From: Hlavac, Vaclav <hlavac@cmp.felk.cvut.cz> To: reichert@sl.ethz.ch, @LIST6C2E.PML, witzany@vc.cvut.cz Subject: EUA visit to CTU, issues related to CTU development you asked for Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:05:26 +0100
Dear Dr. Sibille Reichert,
We met on Oct 11, 2004 during your EUA visit at the CTU Prague. I am member of the CTU Academic Senate. I am heading its Committee for Development and Research. I participated in discussion with you together with three other Academic Senate members. You asked me to send you several headlines from analytical reports which our committee wrote in its current term (2001-2004).
The report 'Contribution to Conceptual Issues at CTU' from Oct 2002 observed not enough strategic thinking and guidance from the university and faculties leadership. We missed clearly specified strategic orientation of the CTU, consensus on it between the Rector and deans of six faculties, listed priorities and focusing to identified main problems of the university development. Let me list a few issues mentioned in this report and consequent five more detailed analytic reports.
However, what is written below is my own choice and interpretation which was not consulted with other Academic Senate members or the university management.
I have to say that Rector Witzany has appreciated the feedback in analytic reports from the Committee for Development and Research. He also conducted a fruitful discussion with the committee. The Rector issued a document 'Vision and development program of the CTU for 2004-2010' in January 2004 which comprises many of the issues I write about. The document names the problem openly. However, my feeling is that it is and will be difficult to create implementation plan and conduct it at the CTU in the near future.
TEACHING
T1) There is a demographic gap to come. The number of a 19 years old A-level graduates at 2015 will drop to one half as compared to the year 1993 and to two thirds as compared to the year 2002. At the same time, the Czech Government wants to increase the percentage of university students to 50 %, mainly in bachelor programmes. There is apparent drop of interest to study technological subjects and the average quality of students at input drops too. The university study programmes at the CTU are too rigid and do not adapt to this new situation.
T2) The drop out among enrolled students is too high, between 40 and 50 percents. This makes the CTU less attractive to potential students. Such situation shows that the study is rather inefficient from financial point of view. The latter is partly fault of the Czech Government who pays to universities based on the number of enrolled students. However, this is going to change soon. CTU does not anticipate this situation and does not change itself to adapt to it.
T3) Study programs at most CTU faculties are too rigid and specialized (the exception is only the Faculty of Architecture). This fact reduces adaptability of graduates at the labor market. Even the bachelor, master, doctorate system has been introduced, in reality the 'old 5 years master' philosophy prevails. The reason is that almost all bachelor graduates continue in master programs. The overall scope is the same as it was before introducing recommendations of Bologna declaration.
T4) There is too much teaching in contact with teachers and too little well managed self-study of students. This makes study ineffective and expensive. The CTU students in general are less capable to formulate their ideas in written as compared to students from say the Netherlands, France or Britain. Roots of it are in secondary school education. CTU students should be trained to work with information on their own.
T5) The CTU wants to be elite university and educate mass of students in the same study programs at the same time. This is a clear contradiction which is, however, left unnoticed by the university management. There should be a more demanding track for talented students.
T6) The CTU does not adapt to changing external conditions and does not modify its structure and study programs to it.
T7) The long-life education is undeveloped in the Czech Republic in general and at the CTU as well. There is a lot of (potential) money in this market. CTU does not have any running programs in this direction and even not any plans to have it.
RESEARCH
R1) The idea that excellent research is the only way for the university to survive in global competition, to keep its existing high profile and traditions is not accepted both by the university management and by many members of the CTU academic society. The heritage of the socialism era (that time academic research was conducted mainly in the Academy of Sciences and many universities 'just taught') is very strong. There are a few islands of excellent and competitive research at CTU in the world scale. However, these are only a few groups. The university management reinforces this bad situation instead of clearly promoting those who are capable in research. The push cannot come from inside.
