Georgiana Mihut
Introduction
There are a number of factors that affect the development of Higher Education in today’s society. Issues such as globalization and internationalization, access and equity, quality assurance, accountability and qualifications frameworks, financing, privatization, crisis of the academic profession, new technological developments, linkage between industry and university, among others became main focuses of the current debates regarding Higher Education (Altbach et al, 2009). All these issues need to be addressed, in the form of management, governance and leadership. This paper is concerned with the actors behind the decision making process in Higher Education in Romania. The main framework for analysis of this it is the concept of governance equalizer as defined by Boer, Enders and Schimank (Boer et al, 2007). The governance equalizer concept has five dimensions: state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self-governance, managerial self-governance, and competition for scarce resource.
Both secondary and primary data are used during the elaboration of this paper. Two main reports will be referenced throughout this paper: The extend and impact of Higher Education governance reform across Europe, written by the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente and Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, structures, funding and academic staff, published by the Eurydice European Unit, with the support of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Both reports depict a quantitative picture focusing on comparative elements of governance at European level. Sadly, the reports are of relevance for the years before 2007. The CHEPS report is particularly important because it follows the governance equalizer framework.
The description of the present reality of the Romanian Higher Education is based primarily on the answers provided by Robert Reisz during an interview collected by the author of this paper for the purpose of this analysis. Robert Reisz is a Romanian scholar and researcher in the field of Higher Education, Policy Analysis and Social Statistics. Author of multiple writings in the area of Higher Education, he works for both the West University in Romania (AdAstra, 2012) and Institut fur Hochschulforschung an der Martin Luther Universitat (HoF), Germany (HoF, 2012).
Additionally, a series of quantitative data is used, especially during the section on State regulation and Competition of this paper. The self-governance section will use the Triangle of Coordination described by Burton Clark in The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective.
The paper is structured in three sections. The first section will focus on the description of the main concept used: the government equalizer. The following part will try to apply the equalizer components to the reality of Higher Education in Romania and the last section will try to construct an overarching analysis of the main actors involved in the governance process of Higher Education.
The paper will not use the classical temporal structure of focusing on the past, the present and the future. The main reason for this decision is connected to the fact that different units of time are relevant for different elements of the equalizer. Additionally, an analysis of the future reality of governance in Higher Education seems highly speculative and outside the expertize area of the author. Still, some elements of prediction will be incorporated in the competition section of this paper. Critical arguments regarding the equalizer concept will be added in different sections, especially during the section on stakeholders, but such elements are not the main object of this paper.
1. The governance equalizer and other conceptual delimitations
Boer et. al. propose an analytical concept to analyze the governance of tertiary education by looking at five basic dimensions of governance, as previously stated, state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self governance, managerial self governance, and competition for scarce resource.
As defined by the authors, state regulation ‘concerns the traditional notion of top down authority vested in the state, this dimension refers to regulations by directives’ (Boer et al, 2007, p. 3). For the Romanian context, the state is seen both as the government and intermediary bodies operating within the field of Higher Education, such as the National Council for Scientific Research in Higher Education (CNCSIS), the National Council for Financing Higher Education (CNFIS), the Executive Unit for Financing Higher Education, Research and Innovation Development (UEFISCDI), the National Council for Diploma and University Certificates Accreditation (CNATDCU), the National Council for Development and Innovation, the Romanian National Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ARACIS).
Stakeholder guidance, a concept not very applicable in the Romanian context, steers ‘universities through goal setting and advice’ (Boer et al, 2007, pp. 3-4). The authors mention here intermediary bodies or representatives of industry in university boards. For reasons I will explain later, for the purpose of this paper, the activity of intermediary bodies will be understood as part of state governance. To broaden the discussion on stakeholders, students will be included in this category. Additionally, for lack of a better section to discuss such issue, elements regarding international influences on Higher Education governance are incorporated.
Academic self-governance refers to the role of ‘professional communities within the university system’, in the form of ‘collegial decision-making’ and ‘peer review-based self steering of academic communities’ (Boer et al, 2007, p. 4). This type of management is not very representative for the academic community of Romania.
Managerial governance is connected with ‘hierarchies within universities’, and ‘the role of university leadership, rectors or presidents, deans in internal goal setting, regulation, and decision making’. A complementary concept used in this paper to bring light on the practice of academic and managerial governance in the Romanian context is ‘academic oligarchy’ (Clark, 1983). Both the concept of academic self-governance and managerial governance will be dealt with simultaneously during this paper, under the title of self-governance. Competition for scarce resources, the fifth dimension of the governance equalizer, refers to elements such as ‘money, personnel and prestige taking place in quasi-markets’ (Boer et al, 2007, p. 4). The main area for competition for Romanian universities is attracting students.
