Evgeny Nikolaevich Ivakhnko(born June 5, 1958, Kamyshin, Volgograd region) - Russian philosopher, specialist in the field of social epistemology, systems theory of communication, philosophy of education and modernization of the modern university.

Rector of the Russian State Humanitarian University (since 2016), Head of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State Humanitarian University, Doctor philosophical sciences(2000), professor (2002).

Biography

In 1965-1975 he studied at high school No. 8 Kamyshin.

In 1979 he graduated from the Kamyshin Higher Military Construction command school(with a gold medal) with a degree in power engineering.

From 1979 to 1987 he served in various positions in KVVSKU. Since 1987, he served as deputy commander of a military unit at the construction of the Baikonur cosmodrome. In December 1989 he retired from Armed Forces USSR with the rank of major.

In 1988 he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Philosophy of the Kyiv state university. Specialty: philosopher, teacher of philosophy.

From 1990 to 2003 he worked at the Kabardino-Balkarian State University in the positions of laboratory assistant, assistant, senior lecturer, associate professor, professor of the philosophy department.

In 1991, after completing his postgraduate studies at Kiev State University, he defended his Ph.D. thesis “The Idea of ​​Eternal Peace in the Western European Philosophy of Modern Times. XVII-XVIII centuries. specialty: 09.00.03 - history of philosophy. In 1999, at the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen (St. Petersburg) defended his doctoral dissertation “The main confrontations of Russian religious-philosophical and political movements. XI-XX centuries.» specialty: 09.00.03 - history of philosophy. In 2002 he was awarded the title of Professor in the Department of Philosophy.

Since 2003 - Professor of the Department contemporary problems philosophy, since 2005 Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Russian State University for the Humanities. Since 2005 - head of master's programs at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State Humanitarian University, including the international Russian-French master's program "Historical, philosophical and social studies" (double diploma: Russian State University for the Humanities - Paris 4 (Sorbonne); Russian State University for the Humanities - Paris 8 (Saint-Denis)) .

From 2007 to 2016 - Head of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State University for the Humanities. At the same time, from 2007 to 2009, he was the head of the Department of Master's Programs at the Russian State University for the Humanities.

From 2012 to 2016 - part-time chief researcher at the Center for Education Development Strategy and Organizational and Methodological Support for Programs of the Federal Institute for Education Development (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation).

Since 2016 - Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities (elected by secret ballot on February 15, 2016).

Scientific activity

Problem Specialist higher education in Russia, social communications, philosophy of education and modernization of the modern university. The main scientific results are related to the study of the problems of the history of philosophy, epistemological problems information theories, social philosophy (social complexity, N. Luhmann's systemic theory of communication, "post-social research").

Head of the scientific and pedagogical school "Autopoiesis of communication: the problem of minimizing social risks" at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State University for the Humanities.

He is a member of the editorial boards of the journals "Higher Education in Russia", "Information Society", "RSUH Bulletin" (Series "Philosophy. Sociology"), "Actual Issues modern natural science. Interregional collection of scientific papers.

Works as part of two dissertation councils for the defense of doctoral dissertations: D 212.198.05 (philosophical sciences), D 212.198.10 (sociology).

Main works

• Russia on the "thresholds": ideological confrontations and "thresholds" in the currents of Russian religious-philosophical and political thought (XI - early XX century): Historical and philosophical study. (Monograph). St. Petersburg: Russian State Pedagogical University im. A. I. Herzen, 1999. - 297 p. ISBN 5-8064-0140-5
• Communicative rationality and social communications [Text]: [collective monograph] / ed. I. T. Kasavin, V. N. Porus]; Federal State state-financed organization science Institute of Philosophy of the Russian acad. Sciences. - Moscow: Alfa-M, 2012. - 462 p. ISBN 978-5-98281-311-4
• Russian University in the Face of Forced Epistemes of Neo-Globalism // Higher Education in Russia. No. 2. P.122-129. ISSN 0869-3617
• The Idea of ​​a University: Challenges of the Modern Era (Round Table) // Higher Education in Russia. 2012. No. 7. S. 35-64. ISSN 0869-3617
• Problems of building master's programs in a modern Russian university // Alma mater (Bulletin of Higher School). 2009. No. 1. S. 5-9. ISSN 0321-0383
• Faculty of Philosophy in the Conditions of the Onset of Academic Capitalism // Higher Education in Russia. 2013. No. 2. S. 62-73. ISSN 0869-3617
• Transdisciplinarity in action // Philosophical sciences. 2015. No. 12. P. 134-135. ISSN 0235-1188
• Innovations of higher education in the optics of instrumental and communicative installations // Higher education in Russia. 2011. No. 10. S. 39-46. ISSN 0869-3617
• Autopoiesis of Information Objects // Information Society. 2009. No. 1. S. 23-31. ISSN 1605-9921
• Science and Religion in the Russian Enlightenment: From Collision and Conflict to Compromise and Interaction // Value Discourse in Sciences and Theology. M.: IF RAN, 2009. S.300-320. ISBN 978-5-9540-0137-2
• "Asymmetry", "Tao of Physics" (F. Capra), "Philosophical foundations of physics. Introduction to the Philosophy of Science” (R. Carnap), “The Logic of Cultural Sciences” (E. Cassirer)// Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. - M.: Canon +, 2009. ISBN 978-5-88373-089-3
• Changing strategies for comprehending the complex: from metaphysics and goal-oriented rationality to communicative contingency // Izvestia of the SmolGU. 2011, No. 4. S.354-366. ISSN 2072-9464
• Sociology meets with complexity // Bulletin of the Russian State University for the Humanities. - 2013. - No. 11: Series "Philosophical Sciences: Religious Studies". - S. 90-101. ISSN 1998-6769
• A Threshold-Dominant Model of the Imperial and Colonial Discourses of // The Quarterly. Summer 2006. Volume 105. Number 3. Duke University Press. P.595-616.

