New trends in higher education V.D. Chukhlomin, T.P. Roudenko, Omsk State University, Department of Commerce,
    A transition to the market economy under conditions of a prolonged economic crisis and the demolition of the totalitarian system have quite a significant influence on the system of specialists training, in general, and the system of higher learning, in particular. In its turn, reformation mood amidst higher educational institutions staff has to a great extent cleared the way for perestroika and transition to the market economy: a number of University faculty members found themselves among the political and economic leaders of the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s.
    It seemed natural that the first Decree of President Yeltsin was a famous Decree on Education which enunciated a leading role of the system of education in social development. However, the results of these reforms within the first four years look discouraging, if not catastrophic for the Russian system of education which was seen by many people - and not only in Russia - as one of the achievements of the Epoch of Communism. Let's consider Omsk State University as an example of what is going on in the sphere of Russian education.
    Omsk State University was founded in 1974 by a special decision of the Party leaders in Moscow. State universities have always been elite educational institutions in Russia where the best professors worked and the best scientific schools were created. By that time Omsk had become the second (after Novosibirsk) industrial center of Siberia. So it was reasonable to set up the University here, the 13th institution of higher learning in the town. Unlike other educational establishments which oriented themselves on the training of specialists for particular professions, state universities were allowed to provide general or nonvocational education. Due to this they attracted progressive-minded scholars and free-thinking students. Local authorities, who had to accept this situation, did not care much about universities' development, construction of their new buildings and students' dormitories, as universities were financed direct from Moscow.
    Cancellation of detailed regulation of university teaching process and financial control has become the most significant result of the reform. State Committee for Higher Education (now it is renamed as Ministry for Education) which is located in Moscow and is in charge of state universities within Russian Government determines "the rules of the game". This Committee supervises activities of public organizations which unite representatives of top universities. These are, first of all developing State Educational Standards Projects. These Standards assess the subjects and their scope to be taught at a university, so that the latter is able to certify students and award them appropriate degrees. The Standard determines the content of approximately 70% of a curriculum, the rest is for the University to do independently. Apart from devising standards, Learning and Methods Unions draw decisions concerning this or that university's ability to provide training in particular specialities. Without these approvals universities do not have right to independently implement specialist training and degree awarding.
    In comparison with the previous situation the system of higher education has become much more liberal. In fact, any faculty member may teach what s/ he wants and the way s /he prefers, actual monitoring being conducted by Head of Department or Dean. Nothing similar to reports from American University teachers or Deans exists there. Many University Rectors are concerned about it, but so far nobody has been courageous enough to really exercise control, because teachers' salaries are so low that some of them might leave universities, regarding these inspection measures to be insulting.
    The system of Standards is also being critisized. The Committee logic is clear: if the government finances universities, and if according to the result of their academic achievements students are given diplomas not of a particular university pattern, but of a pattern universal for the whole country, then there should exist a particular standardization of curricula contents. Moreover, the government is afraid that in the absense of standards some state educational institutions will radically reduce the curricula scope, which, in its turn, will lower the quality of state diploma of education. The essence of the criticism is that in reality the difference in diploma quality is universally recognized: university diploma are valued much more than those from other institutions of higher learning. Meanwhile, state universities, especially the ones located far from Moscow have to go through numerous statutory approval procedures before setting up new department divisions. For example, for the last two years Omsk State University has unsuccessfully been trying to get a license for training specialists in the field of finance and banking, though all the new commercial banks located in Omsk give employment to this University graduates in the first place. Without real control over curricula content, extremely complicated standardization and licensing procedures look artificial and bureaucratic, at least with regard to state universities. The latter should be authorized to independently create curricula, new and unconventional including, as far as all specialities are concerned.
    Like in many other cases the Russian reform has stopped half-way. Another reason to critisize the Committee is the fact that the government systematically does not meet its commitments to finance universities. A new model of the system of education envisages governmental funding of universities from the federal budget in volumes necessary for training the number of students set by the Committee for a university in question. ............