Timothy O'Connor: Learning to Study Is the Key
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Timothy Edward O'Connor, Vice Rector for Academic Affairs of the MISiS National University of Science and Technology, shared with RIAC Program Director Ivan Timofeev and Skoltech Space Center Senior Analyst Yaroslav Menshenin his insights on whether education is an instrument of soft power; if the Bologna system has become naturalized in Russia; how the mega-grants program contributes to the development of science; and whether a “cooling of relations” is affecting the development of international cooperation in the fields of science and education.
Timothy Edward O'Connor, Vice Rector for Academic Affairs of the MISiS National University of Science and Technology, shared with RIAC Program Director Ivan Timofeev and Skoltech Space Center Senior Analyst Yaroslav Menshenin his insights on whether education is an instrument of soft power; if the Bologna system has become naturalized in Russia; how the mega-grants program contributes to the development of science; and whether a “cooling of relations” is affecting the development of international cooperation in the fields of science and education.
What are the key competencies that make an individual competitive nowadays? What approaches make a company competitive? What role does education play in acquiring these competencies and adopting these approaches?
I would say that there are certain key competencies that are equally important for both individuals and entire organizations. First of all, communication skills. Like it or not, a person's ability to communicate, to convey ideas, to convince, but at the same time to listen to others is extremely important in the modern world. Secondly, having a critical eye, an ability to view a subject in different ways, to analyze it and make a decision on a basis of a windowed estimate. Thirdly, the ability to work in a team. If we look at universities such as MIT, NUST MISiS, or Skoltech, we see that all of them are training leaders. And so it is. But we should bear in mind that in only training leaders, we then face the problem of the lack of doers, which makes teamwork a universal skill. In some projects, you can be the leader, but on other just an ordinary member of the team. In some projects, you lead, while in others you carry out instructions. This is an important skill. And, fourthly, the values of team spirit and corporate ethics. Values play a key role, since much depends on the principles a person or this or that company is inspired by. And these values should by all means coincide with universally acknowledged ethics and morality.
The overarching aim of the ambitious Project “5 in 100” is often understood as having at least five Russian universities rank among the top 100 of the world’s universities in the global research and education market by 2020. However, from our point of view, this is a means to this end, rather than a goal. What, then, is the mission of the Project “5 in 100”?
We should bear in mind that in only training leaders, we then face the problem of the lack of doers, which makes teamwork a universal skill.
Indeed, when the Project to improve the competitiveness of Russian universities was launched, it was understood that over the next several years, a number of Russian universities would get on the list of the one hundred best universities in the world and gain a foothold on it. But this is hard to call it an end in itself. The main objective is to improve the quality of education. We have to make sure that the “locomotive” universities participating in the program improve their own quality of education and promote such improvements in other educational institutions that try to equal them. And this quality of education implies taking over generally accepted standards, including those relating to the faculty, as well as administrative and managerial staff; in other words, it pervades the entire system of university education.
What do you expect from the Global Education Program that provides for 3,000 highly skilled professionals to work in leading Russian scientific organizations as well as high-tech companies after their study in leading universities around the world?
We have to make sure that the “locomotive” universities participating in the program improve their own quality of education and promote such improvements in other educational institutions that try to equal them.
In my opinion, integrating the Russian education system into the world should be the main expected effect. For many, the term “integration” often means one system copying the rules established by another system. But I would like to note that in this case, the matter at hand is, among other things, the world adopting the best practices of the Russian system, so this is a move towards one another. Russian graduates should have the opportunity to study in foreign universities, while foreign students – in Russian universities. That’s the way to achieve true integration of education systems.
Do you believe that the benefits of introducing the Bologna system in Russia outweigh the disadvantages? What is the reaction of society to this innovation and how has it evolved over time?
The introduction of the Bologna system was a controversial issue. But speaking in general, I believe that its introduction into the Russian education system is rather positive, and this again comes down to the issues of integration into the global system. We should bear in mind that not all countries in Europe welcomed the Bologna system straight away, but over time they gradually adapted their education systems to it. The issue of accessibility to higher education is no less important, since the greater number of people get higher education, the more educated the society becomes. More people begin to realize the fundamental importance of learning to study and are guided by this principle all their lives.
