PRODUCTION/OPERATIONS MANAGEMENTKEONG LEONG, Feature Editor, Fisher
College of Business, From Russia with Love: Observations on Business Education in Siberia*by Peter William Stonebraker, Northeastern Illinois University, Alexander Arcentovich Lobut and Sergei Nicholaevich Polbitsyn, Urals State Pedagogic University The end of the Cold War permitted, for the first time in 45 years, extensive opportunities for academic exchange between Russia and the West. In many academic fields, America and Russia are now working together with a potential for synergy and an explosion of knowledge and understanding. This development is particularly critical in the business area, given the potential for growth of business and trade between the two countries. This article generally describes the present conditions of business education in Ekaterinburg, the third largest city of Russia, and an industrial and distribution center in Western Siberia. There is a certain irony that the first co-author, a teacher from Chicago and former army officer, is working with the faculty at several universities in Ekaterinburg (formerly the closed military city of Sverdlovsk) in Western Siberia to develop the business program in those universities. In the process, the differences and similarities of American and Russian education programs are being discovered. Certainly, each approach has various advantages and disadvantages. This article describes the educational environment and programs in the developing Russian business colleges, and identifies relative differences and similarities with American programs. These materials resulted from teaching operations management programs at four major universities in the area and by discussions with a committee of deans of the economic (business) faculties in five Ekaterinburg universities. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN RUSSIA The emergence of the Russian education system from the feudal period is usually attributed to the reign of Peter the Great at the end of the 17th century. Peter the Great was instrumental in establishing throughout Russia a system of professional schools and universities based on the European model of independent faculties. As the system developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, there was little change in its basic structure, except that programs were gradually modernized and elaborated as new fields of knowledge were developed. During the Soviet period, there were "political- correctness"-type guidelines and constraints on courses, such as artificial intelligence and genetics; but, otherwise, the basic structure of Russian education was not changed. Through 1990, roughly 50 major universities were organized, most of which had reputations for quality work in several specific and sometimes narrowly defined disciplines. These major universities were supplemented by roughly 500 institutes which taught a variety of more professional and applied skills. The program structure of these universities and institutes was rather inflexible, and often, as the need for a new discipline became apparent, a new university or institute would be founded to champion that discipline. Since 1990, many of the institutes have been redesignated as universities or academies. For example, Ekaterinburg has a Classical University, an Economical University, a Medical University, an Architecture University, a Technical University, a Vocational University, and a Pedagogic (teaching) University, among some 15 major universities. Additionally, there are several academies (the Mining Academy, the Military Academy, and the Forest Industries Academy) and numerous private universities. As might be expected, some of the newer private universities have had difficulty gaining acceptance, and what we would call accreditation, for their programs. These universities serve roughly 100,000 students, many of whom come to Ekaterinburg schools from other communities in the Urals region because there is no system of two-year schools in the smaller communities. THE RUSSIAN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION SYSTEM AND THE BUSINESS COLLEGE University Organization The typical university has a university president and several vice presidents who are responsible for such areas as academic affairs, administration, research and student affairs. The formal structure is very similar to that of an American university. (As in many American universities, the academic vice president is one of the more powerful vice presidents.) However, the universities don't have colleges, per se, but are administered through faculties (which accomplish the functions of both colleges and departments) in various academic disciplines. The economics faculty, following the European tradition, is responsible for teaching business subjects and typically has between 6 and 20 members. Teachers include "part-timers" and full-timers with a "magesteriat" (masters degree) and "candidates" (a status that roughly corresponds to the American ABD), as well as Ph.D. qualified individuals. The more highly regarded programs have a greater concentration of Ph.D.-qualified and full-time teachers. The Organization of the Business Program The five-year program of study is organized into two semesters per year, fall and spring, each of which has 20 weeks. There are no regular summer programs because students are required to do non-academic "pioneer" (practical) activities during the summer. The first 18 weeks of the semester consists of the "reading" of lectures, followed by a two-week examination period. The fall semester generally starts on the first of September and ends on about January 20th, and the spring semester begins on roughly February 10th, and runs through June. During the 18-week reading period, classes meet one, two or three times per week for 80-minute sessions. Student group size varies from about 10 students to 30, but the majority of groups have 25 students. Each student decides on an area of academic emphasis at about age 17 (after 11 years of obligatory grammar school and high school education). They apply to the desired university and program, and are selected based on their high school record and entrance examinations. The entrance examination is a grueling eight-hour written test in mathematics and literature, and one additional hour of oral examination for topics such as history, foreign