might appear to outside observers. Having been a small and – owing to the political barriers of an earlier time – isolated provincial university we have become an institution that garners ever more respect internationally. Over the past twenty years the university's academic performance has improved and student and staff numbers have increased. Thanks to this we have been successful in economic terms: salaries have gone up and the university has become an attractive employer that obviously promotes loyalty in its staff. It is afflicted less than many other schools by the kind of teacher-academic pluralist who pays only fleeting visits to the workplace and fails to devote his energies to students and research. For twenty years we have succeeded in chasing two hares while profiting from the chase in both economic and academic terms.
In the course of these twenty years this strategy has entered our bloodstream. Its imperatives, which work so well for us, have become second nature and tantamount to a reflex as we respond to everyday situations. But times change in higher education, too – over decades rather than years, but no less dramatically for that. Demographic change, change in the economic climate, shifts in higher-education policy, which we can observe all over the world – all this urges us from time to time to take stock of our strategies, actions and unconscious recipes for responding to everyday situations and, if need be, to revise them.
One of the most visible issues to show a need for a turnabout and change in direction concerns the number of students at the university. For several years now we have suspected – and in internal discussions, admitted – that we have simply too many of them. Everyone knows that we have a high number of students for every teacher. In the past it was this very indicator that ensured our financial stability and above-average salaries, which in turn led to a high level of loyalty among teachers at the university. But for a few years now the risks entailed by such a state of affairs have been under discussion among senior administrators at university and faculty level. The student/teacher ratio is a key parameter in all systems for the ranking of universities, and its effect on the place of Masaryk University in the standings is a negative one. If we choose to turn a blind eye to such charts, we should remember that in many countries this information provides the basis for classification of research universities – and this represents a great risk. More important still, few members of our academic community are so far aware that in the past few years the system by which institutes of higher education in the Czech Republic are funded has undergone significant change. In the past a high number of students per teacher was a sign of prosperity; now it represents an ever-increasing threat.
It is the case no longer that over 30 per cent of funding for educational activities is distributed in relation to the number of students enrolled; it is awarded according to parameters of performance, among which scientific output as measured by government methodology and rates of employment among graduates play important roles. In the past few months we have conducted a very detailed analysis on the standing of faculties of our university when compared with their competitors in the Czech Republic. At first sight the results are more than satisfactory. Of our seven faculties with comparable counterparts at Charles University, five of them are better in terms of scientific performance per member of academic staff. But in terms of performance per student, this figure falls to two. In terms of scientific performance per student the university as a whole is around the Czech average, not at the top. But it is performance per student that determines the extent of performance-related funding we will receive. What is the point in our working harder to produce more scientific outcomes while teaching ever higher numbers of students if in the end we get less money? In short, the subconscious 'more students equal more money' strategy no longer applies.
We have not been inactive in the face of these developments: for three years now we have gradually been strengthening the regulatory functions of the university budget as it affects the admission of new students. But institutional inertia is a significant factor here; not until last year did we achieve a moderate reversal. At the present time we are negotiating an inter-faculty agreement that should lead to the admission of students in significantly reduced numbers. Incidentally, this year we received 10% fewer applications and 10% fewer applicants; to ensure that there is no decline in the quality of our students, we are therefore aiming for a 10% reduction in students admitted. But this will have a significant impact on our recipes for success. The motto 'the more, the better' will be replaced by the following: 'By admitting fewer students we free teachers to perform more high-quality scientific work and make improvements in teaching.'
And that is what this is all about. Today's hunt for the two hares of quantity and quality is no longer possible. We stand at a threshold beyond which we will no longer have to apply our full weight. We must make a decision between 'either' and 'or'; we must set priorities. We will be either a teaching university or a research university. Naturally this decision will not result in immediate, drastic action and year-on-year change in the order of dozens of per cent. At university-type institutions everything happens by a policy of short, sequential steps, and that is how it should be. But short, sequential steps must be informed by clear objectives and a clear direction.
But if we agree that our highest priority and aim is the high quality of our university, it is necessary for us to embrace a number of measures. Reversing the trend in the number of student admissions is just the beginning, albeit an indispensable condition for the creating of capacity for higher-quality work and a more personalized approach to our students. We must continue to develop policies that guarantee the quality of our teaching, including evaluation by students of their courses of study and the setting up of an internal accreditation authority in case the Higher Education Act is amended. At the same time we must develop policies to encourage research, including a system for the evaluation of research activities. And what is perhaps most important of all, we must continue to cultivate our personnel policy to embrace transparency in remuneration linked to the evaluation of performance, clearer definition of the rights and responsibilities of staff, and an attitude of openness to new staff, particularly those from abroad. These will be our most important instruments as we exploit the space opened up by the gradual reduction in student numbers for major improvements to the quality of our research and teaching.
To be absolutely clear – I am not calling for a purge and a halt to student admissions. What I am urging the university to adopt represents a district reversal of a trend. If this year we admit 10% fewer undergraduates than the limit set by the Ministry, our state funding will be unaffected, resulting in an increased normative cost per student. Not only will we be no poorer, we will be in a position to provide our future first-year students with better tuition and we will have a little more time for our work as scientists. Not so long ago we were accustomed to priding ourselves on the ever greater number of applications we received and the record growth in our student population, proving that we were the most in-demand university in the Czech Republic. For the future I suggest a change of emphasis that claims Masaryk University to be an élite institution whose students are privileged, not entitled, to study here. But in order for us to begin to promote our new aims with a clear conscience, we must accept what we all know but sometimes struggle to admit – that we are not yet perfect; some things could be improved or changed for the better. We should consider whether the time has arrived in which less means more.