The governance equalizer has the purpose of measuring the impact of New Public Management (NPM) elements in Higher Education. A perfect NPM model has a rather low level of state regulation and the role of academic governance should be marginal. On the other hand, stakeholder knowledge, managerial self-governance and competition should score high (Boer et al, 2007, p. 4). Table 1 illustrates the ideal distribution of involvement for all the dimensions above.
Additionally to the governance equalizer, relevant for this paper is the definition of academic oligarchy. Clark defines oligarchy as ‘superbarons’ coming together in a central council maintaining informal contact (Clark, 1983, p. 140). Thus, academic oligarchy is the manifestation of this practice at the tertiary education level, and according to the author, it is ‘omnipresent or lurking in the wings’ (Clark, 1983, p. 142). Clark also defines the triangle of coordination as a representation model of the relation between state, market and oligarchical forms of coordination (Clark, 1983, p. 142-143), where each actor represents a corner of the triangle. As stated previously, this concept will be used to analyze the reality of self-governance and draw some conclusions about the main actors present in the governance process of Romanian Higher Education institutions.
2. State Regulation
‘No Time Before Time’
Possessed, Balanescu quartet
One cannot write a paper on a concept that uses a metaphor derived from the musical arena, the equalizer, without making a reference to at least one song. In so many ways, Balanescu Quartet and their song No Time Before Time overlaps with the reality of the state involvement in Higher Education. The album name, Possessed, is a good summary of the reality of the relation between Higher Education and the state before the revolution in 1989. The parallel with the album does not stop here: Possessed is a cover album after the German Experimental electronic band Kraftwerk, and Romanian Higher Education reforms are in a way a cover of more rooted western ideals of Higher Education. Lastly, and more importantly, the song itself, ‘No time before time’, is a nonlinear composition, describing vividly the tormented path of Higher Education reform and state regulation from a post-totalitarian Romania of the early ‘90s to the present society.
This section will focus on describing the history of university autonomy in Romania, from a centralized state, where the state ‘possessed’ all responsibility for decision making, to the regulatory state we encounter today. Some attention will be given to describing the ‘nonlinear’ evolution of university autonomy. The case will be made that today, the state has an important function in funding allocation and broad regulation regarding university activity, but universities themselves managed to achieve their long lasting goal for autonomy.
We need to make reference to one trend pertaining to the reality of a centralized system: the evolution of Higher Education was realized in successive waves of expansion and recession. This implies, more importantly for this paper, a nonlinear employment of personnel (Reisz, 2007). This employment pattern causes some of the features that we will further discuss in the institutional governance section: the creation of an academic oligarchy.
The starting point to understand the nonlinear reality of decentralization is by looking at what happened in the first years after the Revolution. There are three factors we should mention in this context:
(1) These years coincide with the start of the massification process of Higher Education in Romania (Reisz, 2007)
(2) During the massification process, a wide number of private Higher Education institutions emerged (Owen et al, 1995, pp. 139-140), and
(3) The legal framework governing Higher Education was unclear (Owen et al, 1995, p. 143).
To make it more specific, the total number of enrolment of public Higher Education students grew from 164.507 in the academic year 1989-1990 to 240.000 just two year later, and the number of faculties doubled during the same years (Owen et al, 1995, p. 136). Sixty-six private universities emerged in the same period incorporating an addition of 100.000 students (Owen et al, 1995, p. 143). At the same time, Romanian Higher Education seemed to lack a proper legal framework, and the state seemed to rely increasingly on ministerial orders and decrees. By 1995, when the first post-totalitarian Education Law was published, more than 2000 ministerial orders and decrees were issued (Owen et al, 1995, pp. 139-140). Birzea named this period ‘the stabilization period’ (Birzea, 1996, p. 101), calling the students and pupils that studied during these years ‘the generation of sacrifice’ due to the general instability vibe. Marga describes the understanding of university autonomy during these years as ‘a number of universities approaching the task of university autonomy as an aim in itself’ (Marga, 2005, p. 260).