Awards

• Medal "For Impeccable Service" (Medal III degree for 10 years of impeccable service)
• Department of Defense Medal Russian Federation"Army General Komarovsky"
• Jubilee medal "70 years of the Armed Forces of the USSR"
• Insignia of officers of military formations of construction and quartering of troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

Volgograd region, USSR) - Russian philosopher, specialist in the field of social epistemology, systemic theory of communication, philosophy of education and modernization of the modern university.

Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Humanitarian Faculties of Moscow State University, Doctor of Philosophy (2000). Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities (2016-2017).

In 1979 he graduated from the Kamyshin Higher Military Construction Command School (with a gold medal) with a degree in power engineering and continued to serve in various positions there. Since 1987, he served as deputy commander of a military unit at the construction of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. In December 1989, he retired from the Armed Forces of the USSR with the rank of major.

In 1988 he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Philosophy of the Kyiv State University. Specialty: philosopher, teacher of philosophy.

From 2012 to 2016 - part-time chief researcher at the Center for Education Development Strategy and Organizational and Methodological Support of Programs (Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation).

Since 2018 - Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Humanities Faculties of Moscow State University.

Since 2016 - rector (elected by secret ballot on February 15, 2016). By the time Ivakhnenko arrived, the university was in a difficult financial situation: a “hole” of 238 million rubles had formed in the budget of the Russian State University for the Humanities, in connection with which the reduction in the number of teaching staff began. On September 16, 2016, 12 employees quit en masse from the Institute of Psychology due to the plans of the new rector of the university, Ivakhnenko, to optimize the staff and increase the load on teachers. The practice of introducing annual contracts with teachers has spread in the university, and the load on the teaching staff has reached 900 hours per year (and 600 hours of extracurricular work) . In an interview with the publication, Ivakhnenko replied: “900 hours is a very big load, we plan to reduce it as our financial situation improves.”

In 2016, work was carried out to streamline financial and economic activities in accordance with the standards of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. According to the results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities, conducted by the Ministry of Education and Science in 2017, the university has overcome the monitoring threshold in terms of key performance indicators.

At the meeting of the Conference of workers and students of the RSUH, which took place on December 15, 2016, the university's strategic development program for 2017-2020 was approved. .

Under Ivakhnenko, the work of the commission on anti-plagiarism was initiated, at which, under his chairmanship, the facts of incorrect borrowing in dissertations of RSUH employees were considered. The work of the commission was suspended by the decision of the Academic Council of the University

Education is not a testing ground for our imagination at all. This sphere of activity includes the principle of reality, which does not allow it to be arbitrarily and freely rebuilt as quickly as the most ardent reformer minds would like. Just remember how sincerely the revolutionaries-raznochintsy tried to "make happy" Russia. If their plans had come true immediately, only ashes would have remained from Russia.

Interview with Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Social Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State Humanitarian University, Head of the Master's Program "Social Philosophy" Yevgeny Nikolayevich Ivakhnenko.

– Evgeny Nikolaevich, in an interview that you gave to the Voice of Russia radio in March 2010 together with your colleague Klaus Vashik, manager of the Seminar of Slavic Studies at the Institute of Russian Culture. Yu.M. Lotman of the Ruhr University (Bochum), head of the master's program "Russian Culture", you expressed an extremely important idea: "We should not imagine what comes to us new technology, and our education system is something like building blocks with which you can build anything.” You also said that there are certain traditions and scientific schools that need to be protected. Do you have the feeling that the reforms carried out in Russian education sometimes violate the well-known principle of “do no harm!”?

– Partly it is. But first things first. First of all, what do we call Russian schools in the system of Russian education? Scientific schools, as we know them today, are the product of Russian science XX century. graduate School(university education) was in many ways a continuation of the pre-revolutionary school, which in the 20-30s. was tailored to the specific conditions and tasks of the Soviet era. Naturally, in relation to such a mechanism of mutual adjustment of science and higher education, the strategy of "saving" or "slowing down" is unlikely to be justified in any way. The situation has changed, and it is irreversible. I am sure that all strategies based on the preservation of the same challenge and the same response will fail. And the challenges are not the same, and the answers should be different. The second part of the answer is focused on understanding scientific schools as specific teams of scientists, researchers with their scientific discussions, traditions, and values ​​that have developed over decades. Take, for example, a mathematical school, an engineering school, or a domestic philological school. Here the principle of "do no harm" (read - "do not lose") is extremely relevant. Changes must not be allowed to destroy such collectives. Together with them, for a long time, if not forever, the very content (content - in the sense of filling, that is, what fills the form) of the creative atmosphere that existed and exists within the framework of these schools disappears. There are also several schools at RSUH that deserve such careful treatment.