R2) Transfer of knowledge and technology from academics to industry is undeveloped at the CTU. The CTU does not have a single spin-out company. There is no functioning policy to protect intellectual property, treat conflict of interest (many people transfer their knowledge to industry on private basis), etc.
R3) The division of governmental funds by the CTU management does not stimulate research activity. The formula by the Ministry of Education is copied. It puts most of weight to teaching (approx 85 %). The attempts to stimulate good individuals and groups by the rector exist but do not lead to a real change.
R4) The scientific councils of the CTU and individual faculties are overwhelmed by the habilitations and professorial promotions. The actual research issues and strategic orientation questions are left intact.
R5) There is a substantial number of doctoral program graduates who do not reach European or world research level. The level of high-ranked international journals in respective fields is too high for a good portion of our PhDs. Research which does not tackle cutting edge knowledge looses it sense. However, the situation improves gradually over years.
R6) National and EU programmes bring research funds which are assigned on competitive bases and are independent of rigid CTU managerial structure. This introduces a positive spirit to departments. Such support allows small groups to be established and flourish even the management does not support them explicitly.
HUMAN RESOURCES
H1) It is not understood that seeking young, talented people with ability to manage and appointing them to managerial position is the key responsibility of the acting management.
H2) There is a big age gap at most departments of people between 40 and 55. Many of good people grabbed the opportunity after the political change in 1989 and moved elsewhere.
H3) CTU suffers from lack of mobility. Most staff members are CTU graduates and did not see many other places in their professional life. There is not policy at the CTU to overcome this problem. The mobility of students should be enhanced. Prague and CTU has been attractive for foreign visitors, both staff and students. This comparative advantage is not explored as it could.
H4) The 'service organization' as Rector's office and offices of deans consist only from clerical staff able to conduct clear procedures. Thinkers who can perform more complicated tasks, seek new opportunities, simplify administrative procedures and help to higher-level management do not exist. One of the reasons in their underpayment. However, it is not the only reason. The management does not build its qualified support.
OTHER ISSUES
O1) CTU does not have policy for quality management. This important feedback is missing to all three managerial levels (the Rector, deans, head of departments).
O2) There is lack of integrity at the CTU. The university acts as a holding of 6 faculties with strong independence (it has its reason which were explained to EUA Evaluation Team). The relation between the Rector and deans is uneasy. The situation deepened in the Rector Witzany's term. Faculties keep fences around them.
The same holds within faculties where the departments are encompassed by fences too. These fences are financial. The rector distributes its budget to deans and most deans to head of departments according some ministerial formula which takes into account mainly teaching. The many years tradition at the CTU is the fight for subjects to teach between head of departments. This 'trench warefare' is conducted at each reform of curriculum which comes regularly approximately every five years.
(My personal opinion is that this issue is key one for the further CTU development. This vicious circle should be cut. The vitalization of research is the other second important issue.)
O3) Culture and effectiveness of day-to-day management needs improvement. Repeated activities have to be well designed and documented (on the www) to be clear for the end-user. The situation at the CTU is far from it. If this procedure were implemented then the staff conducting it could be less qualified, cheaper and easier to be checked.
One the other hand, support staff which is able to design procedures, find new opportunities and help academics to solve new problems in almost non-existing. E.g., if my research group comes with a larger research contract from industry which is able to pay couple of researchers for several years then the university management does know how to deal with it. Similar situation is if one organizes larger international conference in Prague.
O3) CTU orients only to technology subjects in research and teaching. If CTU likes to attract students including females then it should open its study programs towards humanities, econonomics, management, etc. The fact that chemistry is outside the CTU is not productive either.
O4) CTU does not know what its graduates do, how successful they are in the labor market, the alumni organizations exist at some faculties but does not have big impact. This is important but unexplored feedback.
Dr. Reichert, I hope my text will help to your EUA evaluation exercise.
If you have further questions then do not hesitate to contact me.
Vasek Hlavac