Parting from assumptions regarding distribution of persons who passed USE by GPEL categories and the share of those who try to enter a uni versity, it is possible to determine the structure of enrolment into uni versities by GPEL categories for “flexible” and “Rigid” models. The structure of enrolment depending on the model is given in Table 14.
Table Admission structure to universities and colleges by GPEL categories depending on adopted model (“flexible” or “rigid”) “Flexible” model “Rigid” model GPEL Structure of enrolment into institutions Structure of enrolment into institucategory of higher education by GPEL categories tions of higher education by GPEL (in %) categories (in %) À+ 6.7 4.À 20.0 13.B 42.0 48.C 23.3 28.D 8.0 6.100 As can be seen in Table 14 the structure of enrolment, which corre sponds “flexible” model favours higher GPEL categories. For example, those who have categories A+ and A constitute more than a quarter of the overall enrolment. In “rigid” model these categories constitute a little bit more than 17 per cent of enrolment. However, school leavers holding GPEL categories B and C are represented in greater numbers in “rigid” model. Category D in “flexible” model constitutes over 8 per cent and in “rigid” model – 6.7 per cent. Thereby, by changing models in dif ferent periods of time it is possible rather efficiently influence with the help of GPEL model accessibility of higher education to different strata of population. It will be more important when the budget of higher edu cation will grow and the number of budgetary lines distributed accord ing to GPEL model grows because it will guarantee certain flexibility in educational policy implementation.
Distribution of persons who passed USE by types of institutions of higher education Let us examine now in what way GPEL mechanism will influence the situation of “strong”, “middle of the road” and “weak” institutions of higher education. To be more precise, how prestigious and unpopular specialties will survive in the new circumstances and what will happen with their accessibility. All institutions of higher education can be di vided into three large groups: “strong” institutions offer prestigious educational plans (curricula) and high quality of education, “middle of the road” (majority of institutions of higher education) and “weak” (offer outdated educational plans and rather low quality of education). It is assumed that about 10 per cent of students in Russia study in “strong” institutions of higher education, 60 per cent of students studying in “middle of the road” institutions of higher education and about 30 per cent of student study in “weak” institutions of higher education.
It is logical to assume that the majority of school leavers with cate gory A+ will try to enter “strong” institutions of higher education. Mini mal part of the best school leavers will enter “weak” universities. Only those of them who prefer to study in the nearest to their place of resi dence university, which can turn out to be a “weak” one. School leavers holding GPEL category D most likely will evenly study in all types of uni versities. They tend to continue education only in case if the family is able to finance education. Moreover, it is possible that those school leavers who received category D mainly will study in “weak” universities with low level of tuition.
Structure of enrolment to the first year in different types of institu tions of higher learning by GPEL categories is provide in Table 15.
Taking enrolment 2000 as an example, one can note that in “flexible” model the share of persons holding category A+ among those accepted to “strong” universities will amount to about 50 per cent. This means that depending on the enrolment structure all students holding GPEL category A+ in principle can study only at the expense of budgetary funds distributed according to GPEL model. Regarding “rigid” model in the same example distribution of first year students holding different GPEL categories demonstrates that in “strong” universities the share of students holding GPEL category A+ amounts to 30 per cent. Then it is possible that in “strong” universities the share of students who study at the expense of budgetary funds distributed according to GPEL model will hold GPEL category A. In a university with low competition the en rollment only for GPEL will be formed from those holding mainly GPEL category B.
Table Structure of enrollment into different types of institutions of higher education for “flexible” and “rigid” models “Middle-of-the“Strong universities” “Weak” universities road” universities GPEL category ( % of enrolment) (% of enrolment) ( % of enrolment) “Flexible” model À+ 50 2.6 0.À 25 28.3 1.B 12 35.0 66.C 8 25.0 25.D 5 9.1 6.“Rigid” model À+ 30 1.5 0.À 40 14.7 1.B 20 45 63.C 8 30 30.D 2 9 4.3 Further departures from the original GPEL model During 2002 experiment further departures from the original GPEL model took place. These deviations were caused by specific conditions of experiment. Already at the beginning of the experiment it was clear that there was not enough of information for making serious conclu sions. Examination in mathematics was the only one which was taken on a large scale in the regions that participated in 2001 USE experiment.
Examination in Russian language was taken by a much more limited au dience. All other subjects covered insignificant contingent of the total number of school leavers. Number of institutions in each of the regions, which was not very high, was limited to institutions of higher education under the Ministry of education. At the same time, each of the institu tions of higher education has its own specifics and its own contingent.
That is why enrolment to many faculties very little depended on the in stitution of higher education and on the USE results received by school leavers (and correspondingly GPEL categories). These aspects in many respects limited competition between institutions of higher education.
Besides, insufficiently developed USE model manifested itself (for example, examinations on 4 subjects were taken as USE in a region and institutions of higher education had a wider circle of subjects in their entrance examinations. Control and measure materials were not devel oped on Russian literature and foreign language, which made it very difficult to hold examinations in these subjects in USE format. The same specialties in different institutions of higher education required different subjects at the entrance examinations). Main issue was that USE (or examinations in USE format) was taken not at the same time but in three waves. School leavers took examination in May only on the subjects se lected by regions. Remaining subjects in USE format in case corre sponding control and measure materials were developed and in reality in arbitrary form in remaining cases were taken in July.