– And what needs to be done to ensure that this content of the “creative atmosphere” is not destroyed?

- First of all, we need to abandon the term "destruction" and everything that follows it. After all, after the destruction, ruins remain - and for a long time. Let's try to use a more precise set of words - inventory, reconstruction, or, for example, fine-tuning a new model of university education. I think that such powerful schools that we talked about have their own protective power. Building a new model is a painful and traumatic process in many respects. But it does not necessarily include the "ruinization" of all former forms. With regard to our case, the factor of interaction, live communication of scientists, heads of scientific schools, heads of universities, departments, departments, etc. will play (and actually plays) an important role. In a word, in this case, everything is determined, on the one hand, by the agreements of the direct participants in the process, and on the other hand, by how wide the scope of the very possibility of reaching an agreement. There is no definitive instruction outlining the entire trajectory of the development of education in Russia, at least for a decade ahead. Karl Popper once said on a similar occasion: The world is not ruled by a government of laws, but by a government of people". At the same time, he was not at all an opponent of laws, it’s just that laws are written by people and they are executed by them, as well as ignored.

I insist that one should not rely entirely on the quality of a regulatory document, for example, the State educational standard; as, however, it is a mistake to believe that obedient adherence to the "correct document" guarantees success. Anyone who builds the educational process in its place, along with the need to comply with the regulations of the document, always needs to feel for the “walls of reality” - the framework of the real conditions set by this document. Within this framework, one should place mine, certainly your own set of thoughtful actions. If you look into it, you can be sure that in fact the Bologna process and the changes that are taking place in European education, give us enough authority to implement our initiative. However, this process shifts to us a share of responsibility equal to the authorized one. Such an understanding does not come immediately. But it is very important.

– Evgeniy Nikolaevich, did Russia have an alternative – not to switch to a two-level education system? Or was there no such alternative?

"I believe we've been made an offer we couldn't refuse." The decision to “bolonize” (I use this word without negative connotations) was made not by the participants, teachers and universities, but, as they say, from above, according to the established Russian scheme. There was no congress or leading meeting at which a consolidated decision on such an important issue would be worked out. The decision was made mainly for geopolitical reasons, but this does not make it “erroneous” or “incorrect”. This is a strategic decision and, in my opinion, the only right one under the circumstances. It is connected with the entry of our country into the European space - political, humanitarian and, of course, educational. IN general view it, on our part, cannot be otherwise. However, the fact that the decision was not motivated by the consolidated opinion of the teaching community, did not mature in such a form, as they say, “in the heads” of the majority of practitioners in education - all this creates difficulties and problems of the transition period.

Alternatives decision was not, and is not now. It is extremely naive, unpromising and wasteful to take on the creation of some special competitive European educational space. We need to build our own competitiveness not outside, but inside the global educational space. It's easy to create your own criteria and meet them the same way. It is much more difficult to meet the criteria, "sharpened" for a system that has yet to be entered. In this circumstance, if you like, the main difficulty of the entry of Russian higher education into the European educational space.

The following analogy is appropriate here: we are invited to play football in another league, where there are many great players. So, we do not yet have the opportunity to enter this league as leaders. And the rules there are somewhat different, and the teamwork of the teams is excellent and the evaluation criteria (ratings) are not in our favor, in a word, nothing portends us with quick victories. What to do? Accept the invitation or not, with all the ensuing consequences? So, returning to our university situation, we have been given the opportunity to sort out the rules and norms, adjust to the dynamics and techniques of educational innovations that have already established themselves there. Then everything depends on us. We have the right to stipulate some of our own conditions aimed at preserving the strengths of our university education. Thus, the task, as I understand it, is to achieve, as vigorously as possible and to our advantage over time, a leading position, at least for the first time, on individual points.

- What are the advantages and disadvantages of a bachelor's degree to a specialist?

- I believe that we will not find absolutely independent criteria for the advantages and disadvantages of the two education systems. The question of the advantages of this or that system cannot be separated from the questions: “What does this system correspond to?”, “What challenges is it designed to meet?”. There is no timeless ideal structure of education, from which any other is further or closer.

Simplifying the situation somewhat, we can say that the specialty (5-year education) was more in line with the priorities of the industrial society, the two-level education was more in line with the post-industrial one. In the mid 60s. the period of "half-life" (doubling) of the necessary information was about twenty years. In our country, the situation was aggravated by the fact that the pace of innovation at that time began to slow down, while in the West they only took a “low start”, after which they began to accelerate. For example, at the Gorky Automobile Plant, GAZ-24 was assembled for thirty years, or even more. Graduates of specialized universities came to production, being "staffed" with knowledge about this models. But imagine a situation where the model is completely updated in two or three years. The process of training specialists in these conditions, firstly, should be much more dynamic, and, secondly, it should involve a completely different type of mobility, which significantly changes the very content (the content mentioned) of all education. The former, albeit a thorough knowledge of something alone, is no longer enough. That is, the training of specialists should be redirected.

