ÌìÃÀÓ°ÊÓ

In the past few decades, universities across Europe have been in state of constant reform. In Estonia, we are even more eager reformers and at times reorganize things in a brutal manner. This has resulted in an elevated level of stress and a significant fatigue from all of the reforming. Therefore it is no wonder that most people try to survive the ongoing reforms using strategies that have been successful before.

A good modus operandi is to ignore talk about change, since most of these ideas will not be implemented anyway. If ignoring does not prove to be effective, we still have the chance to argue that a) why break something that is working just fine or b) other units may need this reform, but this cannot be implemented in ours for a variety of reasons.

Have you had such thoughts lately? I have. Yet, in the interest of dialogue I would like to argue as to why it is impossible for the university to carry on like we have hitherto. Certain external factors have changed significantly and cannot be ignored. The most important of these being the ascending trend of student numbers and changes in the way universities are financed. If before the university got paid for every student studying in an accredited programme, we now get a certain amount of money for education, and have to decide about the distribution of that ourselves.

Until now, a model where the university itself decided on the study regulations and financed them based on the number of graduates, and where researchers associated with different study programmes fought to bring in more money for research functions by lecturing to more and more students, has been viable. This model guaranteed the expansive development of the University, but was psychologically exhausting and did not favour cooperation.

Currently we have no reasons to continue with this model, since we no longer need an expansive development. On the contrary, resources should become more concentrated and our MOs more focused. If our people are raddled, we should create an environment to value them instead of directing them into rivalry.

Unfortunately, not all potential positions can be developed – we have to decide for one or the other. In my opinion, these decisions are best made on the idea and management level, not based on the results of rivalry, as they have until now. This would help our academic staff focus on their calling.

Perhaps then we could re-create an inspirational and stimulating environment for research, studies and socialization. This could be the major goal of the changes. Or does someone have everything under such control there is no point in breaking it?

Tõnu Viik,
Head of the Cultural Competences Focus Field