In august third wave of examinations took place for those who tried to enter by correspondence department. It was evident that part of per sons who passed examinations in second and thirds waves were in un equal situation with school leavers: they were not prepared for taking examinations in USE format. That is why regional state examination commissions (RSEC) voluntarily or not reduced requirements set to those candidates. Examination marks were overestimated in literature and other philological subjects as well as in creative subjects. Several waves of USE made candidates to resort to the help of deceptive strat egy. According to it a candidate passed in the first wave unimportant for his future specialty subject and in the second wave the candidate passed main subject because it was easier, etc.
Here we should note some other departures from the original GPEL model. First of all, in determining GPEL category not all USE results were taken into account but only the results of main for this specialty subjects (in the original model it was envisaged that no less than 5 ex aminations in USE format are to be taken and all received points are to be taken into account in determining GPEL category). In this connec tion, when submitting documents to different institutions of higher edu cation university entrant had different GPEL categories. This was con nected with the second and major departure from GPEL ideology – per centage and not absolute according to the number of point ratio of USE results to GPEL category in order to avoid overestimation of marks and following corruption.
However, by insistence of RF Ministry of finance clear intervals (in points) in results obtained at USE, which corresponded to GPEL cate gories. Different procedure designed to determine the number of points was developed because different number of examinations were taken.
For example, if a school leaver took three examinations the number of points constituted the sum of each examination taken together. Then that number was divided by three. If a university entrant took four ex aminations then the points of thee or four examinations were put to gether if they were main ones on this specialty. Then the number was divided by three or by four. GPEL categories, which corresponded these numbers of points could be different as was noted above. During 2002 experiment the following intervals were set, which corresponded declared GPEL categories (Table 16).
Table Correspondence of given number of points to SPEL categories USE points GPEL category 80.1 – 100 68.1 – 80.0 53.1 – 68.0 42.1 – 53.0 35.1 – 42.0 0 – 35 Without category In these circumstances some agents of the educational market got incentives to overestimate USE marks and other agents – enter a spe cialty, which gives a higher GPEL category. And what is worst of all is that in the framework of a region there is a possibility not to get into the budgetary pool (this is what happened during 2002 experiment, al though there were other reasons contributing to it).
One more departure from GPEL model was the idea of taking into consideration all benefits defined in the law for certain categories of university entrants (orphans, invalids and so on). “Target” enrolment takes special place. This is an enrolment carried out at an order of re gional or local authorities of special sort of students who study at the expense of budgetary funds and who are supposed to work later in the budgetary sphere (village teacher, doctor, agricultural specialist, etc.).
In model calculations persons entitled to benefits and those who enter institutions of higher education under “target” enrolment were to constitute not more than 4 per cent. In 2002 experiment this share turned out to be considerably higher.
Issue of state order (social order) for training personnel with higher education became evident. It became clear at the outset that persons who enter institutions of higher education under target enrollment would receive, as a rule, not such good marks at USE and correspond ingly low GPEL categories. In order not to reduce financial situation of institutions of higher education, which traditionally accepted target stu dents (this was especially important for pedagogical institutions for higher education), it was decided to increase GPEL category to 2nd for target students (when according to USE results a lower category was received). At the same time, an informal agreement was concluded to the effect that participated in the experiment institutions of higher edu cation left target enrolment at the level of the previous year (i.e. do not increase it). This agreement was violated by all institutions of higher learning, which participated in the experiment except only one. This led to a considerable growth of budgetary expenditure in comparison with the planned level.
Target enrollment does not solve the issue of training personnel in non prestigious specialties in budgetary sector because the duty of graduates who were accepted in the framework of target enrolment to work off the money invested in their education is not defined in the law.
However, even is such duty existed the practice of target enrolment would have produced negative selection. As a result the village school can get a teacher who is incapable to teach children. It is evident that low salaries and low conditions of life in villages, which do not corre spond in the majority of cases to the requirements of contemporary young men, cause the shortage of personnel in the budgetary sector. It is impossible to solve this issue by way of an artificial enrolment into institutions of higher education of this category of students. GPEL ex periment manifested it evidently.
Thereby, the early results of the experiment demonstrate that un derdeveloped procedure of USE leads to a situation where regions and institutions of higher education interested in receiving from the state higher categories of GPEL have possibilities to influence USE results (including through corruption). This leads to an unplanned increase in budgetary expenditures. For example, according to preliminary calcula tions not more then 9 per cent of persons who passed unified state ex amination were to receive 2nd category of GPEL. In practice this GPEL category received 46 per cent of students enrolled to the first year.
1.2.4. Conclusions The situation in the sphere of education is rather difficult. It can be characterized by a number of hard to solve issues among them:
- Growth of the number of students in higher education despite population decline (from 1995 through 2004 students enrolment only in public institutions of higher education grew by 1.5 fold) makes shortage of budgetary funding more acute and increases growth of paid sector in higher education (in 2003 the share of paid students in the overall number of students constituted 46 per cent);
- Sharp differentiation in education service delivery in general (sec ondary school) education both between regions and inside a re gion;
- Budgetary network shortage in preschool education together with sharp differentiation in performance of preschool institutions does not guarantee adaptation of the majority of children to primary school conditions and correspondingly positively influence the quality of education;
- Discrepancy between curricula and educational technologies to the requirements of contemporary society and the economy;
- Outdated material and technical basis available in initial and secon dary vocational education, in consequence graduates are incapable to work on modern equipment;