In May 2015 Belarus became a member of the Bologna process. Reformation of higher education by European standards in accordance with the so-called “roadmap” is ahead.

“Belarusan Journal” asked Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, a coordinator of the Flying University, methodologist, and a candidate of sociological sciences, what will follow Belarus’ inclusion into the Bologna process in practice and who and why needs the National University in Belarus.

— We got included into the Bologna process. What does it mean for the Belarusan students?

— It means that in future Belarusan students will be able to engage in the global system of professional training. Those of them, who are highly motivated, will be able to use this change for including themselves into a more modern European system. That gives our students a change to catch up with the European area by way of life even more that by the level of knowledge.

— Will it result in the “brain drain”?

— I think that it will, to some extent. But I would call it not the brain drain, but rather the “drain” of activity and motivation of those, who want to have an active life, a career, and mobility. The question is how full will be the execution of norms of the Bologna system. With the seeming democratic process, Belarusan state, which is also concerned with the problem of “brain drain”, might think of a small barrier for such “drains”.

— Can Bologna process adjust to the Belarusan market?

— Apart from the students’ mobility, the Bologna system also presupposes that the universities, employers, students, parents, i.e. all the interested parties themselves will have certain agreement. And the question is whether the Belarusan employers are ready to be included in this process and to which extent they will be admitted there. As far as I know, according to the assessments of the Public Bologna Committee, now Belarusan employers are not able to formulate their demands, tasks, and goals to the system of education. Nevertheless, Belarusan market is built in into the world system; we are not on an island — we are developing IT sphere, marketing, and design.

— But now the first important step related to the Bologna process is to make an employer understand that Bachelor’s degree is a sufficient higher education.

— Yes, we all will have to get used to what it all means; who is a Bachelor, and who holds a master’s degree. I think that now it is hardly clear for the universities themselves, not to mention employers.

— What profit does the Belarusan government gain in being a member of the Bologna process?

— The simplest and most pragmatic thing — profit. Clearly, membership in the Bologna process is an additional opportunity to receive foreign students. Belarus isn’t working for the market of educational services for students in the West, but it invites students from the East. The demand is quite high; and the state earns money from that. Naturally, students want to know whether their degree is recognized in Europe. That’s how the competition starts; and Belarus loses to the EU countries in this competition. As soon as our education gets a market that it is a European degree (although nothing might change in its content), we will immediately witness the enlargement of foreign students, who are willing to get Belarusan education. I think it’s the simplest, mercantile, obvious, and justified move.

On the other hand, I think that the Belarusan government is also trying to develop its image at the expense of the Bologna process. We promote our country as a “peculiar” democracy — not only “Russians with a quality mark”, but also “Europeans with a quality mark”; a social state, a competitive country that is able to build in the global processes. This is the image that the authorities are aspiring to.

— The demands that are listed in the “roadmap” (the list of transformations Belarus has to go through in order to be fully included in the Bologna system of education) include clauses related to the academic freedoms. Can they be realized?

— It all depends on the depth and quality of this realization. If we treat the system of credits, content of the Bachelor’s programs seriously, it presupposes cardinal changes in our education system. I think no one is going to do that. Belarusan education system isn’t ready for such change. But since all of that can be done formally, we can also imitate something in the sphere of academic freedoms. Anyway, it is better than nothing since it creates a normative basis for an initiative that might appear in the future. If someone from the number of students would like to use it — they will get more chances. But in terms of real activation of student movement and involving people and their motivation — all of that will be modeled so that “nothing bad happens”.

— Thus, even if the inclusion into the Bologna process is formal it is still an advantage for both the students and the state, isn’t it?

— I think so. At least no one loses anything for sure. The motivated and the active will get more possibilities, which might create a more transparent system for penetration of European standards.

— Now many people are talking not only about the Bologna process but also about the establishment of a National University in Belarus. Who and why needs this project?

— Very few people, who cannot be described as some social group or class, need this project; those, who find themselves a “ruling class” not in terms of belonging to the top of today’s authorities, but in terms of attitude to our country. These are those who think about prospects, future, and development in the scales of the country. There are people in Belarus, who have and realize transformation programs, and they need a National University within the frames of these programs.

— Thus, a National University is purely an instrument of building the nation, isn’t it?

— Building the nation and the country. Building of the nation is questionable; now one can often hear that nations are not built, this is unnecessary and out of date today. It is possibly true — everything that could have been built is already built. However, we continue living in a national state, and our life depends on decisions and actions within the country and in the borders of the country to a large degree. For that we need someone who will think about them and will be ready to make them; and for that we need a National University.

— What would be taught in this National University and what would be its guiding principles?

— There are two aspects. The first one is that this university should be a Belarusian one. This aspect is actively discussed now; there are different approaches and positions as to what makes the university Belarusian. And that’s good.

However, there is a second aspect, which, curiously enough, is more important now. Within the frames of thinking about the National University we ask questions that are now crucial in the higher education all over the world. Mass higher education that is oriented at the labor market and professional training doesn’t regard universities as “think tanks” — places for creating generations that will change the country in future. Today universities at the best work for self-realization of concrete people, helping them find a place at the market. But who and where is educating those, who change the country; those, who create and advance culture? We still have such places that have appeared “despite of” rather than “thanks to”. For example, former scientific centers such as CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), which possesses its own education system now.