Therefore, the criterion by which we distinguish the merits of a bachelor's degree in relation to a specialist's degree should probably be formed, including taking into account the above considerations. It is important to understand that two-level education fits better into a permanently changing social demand. Here I would add that the bachelor-master system gives the educational process several dimensions of mobility: horizontally, vertically, inside the educational institution and outside. Ultimately, it empowers the graduate himself in this changing space of proposals and challenges.

Thus, "bachelor's degree" and "specialist" are two different entities. They cannot be put in a single row with respect to a single criterion. The two-tier system allows institutional adjustment. In the specialty, this possibility is very limited and is most often implemented in the form of additional courses or special courses. However, this process is extremely inertial. Go to another set of courses (namely a set) within the framework of practiced in Russian universities curricula is very difficult, even in the presence of a consolidated aspiration of teachers of faculties and departments. Adjusting education to the dynamically changing requirements of life, if it works, is extremely inefficient.

From what has been said, by the way, it follows that there is no prospect of building a two-level education according to the templates of a specialty. Need to understand that two-level education – other education. Main problem - How to build an educational process so that at the exit a graduate of a Russian university would be able to compete with a graduate of a European university. I will add - according to the criteria of the European educational space. There are many unresolved problems along this path: both intrauniversity and problems that come from the inconsistency of the Ministry of Education, and from the lack of a consolidated opinion on this issue in our society as a whole.

– At what stage is the process of transition to two-level education today?

- If we talk about the current state of affairs in this matter in the country as a whole, then it is necessary to rely on the national report of the Russian Federation for 2009, which is presented every two years at a meeting of the Ministers of Education of the countries participating in the Bologna Process (BP). The last meeting took place in Leuven (2009). We entered the BP in 2003 and became the thirty-fourth participating country. By 2009, 46 countries had already entered the BP. So, comparing the information from the national report of the Russian Federation with the information from the national reports of other participating countries on ten main positions, Russia lags (with the exception of three positions) from the average. Specifically, in terms of the implementation of the two-tier system, Russia received the lowest score out of 46 countries.

Thus, in total in 2007 more than 92% of students of Russian universities studied for a specialist degree, more than 7% for a bachelor's degree, and 0.5% for a master's degree. The data for 2010 is not much higher, but already in 2011, according to the law on two-level education, the vast majority of universities will switch to a two-level training system. This rapid transition will be the most difficult, if not critical, moment in higher education reform. By itself, the transition does not automatically guarantee the change of content in the required direction of efficiency and portability. What matters is How go and What eventually get. It is this aspect that I would most like to highlight in our conversation using the example of our university.

I will try to support my idea by referring to the problem of implementation in Russian universities European Credit Transfer System (ECTS - European Credit Transfer System). Why is ECTS so difficult to integrate? First of all, difficulties arise where the transition to a two-level training of specialists is carried out, as we said, “according to the patterns of a specialist”, without revising the very essence of the educational strategy. For educational programs built in this way, the system of credits seems to be redundant. It begins to work where and when the organizers and performers create in practice an educational program that is aimed at realizing the basic advantages of two-level education. Among them, for example, providing an "individual educational trajectory" for student learning within the university and beyond. We are talking about providing students with a real opportunity to choose the appropriate learning path: choose modules, combinations training courses(some of which can be “taken” at another university, in Russia or in European countries) in accordance with one’s abilities, interests, including focusing on the employer’s request. The rule is simple: you cannot destroy the unified European model of accumulating and transferring loans, as this will not allow the very idea of ​​switching to a two-level education to be realized. Thus, the quality of the construction of the system of credits depends on how the subsequent chain of innovations will be built (and whether it will be at all): the international cooperation(student exchange), etc. If at least one link is knocked out of the technological chain, then other tools of the most important adjustments (I spoke about some of them at the beginning of our conversation) will remain unattainable, and, most likely, unclaimed and even misunderstood.

All these positions are very important, but they cannot be fully implemented without the full implementation of another link - a credit-modular system of education and assessment of its quality. In the meantime, our universities are dominated by a cyclic system of education, which fits well only with a 5-year specialist, but not at all in the bachelor's-master's system. There is every reason to fear that the construction of curricula according to the cyclical principle will continue in the conditions of a massive transition (2011) to education in the bachelor's-master's system. Why the construction of credit-modular education is so important, I tried to show in my article in the Bulletin of the Higher School “Alma mater” 2009, No. 1.

We are simply stuck "in the middle of the ford" when delay is already becoming dangerous. In fact, our higher education in its relation to BP is in a very difficult position. The European educational process is moving further and further away from us. We, in our actions from top to bottom, remain unsystematic and inconsistent.

- A question for you as the head of the department. Tell me, has the number of hours, staff units decreased due to the transition to a two-level education system? After all, the transition from a five-year education to a four-year one is a complex process. How does the Russian State University for the Humanities, your department, our education system as a whole cope with this?