During his interview, Prof. Reisz referred to this period as a period with a high level for autonomy, as Government officials enforced regulations and directives selectively. Reisz also pointed out that, generally, important and necessary reforms in Higher Education represented a period of lower university autonomy, this being the case of the period to follow, period named ‘Restructuration’ by Birzea (Birzea, 1996, p. 102-105). This is the time when the Law for Accreditation of Higher Education of 1993 is passed and the first post-communist Education Law is enacted in 1995.
The CHEPS report states that since 1999, the autonomy of Romanian universities had increased, with the State implementing lump sum budgeting, formula based funding, taking into account the number of students. The reforms in 2005 and 2006 introduced buffer institutions to mediate between the Government and the Tertiary education system, including ‘a two level quality assurance system’ (CHEPS, 2007, p 185). The same report evaluates the role of the state to have ‘some increase’ in the decade before 2007. The statement is based on assessing the state as being involved to a large degree in designing the university mission and strategy, in steering its human resource management by creating general guidelines, enhancing the emergence of public-private partnerships, and determining the number of state subsidized places (CHEPS, 2007, pp. 185-186). Additionally, the state is involved to some degree in the quality assurance process and the resource allocation process.
Heading towards the present, important events are connected to the adoption of the new Education Law of 2011. Two major elements have changed for the Romanian Higher Education: the procedure for electing a new rector, issue that will be further discussed during the self-governance section of this paper, and the promotion of university rating. The last measure finalized in categorizing Romanian universities in three broad groups: (1) advanced research and teaching, (2) teaching and research, teaching and art creation and, (3) teaching universities (Mediafax, 2011). Different categories of universities should receive different financial support. For example, only the first two types of universities are legally allowed to organize PhD programs, with a financial preference for the first category (Funeriu, 2011).
The historical non-linear developments described above illustrate that, while university autonomy is an important feature of Romanian Higher Education, the regulatory role of the state is undeniably important.
3. Stakeholder guidance
‘In Romania, as far as we can talk about stakeholders, I do not think they have any influence’ Robert Reisz
During the interview, Robert Reisz seemed very skeptical about stakeholder guidance having a significant relevance in the tertiary education arena of Romania. The quote starting this section illustrates this case. Historically, the official involvement of Higher Education stakeholders has not been visible. Universities did not and do not have advisory bodies or boards of trustees that would be involved in the decision-making process of universities (Eurydice, 2008, p. 35).
That being said, The Final report to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission, The extend and impact of Higher Education governance across Europe defines the role of companies to have registered some increase in influence over the last decade. The report, issued in 2007 states that companies are involved to some degree in Public-Private Partnerships and to a large degree in the process of defining new study programs (CHEPS, 2007, p. 186). Trade unions, as a stakeholder have a marginal role in the decision making process. They are involved to some degree in the internal governance process, in the finance allocation process and in the human resources management process (CHEPS, 2007, p. 186).
The statements above are valid for a definition of stakeholders restricted to companies, board of trustees and advisory boards composed by non-academics. If we define stakeholders in a broader sense, by including students, for example, we will notice the increased impact students have in the decision making process. Students have gained more representation, not only at the university level, but also in other institutions connected to Higher Education. The representation is both direct and indirect, by representatives and via consultations. One of the novelties of the Education Law in Romania is the fact that the University Senate, the most important decision making body in the Romanian University, has a student representation of 25% (National Education Law, 2011, art. 208). Indirectly, quality assurance methodologies involve consultations of University stakeholders such as local and national companies and alumni (ARACIS, 2010).
One separate issue to be mentioned is the impact of international bodies on Romanian Higher Education at the moment. For lack of a more appropriate indicator, a brief discussion about the role of the European Union and the Bologna Process will be integrated in the stakeholder section. One could debate weather the role of the regional union should be discussed under the state regulation section, as the Union itself uses soft regulations to push its agenda forward. A number of documents and treaties such as The Single European Act of 1987, the Maastricht Treaty, 1992, paved the way in creating the European Research Area, a project still in progress. The creation of the Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process added a ‘supranational level’ to research and Higher Education (Huisman, Vught, 2009, pp. 19-20). Market oriented solutions are particularly endorsed by the European Commission, and do have an influence on national policies (Dibbins, Knill, 2009, p. 399).
In Romania, The Bologna Process combined with ‘the willingness to emulate Western practice has accelerated marketization trends’ (Dibbins, Knill, 2009, p. 416). The description of the interferences of EU policies and the impact of international treaties, such as the Bologna Process is beyond the purpose of this paper, still, there is no complete picture over the governance process of a university without mentioning the impact of actors foreign to a certain nation state. The addition of such an indicator could improve the value of using the governance equalizer as a research tool.