That’s why, when we think about a National University, we need to think about this second function, not only about preservation of nation, research, Belarusan culture, and language.

In fact, now we don’t have some ideal form of a National University. There are different attempts to find something new. We should think what kind of university, not higher educational institution, we could offer in Europe and in the whole world. And what is going to be taught there — this might be one of the main problems. The content of education for a contemporary person is one of the global problems.

— What can the specific Belarusan model of a National University, which wouldn’t be based on mere transfer of European standards, consist of?

— It would be very weird to create something unique from nothing and start realizing that as a whole. Once I was impressed with Teodor Shanin’s idea that he offered to the education minister in the beginning of perestroika. He suggested creating several universities — Russian-American, Russian-British, Russian-French, and so on — i.e. all major models that already exist. He wanted to establish their counterparts, and find Russia’s own model after these universities would start developing and compete on the Russian basis.

University is a process, formation of a model that would answer the challenges of our age and opportunities of intellectual field.

— If we proceed from the contrary, which principles should we leave behind when establishing a National University?

— First, a National University shouldn’t be oriented at the professional training in accordance to the demands of the market. And that is problematic, because in this case we should think about other ways to motivate students than the degree of an expert. But if we take the same path that mass education takes, it will immediately put the university off its track.

Secondly, we shouldn’t try to copy traditional structures of departments, faculties, and schools. We need to invent the whole system anew based on who should and who can graduate from this university. By this I mean the intellectual resource that is present in Belarus and that is ready to reproduce those who will exceed it. We shouldn’t try to reflect full spectrum of university disciplines in the National University. We should look for something unique. I would go for providing the place and opportunity for developing all the best and all unique that Belarus has.

I would also reject the idea of deploying the university abroad. Perhaps, such phenomenon as a university in exile has its right to exist; but for that it should get formed and get into this exile afterwards. It is impossible to build a National University in the context of a foreign country from nothing; because a university is, first of all, a community of people, who are building this university. Without this community we can rather create an educational institution. Besides, there are also a lot of restrictions of national legislations and a need to build in into the Lithuanian or Polish education system (however good they are). All in all, I wouldn’t cherish any illusions regarding the National University abroad. We can transfer a university, whereas we can hardly build it from nothing abroad.

— Let’s imagine that such university is being established in Belarus. Who can enter the community and who will establish it?

— One of the main problems of the National University’s project is not the lack of people, who are ready to work in it. It’s easy to gather prominent experts; it’s more difficult to gather those who are ready to “think university”, deal with the issues of content of education and arrangement of its structure. It’s hard to unite the community with the common idea of what a university is. Whom we lack are carriers of this idea, who are ready to think about it all the time and suggest approaches.

Besides, if we consider some innovative forms of education, it will be great if university invites those, who are not present in the university — experts, not teachers by profession. For example, f we invite prominent authors, not only teachers of literature or the Flying University; designers, not teachers of design.

— Do we have financial sources for establishing a National University now?

— We don’t have them now. It is ideologically important for a National University that these are mainly inner resources. It’s important that business and patrons of art nook note of this sphere. But I don’t know whether we have such people in Belarus.

Now we cannot “establish: a National University inside the country; however, we can make steps to prepare for that, promote the idea of a University, develop community, and experiment with education forms.

For example, Belarus is facing a global problem — “people’s partiality” that the modern education creates. It is connected to the professionalization, labor market, and so on. No one presumes to imagine a person adequate to the country or world culture. In best case scenario we prepare people who find their bearings inside the system and advance together with it, but certainly not those, who are ready to think, create something new, and change this system.

— How does the education of those people, who are able to change the world should look like then?

— It is impossible to build it on the basis of scientific knowledge only, or on the basis of engineering knowledge (even if we mean social engineering by that). We can point at people who have these qualities; but how did they become such people? How can we organize such kind of education? We don’t know yet.

And another factor, even more complicated and problematic today, is that a modern person, with all the technical development, has become very strong. Science and gadgets have supplied every concrete person, not only humanity. Small actions, conscious and not really, create fluctuations that are able to change the world. However, a person can no longer comply with it at a humanitarian level and at a level of taking responsibility, I think.

Formerly education was mainly aimed at providing people with knowledge about the world. But we lack knowledge about ourselves, about educating ourselves and bringing into correlation to what we can do already. We don’t have the main anthropological component of education — developing ourselves.

I don’t think that we can invent courses for educating ourselves to do things respective to our own knowledge and demands of the world. But somehow people become such persons, which means that we can do something — for example, create environment that would contribute to it.

We can find inspiring ideas in Hesse’s “Castalia”. If you remember, “Glass Beard Game players” were writing biographies, which is a colossal practice of building one’s life by means of some cultural prototypes and examples. Such things give experience of absolutely special relations with the world. There is also an “oral story”, which is often treated as a method of collecting historical facts, while it is a complete humanitarian and anthropological practice for people to build themselves into history.

We need to think about these forms and build them in education. Tomorrow is with them.