- A difficult question that requires a detailed answer. Briefly, you can answer this: the number of staff units is about the same. But this fact is more alarming than encouraging, and here's why. The fact is that the education reform involves a financial infusion, as happened, for example, in the former GDR after unification. Moreover, this infusion should be felt where the educational process is directly carried out, in universities. Of course, we are not talking about an automatic increase in the salaries of teachers, but about financial instruments that allow stimulating and directing the process towards the set goals. When we state that the stakes have been preserved, this statement does not say anything about the direction of the development of the process. The extensive model changes to an intensive one, which is a kind of common definition the situation. Therefore, the number of hours spent in the classroom is not, strictly speaking, already a criterion of quality. After all, pay attention to how the criterion itself is changing: if earlier knowledge was the basis for assessing the quality of specialist training, now it is competence. Replacing one word with another, of course, will not change anything. However, each of the named words-concepts has its own trail of meanings: knowledge, in our case - the student's ability to more or less fully express the set of information that the teacher gave him or he himself gleaned from books, and then presented on the exam. Competence- this is the integrative quality of a graduate, which is expressed in the ability to act effectively, to solve a certain set of professional tasks of varying complexity in standard and non-standard situations. Here, as they say, feel the difference. The word “competence” already needs to be protected from unauthorized use. As it turned out, it is easy to “roll up” it under worn-out meanings, “blur it out”.

Let me give you another example from studying at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Russian State University for the Humanities. We have a course in the history of philosophy, which was taught in the specialty. Under the undergraduate program, the number of hours for this course, albeit slightly, has decreased. But bachelor's degree graduates of other specialties can enter the master's program, where there might not have been a course in the history of philosophy at all. What to do in such a situation? After all, we say that the advantage of a two-level system is in mobility, in the ability to reorient in the profession when moving from the first level to the second in accordance with the demands of life itself and the abilities of the student. It turns out that a master of philosophy, under certain given circumstances, is a priori inferior in knowledge of the history of philosophy to a graduate of a specialty or even a bachelor's degree. Everything will be so, if you do not include the mechanisms that the system of two-level education provides. First of all, upon admission to the magistracy of the Faculty of Philosophy, it is necessary to present knowledge in the history of philosophy at the level of a bachelor of philosophy. And how you got them, whether you studied on your own or listened to lectures - this is your business. It is precisely here that the "Bologna" recognition of non-formal and informal education, little known to the university community, works. .

But there is another side to the problem. Of course, we are faced with some paradoxes, and I will even reinforce some of your doubts. The approximate workload in the master's program is from 14 to 18 hours per week for various master's educational programs. Undergraduate - 29-34 hours. Hence, the classroom load of teachers working in the magistracy is less than the load of teachers in the bachelor's degree, and even more so in the specialty. It turns out that for more high level education can save money? This is how “savings” are sometimes imagined by those who have been planning the workload for a specialist for decades: after all, the number of hours that are read in the classroom in a master’s program is less than in a bachelor’s degree. Everything will be the same if you do not diversify research work in the magistracy. This is where you need to look.

Pay attention to how the content of the educational process changes in the magistracy, how the interaction between the undergraduate and the teacher itself changes. The teacher trads his professional "I" not only at lectures and seminars, but, to a large extent, in the course of individual research work, at weekly consultations, discussions of texts, or, for example, during the analytical analysis of reviews written by the undergraduate himself etc. The status of counseling within the framework of the two-level system of education is significantly increasing. This is not just a consultation before an exam in the usual sense of the word, but something similar to an appointment with a therapist - weekly regular consultations by teachers of the entire faculty of undergraduates on the widest range of issues: from help in mastering difficult questions of the topic to writing articles and dissertations. Here is born what Michael Polanyi called baton of tacit knowledge("non-articulated intellect"). It is in such a crucible that competencies are “smelted” in the form of the ability to solve complex professional problems.

There is another point - a master student works quite a lot on his own. How was this understood in the framework of the former education system? He goes to the library, reads books, articles... But whether he does it or not, we don't really know. This is how the issue of independent work is solved in German universities, with which the Russian State Humanitarian University has created joint master's programs (Bochum, Konstanz, Freiburg, etc.). Here, each teacher offers his own electronic dynamic course, which, believe me, is not so easy to pass. Such courses make it possible to record the share of participation and the success of mastering the subject by each undergraduate. In order for e-courses to work with us, our teachers must create them. What does it mean? In order to create a high-quality electronic product, a teacher, in addition to the hours that he spends in the classroom, needs to find a significant amount of time. A good course can be created in about six months, however, it is still necessary to find funds for this. The former form of load accounting does not take into account this process, and therefore does not stimulate its development. The conclusion follows from this: it is necessary to rebuild the departments and administrations within the university in accordance with the new standards. And there are really big difficulties here.

– Is the role of distance learning growing in the two-tier system?

– I would not call an e-course distance learning. Distance learning- this is a certain setting of the university for a specific consumer of educational services. It is rather a service of the same educational process, but by different means. It is about filling the content of what is called independent work student. An electronic course is not similar to a textbook, although it contains explanations, it is still closer to a problem book with a set of methodically thought-out professional puzzle tasks. The teacher, offering his services, also demonstrates his set of e-learning courses. Now his professionalism is evaluated not only by what articles he wrote or what book he published (although this is also important), but also by the educational and methodological support that he applies to this discipline.

Under the new conditions, the system of assessing the quality of both the work of the teacher and the result of the undergraduate's education should change. For example, in the magistracy of the Faculty of Philosophy of the RSUH, intermediate control is practiced in the form of writing an essay, a short review, and an analytical note. It is important for us to include the undergraduate in the communicative field of the research team, to help him get used to the team of professionals. Here it is important to reproduce the components of intellectual communication - this is participation in discussions at round tables, a test of strength as a moderator, speaking at conferences, discussing publications, etc. It is these forms of organization of the educational process that are adjusted precisely to competencies, and not to an epic presentation of knowledge. It is they who change the content of education, make it modern.