We have seen that the role stakeholder’s play in Higher Education governance in Romania is minimum if we adopt a restrictive definition of stakeholders. Realities very familiar to Western European countries, such as the existence of Boards of Trustees or Advisory Boards are still unknown to Romanian universities. If we broaden the definition of stakeholders to incorporate students and international bodies, the importance of stakeholders increases.
4. Self-governance
‘The model I propose in this program is the Humboldt Model, developed under the context of recent trends, such as the entrepreneurial university, but where the economical principles subside the academic principles, to which we should add social-humanist elements, especially critical thinking. This is a pragmatic academic model, aspiring for excellence and the creative use of academic pride and academic tradition’ Daniel Pop (2012)
As the reality of university self-governance remained constant in the last years, this section will focus on describing its present features, rather than analyze its developments. Some emphasis will be given to the concept of academic oligarchy. The main sources for the analysis below are the interview conducted with Robert Reisz and the National Education Law, 1/2011.
As stated previously, this paper will compress the concepts of academic self-governance and managerial self-governance under the umbrella of self-governance. This choice is due to the fact that academic, or collegial governance was historically not a significant part of the academic tradition in Romania. Decision-making bodies within the universities tend to be highly hierarchical. Still, the members of these structures are typically members of the academic staff. Romanian universities use universal voting procedures to elect their rectors, which gives staff a wider degree of influence in the decision making process.
This year, most state universities in Romania were preoccupied with the process of electing a new Rector. The wave of elections was caused by the new restrictions of the maximum period of governance of a university rector to eight years (National Education Law, art 213/7). As most rectors in place were already in office for 8 years or more, new management arouse in a number of universities. The starting quote of this section is taken from the managerial program proposed by one of the candidates for the Rector position in the largest University in Romania, Babes-Bolyai University (BBU). Pop was one of the candidates that advocated most vividly for the importance of applying new public management tools into the university management process. As a side note, we can add he did not win the elections. A further study of the factors contributing to the election of new Rectors in the Romanian context would be highly interesting, but for the purpose if this section an emphasis will be given to the concept of academic oligarchy.
The new legislation gave universities a choice between electing a new rector:
(1) By issuing a public call open to scientific and academic personalities outside the university, including from abroad, or
(2) By universal, direct vote.
The commission mandated to execute the recruitment process should be composed from scientific and academic personalities external to the university, in a proportion of 50%. None of the universities in Romania choose to issue a public call for a new Rector (National Education Law, 1/2011, art 209/210), preferring the universal voting procedure instead.
According to the National Education Law, the governing structures of Higher Education institutions are: (1) the university senate and the administration council at a university level, (2) faculty council, (3) department council. The governing positions are: (1) the rector, provosts, administrational director, at the university level, (2) dean, pro-deans at the faculty level, and (3) the department director (National Education Law, art 207/1,2). The hierarchical structure of the Romanian university remained constant for the most part of its history. Still, the most important decision making bodies at the level of the university are the rector and the senate. According to Eurydice, the senate is formed solely from internal stakeholders of the university (Eurydice, 2008).
During the course of the interview, using Clark’s triangle of coordination, Reisz explained that in Romania, academic oligarchy is the most important governing actor for Higher Education. Using the argument that the evolution of Higher Education happened in waves of expansion and recession, Reisz points out the gerontocracy characteristic of the typical Higher Education Senate. The argument is very simple, as there is no continuous input of personnel, those with a longer experience in the institution will be more likely to advance in higher governing structures. This trend is favored by the fact that prestige and recognition in Higher Education are dependent upon publications, which favor individuals with a longer experience. From this perspective, it is not enough to define a hierarchical, top down approach to self-governance, but to look at the main drivers behind the factors that favor this kind of arrangements. This trend would explain both the fact that universities in Romania did not choose to issue a public call for electing what could potentially be a more qualified rector and the fact that David Pop, a young underdog, did loose the elections for the rector position at BBU.
One element of analysis that Reisz points out to in relation to self-governance is the possible tensions that might arise between different levels of governance within universities, in the case of Romania, tensions between the university level of governance and the faculty level of governance. The CHEPS report describes the areas of involvement of the middle management of a university and the areas of involvement of the central management. Middle management, in this case, faculties and departments, are involved to some degree in defining the mission and the strategy of a university, in designing new study programs, and in the arrangement of Public Private Partnerships. At the same time, they are involved to a large degree in the process of finance allocation, human resource management and student selection. All areas of involvement, with the exception of designing new study programs, coincide with areas of involvement of the central management. This overlap of responsibility could potentially lead to tensions between different hierarchical levels.