languages, and economics. Tutoring is regularly used to upgrade skills in key subjects. University teachers often supplement their income through such tutoring, without concern for the potential conflict of interest. If accepted by the university and program, the student then follows a rather rigid structure of courses for the five-year program. Table 1 shows the key courses of the 32-hour per week, five-year business and economics program. During the first two years, this program generally corresponds to the American "General Education" program of arts, behavioral and applied sciences, and other broadening courses. However, there are several significant differences in program management. The courses are all taught by teachers of the economics faculty. These teachers may be specialists in the various fields, but there are few attempts to have students take courses in other faculties of the university. In fact, rivalries among faculties for students and program support would preclude such an approach in most universities. Additionally, from the first year, students proceed through the program in cohorts. Socialization among the students is strongly encouraged, to the point that many lifelong friendships and mutual support structures are developed. Students are encouraged to study, eat, and party together; virtually all aspects of student life are associated with the cohort, which becomes a microcosm for friendship and team-building activities. Up to ten courses (often the more tangential) of the roughly 60 courses in a five-year program are taken on a pass-fail basis. Students attend 32 hours of class per week, including Saturdays, and are expected to spend the same amount of time outside of class preparing their lessons. A term widely used here is ``to read" a course, or literally to read from lecture notes that were prepared when the instructor took the course. Course textbooks are irregularly required, though they may be available to students in the libraries or resource centers. Generally, Russian text materials are highly theoretic in approach and, though often heavily referenced, are without diagrams or figures. Instructors are often the only persons who have texts, and they may supplement notes from prior courses with materials from texts of colleagues or mentors. During the 18 weeks of instruction there are few, if any, examinations or quizzes. Students write notes in standardized student notebooks, one book per semester or per year. These books are also filled with pictures of friends, remembrances of holiday trips and so forth. During the instruction period, students are graded on verbal presentations of generally rote or memorized materials in front of the class. During the examination period at the end of each semester, students are usually asked to prepare responses to 50 questions. The instructor then prepares 25 tickets, each of which contain two of the 50 questions. On examination day, the students enter the classroom in small groups and select a ticket, or sometimes two. They then use available materials to prepare their answer to their questions for about one-half hour, after which they verbally give their responses to the teacher or present their solutions on a blackboard. Based on this performance, the instructor assigns a grade of "excellent," "good," "satisfactory," and "unsatisfactory." This grading process results in what many instructors have acknowledged is a rather subjective evaluation process. During the fifth year, the student may either write a thesis or prepare for a qualifying examination. The qualifying examination lasts one hour, though it may involve 100 questions and two teachers. Students are given the same grades as at the end of the semester, though "unsatisfactory" grades are rarely given. Because of the closeness of the student cohorts, the conduct of a quiz or examination during a class is difficult. Discussion of the answer to any exam or quiz among student groups is to be expected, even after instructions prohibiting such behaviors. Though the examination is individually graded, students are sufficiently socialized that they want to help one another. Thus, behavior that an American teacher would consider to be cheating is widespread and accepted as appropriate teamwork. Costs There is no tuition or activity fee for most Russian students, particularly if they score reasonably well on the college entrance examinations. The number of free students is specified nationally and prorated among the universities and then among programs (presently about 90 percent of students in one university receive stipends). Other students may attend at a yearly cost that varies from 1.5 to 15 million rubles (US$500 - $5000 in Fall, 1994). Free students receive a stipend from the national government which five years ago was roughly equivalent to the average laborer's monthly salary, but presently is roughly one-eighth of that amount. The continuation of the stipend and the size of the stipend is based on academic performance, or the (sometimes very subjective) grade that is given to the student at the end of the semester. The concept of grade-point average is not used here. Thus, unless the student has family support, which is currently quite rare, they must work to support themselves. In practice, many students miss class because they must work and the class scheduling is rather inflexible. Instructor Qualifications The primary source of university teachers is from undergraduate and graduate programs. Highly qualified undergraduate students are encouraged to stay at the university and teach undergraduate courses. During the first several years, they may take courses toward the magesteriat, roughly a masters degree. After the magesteriat, the best students are encouraged to prepare and defend a roughly 200-page thesis, which results in recognition of the student as a candidate. Candidates are assisted to publish articles in regional and national media and to prepare their dissertation, which, if successfully defended, results in the award of the doctorate. This entire process, from the end of the undergraduate to the completion of the doctorate may take between six and ten years, involves extensive teaching responsibilities, and relatively little formal course work. Evaluation is extremely subjective, and based on regular, often daily, assessment by the local academic hierarchy. Teachers