– One of the “sick issues” of interest to society is the law on paid education. Do you think the bill on paid education will affect universities? How do you personally evaluate this initiative?

- Firstly, in this matter, I do not pretend to give a more competent answer than others do. It is important to defend one principle: there should always be a choice for young people. I believe that such an attitude is heard somewhere in the corridors of ministries, in the Duma, in Public Chamber. This is the first position. And secondly, it is necessary to look for such forms that would reduce the corruption component. It can be stated, for example, that the USE does not eliminate the corruption component, but still, from my point of view, it reduces it, at least in the university segment.

- Your words sound relevant. Recall that in the spring the press widely discussed the scandal around the Moscow State University teacher Polina Surina, who was caught red-handed. Her father was released by order of the rector from his duties as dean.

– I say with all responsibility that the atmosphere at RSUH in this respect healthy. Returning to the issue of paid education, I will note the importance of what I call “fine tuning”. The system of paid education should have a wide range of social regulation tools that level the economic inequality of young people before the opportunity to get an education. For example, public and private education credit systems. Here it is necessary to include mechanisms of interest in specific personnel not only of the state, but also of employers represented by large business structures. We have such a connection - "employer-university" - is practically absent. Just within the framework of the organization of master's education, as the same experience of European countries shows, it can acquire real properties and qualities. Moreover, although the interest of the employer is put at the forefront, it does not dictate “from and to” what the educational process should be like. The educational space has its own laws of professionalism generation, its own internal conjugations. It can be said that corporate universities have not yet announced their capabilities, and the most dynamic part of the educational segment can and should be built with them. I believe that in this matter it is important at each stage to stipulate the conditions for cooperation between financial and industrial structures and educational institutions. These conditions cannot remain the same. Now there is such and such a set of possibilities for regulation, in 10-15 years it will probably become different. Everything depends on the flexibility of public institutions, as well as on the ability of our entire education to respond promptly and adequately to changing challenges.

- A question for you, as a citizen of the Russian Federation. Tell me, could this law “on paid education” be put to a referendum? Was this law passed quickly? After all, there was no wide discussion of this law in the media, which cannot be said, for example, about the law “On Police”, which is widely discussed. The authorities did not explain, did not prepare the society .

In this regard, I would like to make two points. First, if we turn to the history of reformism in Russia, it turns out that not a single reform in our country was prepared and did not begin with a consolidated public opinion. In the 19th century, there could be no consolidation due to the peculiarities of the Russian society of that period. But the fact that in today's transformations, few people are concerned about the consolidated public opinion seems like an obvious problem to me. It is not surprising that even in the university community, including among the teaching staff, there is no proper consolidation on local, seemingly obvious issues, including both the two-level education we are discussing, and paid education, which is extremely painful. Naturally, every parent who thinks about the future of their children experiences anxiety and concern. I understand this as a father.

Second, what does it mean to put an issue to a referendum? In a referendum, you can put a question and get a “yes” or “no” answer. Apparently, this problem cannot yet be solved in this way. If you say “no”, then it is possible to limit some variability in education, which, of course, is necessary. After all, there are non-state universities, in which only paid training, but it does not automatically follow from this that weak specialists are trained in them. There are universities in which paid services constitute, although not the dominant, but a very important part of the educational segment. RSUH is among such universities. I am well aware that many parents have the opportunity to pay for the education of their children so that their children receive education at our university.

Of course, with getting an education, everything is not so simple and there are many problems. But if we move in the direction of reducing the variability in the possibilities of obtaining it, then these problems will be even greater. And yet, any law requires constant adjustment to the changing conditions of life. This is also related to paid education, and to two-level education, and to the Bologna process. In the issue of timely adjustment of legislation to the conditions of life, our ability to maintain in modern world competitiveness.

It should not, apparently, be assumed that there is some kind of only true, equal to itself, true understanding of “how the educational process should be built in Russia”, and we are all with our opinions and considerations further or closer from it. We do not find the truth in this matter, we do not dig it out, but construct it in the course of discussion and agreement with each other. Not the metaphysics of education (including paid education), but its dynamically weighed pragmatics - this is the path to success. What tactics in this situation should be recognized as the most effective? From my point of view, this is a pragmatic step-by-step tactic of meliorism (from the English. melior- better) when any human institutions are not recognized as exhaustively rational, but we can only work to make them more relevant to the situation in specific conditions and consistent with our goals and values. Meliorism tactics can be described as follows: solve the problem in the best way in the situation that has developed at a given time. We should not rely on the fact that a successful and recognized by us "best" solution for a given case will remain the best solution for any other case. The tactics of "permanent adjustments" follows the Anglo-American educational model. It is known that the Bologna process, conceived by European countries, is a reaction to the success of the American system of higher education.

– Tell us about the master's programs of the Russian State University for the Humanities and, in particular, about joint master's programs with European countries.