5. Competition for scarce resources
Here we will make the case that the most important area for competition among Romanian universities at the moment is attracting students, as two main drivers reversing the massification process of Higher Education in Romania occured: (1) the demographic situation and (2) the new outcomes of the national baccalaureate. As mentioned in the section dealing with state regulation, the number of students enrolled in Higher Education institutions grew significantly after the fall of the communism. But the demographic reality of Romania influenced this significantly in the final years of the last decade. In 1986, 332.972 children are given birth to. The number decreases up to a point in which, only 259.972 children are given birth to in 1992 (Voicu, 2011). Overall, since 1992, Romania lost 17% of its population, according to the 2011 census (Cosciug, 2011), so the situation is expected to become more difficult for universities. In addition to the demographic reality of Romania, the success rate for the national baccalaureate decreased in the last three years, from 80% in 2009, to 65% in 2010, 43% in 2011 (Voicu, 2011) and 43% in 2012 (Romania Libera, 2012). Various explanations for the causes behind this trend are unnecessary at this point.
As the main criteria for financial state allocations is the number of students (CNCFIS, 2007), state universities struggle to attract students more than ever. The situation is even more difficult for private universities, the budget of which is based on collecting tuition fees. Referring to this trend, Reisz indicates the choice hierarchy of students faced with the decision of which university to attend: ‘the first choices are the pubic universities. Here, more prestigiously universities have an advantage over less prestigious ones (...). After state subsidized places are filled, there are not too many students left for private universities to compete for. This caused several of them to close down’. Other potential areas for competition, such as personnel and prestige seemed to be irrelevant in the perception of Reisz. What did seem to be relevant, on the other hand, was the fact that universities in Romania started to compete in a global market. Additional to the demographic change and the outcome of the national baccalaureate, Romanian students choose to study abroad in higher numbers than before. Also, more prestigious universities in Romania, such as the West University Timisoara and Babes-Bolyai University try to attract student from neighboring countries, such as Hungary and Germany.
Conclusion
In the last decades, Romania has come closer to a perfect New Public Management model, following the governance equalizer elements. Still, what we have seen throughout this paper is the fact that not all dimensions of analysis proposed by Boer et. al. are relevant for the Romanian context, and that some other dimensions would add a greater analysis value. As we have seen, the importance of stakeholders, as defined by the authors of the paper, is incomplete, students being the most important stakeholder for the situation under analysis. Also, it would be useful for the international dimension to be incorporated as a separate element, as it is a key factor in understanding governance trends in Higher Education. Again, in the Romanian context, the concept of self-governance and more specifically academic oligarchy, can replace the use of the academic and managerial self-governance.
The table below summarizes the appliance of the governance equalizer to the Romanian context for two periods in time, the years 2006 and the 2012. The red arrow corresponds to the progress registered by universities as described by the CHEPS report (CHEPS, 2006, p. 185). The blue arrow corresponds to the tentative evaluation of the author of this paper as a summary of the arguments developed, relevant for the year 2012.
Another tentative endeavor was composing an estimation of the extent to which key elements of the equalizer are important in Romania, in general. The reader can see this estimation marked with purple. The estimation is not supposed to be regarded as an absolute standard, but normalized and referenced in relation to the importance of all the other indicators. If the estimations of the author are rather correct, then what we can see is the fact that the state and self-governance have a more important role than the ideal NPM model would indicate, while stakeholder guidance and competition have a slightly less important role compared with the initial model.
Another overarching observation derived from the arguments above is the fact that the trends registered in 2006 continue to the present day. As Reisz described during the interview, the main governance actors in the Romanian Higher Education System are the university itself, in the form of academic oligarchy, or self-governance, and the state. Further analysis, with a higher level of operationalization is required in order to establish the precise extend of their influence, but awareness to the importance of nonlinear evolutions should be given. Additionally, there is a need for awareness of the need for a deeper analysis of the reasons behind trends we witness. A clear conceptual framework, investigating sociological reasons additionally to economical imperatives would transform the way we see the role of New Public Management in Higher Education.
