Competition model in the Russian higher education system

Authors

  • Ilya A. Konstantinov Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)
  • Vera A. Goncharova Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25726/e5024-4229-4002-e

Keywords:

Final qualifying works, masters, education, innovation, competition.

Abstract

One of the most important institutions of society in any country in the world is the Institute of Higher Education. It is the education system in general and the structures of higher education in particular that are directly related to the well-being of the country's citizens. However, technical and technological progress does not stand still, every year new enterprises are created and developed, which require new competencies from their employees. In turn, the higher education system must meet the rapidly changing digital industry. The problem is that the education system, as a state-controlled structure, is a much more inert structure than the enterprises that are engaged in digital transformation. Inaction in the implementation of reforms in the field of higher education will inevitably lead to a gap between the required competencies in the industry and the competencies that graduates will actually have. An increase in this gap will make higher education irrelevant, with all the consequences that follow. In this paper, the process of defending the final qualifying works of masters (WRC) is considered in detail, this process is reduced to the terms of game theory, with the formalization of roles, motivations and strategies of behavior of participants in this process. After considering the problem from the point of view of game theory, the weaknesses of the processes are identified and measures to eliminate them are considered.

Author Biographies

Ilya A. Konstantinov, Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)

assistant of the Institute No. 3

Vera A. Goncharova, Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University)

assistant of the Institute No. 3

References

Об утверждении Порядка проведения государственной итоговой аттестации по образовательным программам среднего общего образования: приказ Министерства просвещения Российской Федерации (Минпросвещения России) и Федеральной службы по надзору в сфере образования и науки (Рособрнадзора) от 07.10.2018 № 190/1512 – Москва.

Список стран по ВВП (ППС) на душу населения: Википедия. Свободная энциклопедия. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_стран_по_ВВП_(ППС)_на_душу_населения (дата обращения 30.03.2021).

Рейтинг стран по количеству людей с высшим образованием: Яндекс. Дзен. https://zen.yandex.ru/media/show_me_world/reiting-stran-po-kolichestvu-liudei-s-vysshim-obrazovaniem-5eb03d746c1563221812375f (дата обращения 30.03.2021).

Как составляются рейтинги университетов?: Educationindex.ru https://www.educationindex.ru/articles/university-rankings/how-university-rankings-are-made-ru/ (дата обращения 02.04.2021).

Байденко В.И. Болонский процесс. Популярные лекции. Москва: Исследовательский центр проблем качества подготовки специалистов, 2004.

Ларионова М.В. Интеграционные процессы в образовании. Европейский опыт // Высшее образование сегодня. 2006. № 2. С. 46-52.

Болонский процесс: Результаты обучения и компетентностный подход (книга-приложение 1. Москва: Исследовательский центр проблем качества подготовки специалистов, 2009.

Зимняя И.А. Ключевые компетентности как результативно-целевая основа компетентностного подхода в образовании. Авторская версия. Москва: Исследовательский центр проблем качества подготовки специалистов, 2004.

Михалкина Е.В., Скачкова Л.С., Усатенко Н.В. Компетенции и компетентность: эволюция национальных концепций и синтез теоретических подходов // Terra Economicus. 2011. Т. 9. № 4. Ч. 2. С. 12-17.

Jordana J., Fernandez-i-Marin X., Bianculli A. Agency proliferation and the globalization of the regulatory state: Introducing a data set on the institutional features of regulatory agencies // Regulation and Governance. 2018. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 524-540. DOI: https://doi.org/l0.111l/ rego.12189

Verhoest K., Peters B.G., Bouckaert G, Ver-schuere B. The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review // Public Administration and Development. 2004. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 101-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.316

Jordana J., Juanatey A.G., Duran I.P, Royo D.S. An Independence Index of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education: European and Latin American countries compared. 2020 // European Journal of Higher Education. DOI: 10. 1080/21568235.2020.1850309

Hanrett C, Koop Ch. Measuring the formal independence of regulatory agencies // Journal of European Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 198-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176 3.2011.607357

Irion K, Ledger M. Measuring independence: Approaches, limitations and a new ranking tool // Schulz W., Valcke P., Irtion K. (Eds). The independence of the media and its regulatory agencies. Chicago-Bristol: Intellect, 2013. P. 15-54.

Alzafari K, Ursion J. Implementation of quality assurance standards in European higher education: does context matter? // Quality in Higher Education 2019. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 58-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2019.1578069

Published

2021-05-11

How to Cite

1.
Константинов И, Гончарова В. Competition model in the Russian higher education system. УО [Internet]. 2021May11 [cited 2024Jun.30];11(3):110-9. Available from: https://emreview.ru/index.php/emr/article/view/79