– For more than 15 years, we have established constant interaction with German partners - until 2007 within the framework of the Institute of European Cultures, and since 2008 - and other international master's programs. This collaboration over time has made it possible to understand much of what How it is necessary to build master's training taking into account, of course, the peculiarities of our higher school. There is nothing to be ashamed of in such discipleship. If you ask what models should be used to build our master's programs, the answer will be: according to the models of international master's programs. This is not about copying, but about what direction to set the development vector and what docking nodes need to be designed.

We have several master's international programs. We cooperate with the University of Konstanz (Germany) in three areas of the international master's program "Eastern European Studies" (cultural studies, history and political science). The master's program "Russian Culture", which is headed by Klaus Wasik, is also being successfully implemented jointly with the Ruhr University (Bochum). Last year, a joint master's program "International Literary Studies (Germany-Russia)" was launched with the University of Freiburg. We cooperate at the master's level with the French School of Charters. It is too early to talk about the fruits of this cooperation. The international master's program "Historical Comparative Studies and Transitology (Russia-Poland)" launched this year seems to be very promising. It is also interesting that the magistracy of the Russian State University for the Humanities has entered into cooperation with the CIS countries. We expect such an expansion of the field of cooperation at the second level of education from the successfully operating master's program "History of Communications in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Space".

Can we already talk about the first results of our cooperation? Thus, an exchange has been established, when undergraduates from German universities study at the Russian State Humanitarian University for a semester, while our students, in turn, study in Bochum, Konstanz or Freiburg. Our teachers can go to Germany to give their lectures within the same master's program, respectively, teachers from partner universities give courses with us. I confess that such an exchange is not yet as widespread as we would like. I will note along the way that without a credit-modular system, offsetting courses and exchanging students is practically impossible.

An important position of cooperation is the mutual recognition of diplomas. According to the Russian Culture program, Russian and German masters receive two diplomas - from the Ruhr University (Bochum) and a diploma from the Russian State University for the Humanities. This is the highest form of cooperation, implying the full trust of the parties. So far, there are not many examples of such mutual trust with European universities in the liberal arts education in Russia. In fact, with this diploma, our graduate can go to Europe and present it to the employer. This is a very significant criterion - the criterion of equality liberal education in Russia and Europe.

We see how all the advantages of two-level education are revealed in international programs. At the same time, we should not forget that we need to learn how to discuss with our partners, not to give up, but to defend, where necessary, the most significant interests of the university and Russian education as a whole. We have the opinion that the German partners with great respect refer to those negotiators who skillfully defend their positions. Then, as the unconditional surrender of positions is perceived as their absence, and therefore inevitably leads to the loss of the European partner's interest in cooperation.

Problems persist in matters of nostrification - mutual recognition of diplomas, scientific degrees of teachers, levels of education, mutual offset of training modules. For example, on a number of issues we have to negotiate with the Ministry of Education, so to speak, exclusively - whether we can give a diploma from the Russian State University for the Humanities to German students or accept bachelor's degree graduates from German universities in our master's programs. What are the objections? They have a bachelor's degree for 3 years, we have four, but they study at school for 12 years. To deal with such issues, clearly defined rules are needed. Or this situation: we invite a professor from a German university to teach a course in our master's program. How should we pay for his services? Again, we can agree "specially for this case", but it is better if we have a document on mutual recognition academic titles and degrees. In general, now in many universities of the country, and especially in Moscow universities, there are such groups of teachers and leaders who know very deeply the weak and strengths our advance into the Bologna system and look, it seems to me, much further than many employees of the ministry. This situation can be easily explained - they, teachers and leaders, directly build the structure of our cooperation, and therefore experience all the difficulties of such a construction. I do not at all assert that some retrogrades have settled in the ministry. No. Understanding the process is determined, among other things, by the degree of involvement in this process.

Let's look at the problem under discussion from another angle. Our international master's programs are developing, their number, of course, is increasing, but at the same time, a list of unresolved issues that are on the agenda is accumulating and, if everything is left as it is, this will inevitably lead to movement in a circle. We need to purposefully, systematically, consistently and much more vigorously integrate into the European educational space. On the other hand, it must be done carefully. Education is not a testing ground for our imagination at all. This sphere of activity includes the principle of reality, which does not allow it to be arbitrarily and freely rebuilt as quickly as the most ardent reformer minds would like. In fact, it often seems bad that reality resists and does not hurry to submit to our so wonderful plans. However, in the principle of resistance to reality, it is necessary to see not only a problem, but also a well-defined good. Let us just remember how sincerely and just as ardently the revolutionaries-raznochintsy in the second half of the 19th century strove to “make happy” Russia. If their plans had come true immediately, only ashes would have remained from Russia. One may recall in this connection the "brother of the donkey" Francis of Assisi. So, his “brother donkey” does not immediately respond to throwing and impulses of the rider. Maybe from 10 times he will turn, but only when the rider is persistent and consistent. It seems to me that management strategies should not include impulse, but what the St. Petersburg philosopher Alexander Sekatsky called "long will." “Only the notorious stubbornness of the “brother of the donkey,” he writes, “protects us, century after century, from self-immolation in spiritual quests.” Russian education and Russia as a whole needs a long will, prudence and smart doing. At Lao Tzu there is a saying: "A person standing on tiptoe will not stand for long, and yet a person stands for a long time in a difficult position for himself." We university workers are actually like a person standing on tiptoe.