References:
AdAstra, (2012), Robert D. Reisz profile, Retrieved from: http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/view_profile.php?user_id=354, (01.11.2012, 14:19)
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., Rumbley, L. E., (2009) Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College
ARACIS, (2010), Ghidul Activităților de Evaluare a Calității Programelor de Studiu Universitare și a Instituțiilor de Învățământ Superior, Retrieved from: http://www.aracis.rofileadminARACIS/Proceduri/partea_I__acredidare_programe__licenta_si_master__Aprilie_2010.pdf
Birzea, C., (1996), Educational Reform and Power Struggles in Romania, European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 97-107
Boer, H., Enders, J, Schimank, U. (2007), On the Way Towards New Public Management The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany, in Jansen, D. (Ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration, Dordrecht, 135-152.
CHPES, (2007), The Extend and Impact of Higher Education Governance Reform Across Europe, Final Report for the Directorate-Genaral for Education and Culture of the European Commission, Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc234_en.pdf, (30.10.2012, 01:09)
Clark, B., R., (1983), The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, University of California Press, London
CNCFIS (2007), Finanțarea Învățămăntului Superior în România. Punct de vedere al CNCFIS, Retrieved from: http://www.cnfis.ro/documente/FinantareIS.pdf, (01.11.2012, 20:54)
Cosciug, A., (2011), Populatia Romaniei, incotro? -3.8 milioane in 20 de ani, Retrieved from: http://www.cogitus.ro/administratie/populatia-romaniei-dupa-trei-recensaminte-incotro-3-8-milioane-in-20-de-ani (01.11.2012, 20:33)
Dobbins, M., Knill, C., (2009), Higher Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence towards a Common Model, Governance, 22/3, pp. 397-430, Retrieved from: http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus95501/xls_ higher_education_policies.pdf?sequence=1 (01.11.2012, 16:51)
Eurydice, (2008), Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, structures, funding and academic staff, Eurydice European Unit, Retrieved from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/091EN.pdf (01.11.2012, 18:40)
Funeriu, D. (2011) in Ziare, Funeriu a anunțat cum au fost clasificate universitatile- vezi ce s-a schimbat, Retrieved from: http://www.ziare.com/scoala/universitati/funeriu-a-anuntat-cum-vor-fi-clasificate-universitatile-vezi-ce-se-schimba-1118931 (01.11.2012, 22:20)
HoF, (2012), Robert D. Reisz, Retrieved from: http://www.hof.uni-halle.de/mitarbeiter/robert_d_reisz.htm (01.11.2012, 14:21)
Huisman, J., Vugh, F., A., (2009) Diversity in European Higher Education: Historical Trends and Current Policies, in Vugh, F., A., (ed) Mapping the Higher Education Landscape. Towards a European Classification of Higher Education, Springer
Marga, A., (2005) University Autonomy in Romania, in Marga, A, University Reform Today, 4th Edition, Cluj University Press
Mediafax (2011), Clasificarea universităților din România: Care sunt cele mai bune instituții de învățământ superior, Retrieved from: http://www.mediafax.ro/social/clasificarea-universitatilor-din-romania-care-sunt-cele-mai-bune-institutii-de-invatamant-superior-8705359 (01.11.2012, 22:19)
Owen, E., T., Mihailescu, I., Vlasceanu, L., Zamfir, C., Sheehan, J., Davis, C., (1995), Higher Education Reform in Romania, Higher Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 135-152.
Pop, D., (2012), Program managerial Daniel Pop pentru pozitia de rector al UBB, Retrieved from: http://www.democratieubb.ro/?p=183 (01.11.2012, 15:14)
Reisz, Robert, (2012) Alegerile universitare din 2012, Cogitus, Retrieved from: http://www.cogitus.ro/educatie/alegerile-universitare-din-2012-si-schimbarea-de-generatie (29.10.2012, 22:31)
Voicu, B., (2011), Rezultatele da Bac: oare asa sa fie?, Retrieved from: http://blog.bogdanvoicu.ro/2011/07/rezultatele-la-bac-oare-asa-sa-fie.html (01.11.2012, 20:28)
Romania Libera, (2012), Bac 2012- Andronescu: Promovabilitate de 43,01, rezultat sub asteptarile celor din sistemul de invatamant, Retrieved from: http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/educatie/bac-2012-andronescu-promovabilitate-de-43-01-rezultat-sub-asteptarile-celor-din-sistemul-de-invatamant-269871.html (01.11.2012)
*** National Education Law 1/2011, (2011), Retrieved from: http://www.dreptonline.ro/legislatie/legea_educatiei_nationale_lege_1_2011.php
There has been error in communication with Booktype server. Not sure right now where is the problem.
You should refresh this page.