Irina Abankina:
Education in 100 Years: Challenges from
the World Beyond
Participation in the Bologna system is a good example of the standardization of education, which makes it comparable to Russia's membership in the UN, or participation in a recent G20 Summit in Australia.
But at the same time, the share of people in Russia that receive higher education is the largest in the world. Does this not contradict the requirements that apply to quality?
Of course, when we talk about access to higher education, we should not forget the indispensable requirement of its quality. As a general principle, the main task is to give an individual the opportunity to receive higher education. Receiving it depends on the individual’s abilities, his personal choices and values. Today we can see that education becomes both personalized and remote.
Can education be considered a long-term investment? Is it possible to evaluate this investment and which areas of knowledge are the most capital-intensive in your opinion?
I think that the level of public investment in certain branches of knowledge is a reliable enough indicator. For many reasons the state invests less in economic and financial education, while at the same time it significantly increases funding for the natural sciences and medicine.
When we talk about access to higher education, we should not forget the indispensable requirement of its quality.
Can we say that standardization in the broad sense of the word, i.e. the standardization of practices, meanings, and systems, is one of the inevitable effects associated with globalization?
This is a very complex issue. Education does lead to standardization, and therefore there may be friction among different systems as to which standard fits better. But I would say that these tensions are quite natural and useful for the development of standards and improving educational systems.
It is thought that even during the Cold War, the scientific community stood apart from politics. And in contrast to others, scientists had more opportunities to communicate with each other. Can we say that this is true nowadays as well?
Scientists and educators have always kept away from politics and continued cooperation in spite of cooled relations between their respective countries.
We live in difficult times. As for me, the ongoing geopolitical upheavals worry me a lot. And of course, the worsening of relations among countries cannot but inflict damage on all sectors of society, including science and education. However, if we compare the impact of geopolitics on science and education with other areas, the good news is that during the Cold War this detrimental effect was and continues to be modest at present. Scientists and educators have always kept away from politics and continued cooperation in spite of cooled relations between their respective countries. In a sense, they stabilize relations between states.
As for me, I confess that in recent months, some days were particularly difficult, but it is just an added reason to stay in Russia and contribute to the development of academic relations. Being a professional, I regard other options, such as leaving Russia on my own volition, as a betrayal of science and education.
I cannot but ask how optimistic your personal projection of the future is, taking into account the above?
Nobel laureate in chemistry Dan Shechtman,
Vice Rectors of the MISiS National University
of Science and Technology Mikhail Filonov and
Timothy O'Connor
Of course, it is difficult to expect any significant improvement in the international situation in the short term, since finding a compromise always requires hard work. When searching for compromises, some party often suspects that the term “compromise” or “consensus” is used by the other party to conceal its gaining of an advantage, rather than a win-win situation. So, of course, in the current circumstances, seeking a compromise will be extremely difficult. But I hope that in the long term an acceptable consensus will be found.
Does the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences improve the quality of education and research in Russia? And if so, in what way?
This is an important issue of interaction between scientists and students. The former work in research organizations and the latter study in scientific and educational institutions, and often their paths do not intersect. However, direct communication should be established between them. As to your question on the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since the reform is underway and the process is complicated, it is too early to make assessments. In some areas, progress is evident. For example, within the framework of the Mega-Grants Program, leading scientists are opening labs for research projects at Russian universities. This mechanism, of course, offers students an opportunity to work under the guidance of world-renowned scientists in this or that field.
Education and science are costly affairs. Russia will inevitably have to prioritize: no one can afford to finance to the max the RAS, universities, school education, and vocational training at the same time. Priorities have to be organized, as other countries had to do it back in the day.
If you ask me, in order to increase funding for science and education, I would cut back on defense spending. When I say this, I mean the US, Russia, and Europe alike.
Do you agree that education is a mechanism of soft power? And, if so, how can we evaluate its influence?
Education is indeed a mechanism of soft power. Soft power allows for influence through culture and education without resorting to military means. However, soft power is not really that “soft”. Men of science and education have always been very influential not only in their own environment.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