It should also be noted that it is absurd to expect that the advantages new system education will open all at once. Two-level education, like a child, must still develop, and only then will it be able to show its effectiveness. In general, any system cannot be thrown into best condition bypassing the deterioration phase. Such a conclusion organically follows from the theory of catastrophes and restructurings of V.I. Arnold, unfortunately, passed away this summer. Any system has its own inertial component, these are, first of all, people with their own habits of thinking and doing specific work this way and not otherwise. Imagine that you are the head of a small team and you need to radically restructure its work. Can you avoid "material resistance"? I doubt. Much more resistance complex systems. The education system is extremely complex and inertial.

– How do you see a modern university in a post-enlightenment society?

– Is the university being rebuilt? The system of two-level education partially disavows some principles that previously (in the Humboldtian model of the European university) remained unshakable. For example, localization becomes less obvious educational program at the Faculty. Rather, the program should be created around a scientific school or direction. The cathedral structure is also being questioned. Instead, more dynamic forms of organizing professionals are being created. Master's programs- one of those. A system of two-level education built around a scientific school and aimed at competencies, at communication with the employer, at the flexibility of the trajectory and the choice of students, at the participation of students in the assessment of the quality of education, immanently in its essence forces one to abandon the flow of reading the same lectures for many years. years. In fact, the need for them may not be as obvious as it may seem to the compilers curriculum, the teacher himself or his department head.

At the Russian State University for the Humanities, at our methodological seminars (headed by Prof. G.I. Zvereva), the topic of a student-centered university is discussed. Note that the center of the university structure is not the teacher with his interests, but the student. This does not mean at all that students themselves completely determine the content. curriculum. Student-centeredness means that the university must have greater confidence in certain student ideas about their future place in the profession and society as a whole. A student-centered university presupposes a rejection of systemicity in the sense that the teacher has developed (or suffered through) a certain system and must pass it on to the student. Most often, by the time of the highest experience of the system teacher, his system is hopelessly outdated. That's why educational process should be predominantly tuned to the student's mastering the skills of search research activities. The change of these accents is very important. Exploratory competencies are never transferred by mere epic presentation of material. Firstly, they must be, i.e., they must be available to the one who undertakes to teach students. Secondly, the teacher must present them, demonstrate them in the course of joint educational work with students. Therefore, it is so important to establish such an order of things when educational activity- especially at the second, master's level - intertwined with the activities research. If this task and the tasks we mentioned above are solved step by step, then Russian higher education will have many more remarkable achievements and victories ahead. But for this, a wish or an impulse is not enough, need, as already mentioned, a long will.

Interview prepared by Stanislav Spiridonov.

Evgeny Ivakhnenko was dismissed from the post of rector of the Russian State humanitarian university(RGGU), Kommersant reports. Earlier, RIA Novosti was told about this by the press secretary of the head of the Ministry of Education and Science Andrei Yemelyanov. According to the official, the first vice-rector for academic work, Director of the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State Humanitarian University Alexander Bezborodov. Ivakhnenko himself explained to RBC his dismissal by claims of a “property nature” from the Ministry of Education and Science. In particular, it was about "the use of our (RGGU. - "Kommersant") areas and interaction with branches, courts." The former rector said that he was informed of the decision on August 28. “Now the procedure for electing the rector of the RSUH should be launched,” added Yevgeny Ivakhnenko. The ex-rector also admitted that he does not yet know what he will do after his dismissal: “I am still at a loss. I have always enjoyed teaching."

Photo: Andrey Borodulin / Kommersant

Let me remind you that Yevgeny Ivakhnenko has headed the Russian State Humanitarian University since March 2016, replacing Yefim Pivovar in this position. His appointment was accompanied by a number of scandals: many scientists were concerned about how the rector was elected, in addition, immediately after his assumption of office, mass layoffs of objectionable employees. In July 2016, that for the second year in a row teachers of the Russian State Humanitarian University were not paid vacation pay. In September 2016, at least 12 teachers from the Vygotsky Institute of Psychology at the Russian State Humanitarian University protested against the policy of the university leadership.

In November 2016, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Fedor Uspensky, in an interview with the journal Historical Expertise, that the dismissals of famous scientists resumed at the Russian State Humanitarian University, and the entire Institute of Higher Education is under threat of closure. humanities studies(IVGI): "As I understand it, hard times have come at the RSUH. There are "jerks" and convulsive movements aimed at saving the financial situation ... On the other hand, they pay so little money that it would be better to think about how to support scientists, I would not attach so much importance to my dismissal, I am much more sorry and bitter that Mikhail Leonidovich Andreev, who had worked at IVGI almost from its foundation, was fired.<...>One should be afraid that IVGI would not be closed at all. "In December 2016, the well-known philologist Nina Pavlova from the Russian State Humanitarian University. In February 2016, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Andreev, dismissed from the Russian State Humanitarian University, made a critical note about the situation with the election of the rector at the university: "Of course, each of candidates are good in their own way. However, in connection with the upcoming elections of the RSUH Rector, the basic needs of the university should be taken into account. One of them is development. If you choose it, then the key issue is funding. It should be noted that in this area the situation at RSUH is catastrophic. We are talking, among other things, about problems with the payment of salaries to university employees.