are generally promoted and paid based on their level of academic qualification. The ranks are assistant, senior instructor, lecturer, and professor. Since 1991, inflation has reduced the teachers' salary significantly. A professor currently makes about R500,000 per month (in Spring 1995, about US$100). Many faculty members have second or third jobs either as teachers or in industry. Currently, because of the low salaries, few students want to become teachers; for example, supervisors of small businesses make roughly four times the salary of a senior professor, and business executives and bankers may make upwards of ten times the professor's salary. Faculty are expected to teach three courses per semester, do not maintain office hours, and have few service responsibilities. Faculty social life revolves around department meetings, regional meetings for senior faculty and deans, and national meetings of senior administrators. There is generally little interaction of faculty outside of a rather tight group of colleagues. Thus, the injection of new ideas continues to be difficult, particularly in a formerly closed city like Ekaterinburg. THE STRENGTHS OF THE RUSSIAN BUSINESS EDUCATION SYSTEM In summary, the major differences between the Russian and American business programs are the structure of the five-year program and the semester, the cohort organization, the student payment structure, the student evaluation process, and faculty career progression. A simplistic comparison of these characteristics with an American academic program might result in the conclusion that the Russian educational structure and business programs are not as effective. Such a conclusion ignores many of the strong characteristics of the Russian business educational approach. Clearly, the Russian business program is not a meritocracy. Evaluation is often based on subtle and more subjective methods. However, it is unfair, without extensive and careful analysis, to conclude that the outcomes of this evaluation are different than other methods of evaluation. American academicians have argued the relative merits of the "objective" versus essay exam formats, or the outcomes of using computers as teaching tools. In general, the better students will be identified whatever the system of evaluation. The lack of a centralized general education program results in extensive redundancy of these generalized instructors among different faculties. It could be argued that, because these instructors are not working in their specialty, the courses are not of the same quality as American general education courses. Alternatively, the Russian program structure permits the instructor of each faculty to bring to the course relevant material from the particular general education topic. Further, there currently is a surplus of teachers in many fields, even though the average class size is small and many teachers have reduced programs and work outside their universities. However, because class sizes are small, a high-quality learning environment is available for those who are able to take advantage of it. Additionally, the national employment policy protects many teaching jobs by preventing indiscriminate layoffs and dismissals. Such approaches prevent, at least in the short run, the more serious economic consequences of unemployment. The cohort system of education makes scheduling relatively easy, yet it is very inflexible for students who want to work part-time. Further, it encourages both life-long friendships and a "cooperate and graduate" strategy among students. Yet, perhaps more fairly, this approach reflects the social integration models which are an important part of Russian culture and which were well established before the Soviet period. Today, the Russian business college is experiencing tremendous pressures and turbulence. Movements for academic reform may be as strong as those experienced during the times of Peter the Great. Traditional methods and processes are being challenged by students and faculties, often using the rationale of costs and benefits, both at the individual and society levels. Older and more conservative teachers tend to want slower change; while younger and more liberal teachers want more rapid change. This dialog will be a slow and considered process; it will involve much trial and experimentation. Yet, it is encouraging to note that the openness of this process and that it has started. TABLE 1: Key courses in the business and economics program. (Note, in the transation process, every effort has been made to identify an American course equivalent, though the course content varies significantly from the American course.)
Peter W. Stonebraker is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at Northeastern Illinois University. He earned his doctorate in 1981 at Arizona State University and has served on the faculties of Boston University and DePaul University. He is the author of four books, including Operations Strategy: Focusing Competitive Excellence (with Keong Leong of Ohio State University) and over fifty journal articles. He was the winner of the Decision Sciences Institute's Innovative Instructional Award in 1989. Alexander Arcentovich Lobut is the Dean of the Economics Faculty of Urals State Pedagogic University in Ekaterinburg, Russia. He holds the degree of Candidate of Science in Economics, and has punctuated a thirty-year teaching career with progressive committee and professional assignments at regional and national levels of the Soviet and Russian academic organization. Professor Lobut is the author of over 35 articles and professional presentations. Sergei Nicholaevich Polbitsyn is the Associate Dean of the Economics Faculty of Urals State Pedagogic University in Ekaterinburg, Russia. He holds the degree of Candidate of Science in Economics, and has published numerous articles, research papers, and theses. Prior to becoming an educator, he served for ten years in industrial and commercial positions as the Director of the State Committee for Forest Industries, and as the Marketing Director for several state and private firms. *The authors would like to express their appreciation for support in this project from the United States Information Service, the Soros Foundation, Northeastern Illinois University, Urals State Pedagogic University, and Urals State Vocational Pedagogical University.
Dr. G. Keong Leong
|