Page 148 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 148
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
If a professor is the editor of a high-ranking domestic scientific jour-
nal, they are able to decide who may publish in the journal, they publish
their own work in the journal, and ensure that other authors publishing
their work in the journal cite him or her in their work. Citations are an
absolute necessity for habilitation, a doctorate and success in the compe-
tition for project funds, making it then more likely that such a professor
will be specifically honoured. Or they will easily become the most influ-
ential member of the university commission that decides on the habilita-
tion and promotion of their colleagues.
Last but not least, managing such a journal has become a lucrative
business: peer reviews and the publication of scientific work come at a
price: between 300 and 500 euros. Translations are expensive. And the
translators prefer to translate the entire work rather than give lectures.
The translation of a 15-page scientific paper costs from around 300 to 800
euros. At least seven publications in foreign journals with the highest rank
are required to become a full-time professor. The salary of an assistant pro-
fessor is about 1,800 to 2,000 euros. It is therefore easy to take up mathe-
matics (Faganel and Trnavčevič, 2016). However, to avoid misunderstand-
ings, the professors do nothing wrong and there is nothing substantial to
reproach them for. They are forced to do so in order to adapt to the sys-
tem, to promote it and to survive within it. That is the systemic problem!16
16 “Basically, this is a legal status issue. Only a short statutory provision that would guarantee
state universities the legal status of a non-profit self-governing (autonomous) corporation
would suffice the intention of the Constitution. The legal status of a non-profit corpo-
ration is, of course, not at all exotic, but it is quite common in Western democracies for
universities (public and private). The source of the problem is neither primarily nor only
in the Higher Education Act, but in the Institutions Act. With the Institutions Act, pre-
viously at least nominally self-governing institutions of both universities were essentially -
nationalized. It was only when this nationalization was carried out that the constitutional
absurdity represented by the Higher Education Act could take place” (Zupančič, 1994;
Svetlik, 1996, pp. 124–125), emphasises 25 years ago that due to the status of a public institu-
tion and the dominant public funding, the university passes from the direct influence of
politics to the influence of the state administration. This problem, as explained in my essay,
has deepened and grown worse in the last 25 years. It is unbearable, irrational, surreal and
absurd. In 2016, the Higher Education Act (ZViS-K) formally transferred some compe-
tencies of the National Commission for Higher Education (NAKVIS; this is supposed
to be a politically neutral and independent body acting autonomously and in line with
the commitments of the Bologna Process, but practice has shown a different functioning)
transferred to higher education institutions. The Council for Higher Education is sup-
posed to perform only a consultative role, and higher education institutions are supposed
to be autonomous, especially in the procedures for the accreditation and evaluation of
study programmes. Again, practice shows a different picture. The fundamental, even the
underlying problem not only remains, but in many respects even escalates: universities
do not operate autonomously, even in those segments where they could or even should
operate autonomously. The problem is similar to “media and journalistic self-censorship”:
public universities act as if they do not want to be autonomous.
146
If a professor is the editor of a high-ranking domestic scientific jour-
nal, they are able to decide who may publish in the journal, they publish
their own work in the journal, and ensure that other authors publishing
their work in the journal cite him or her in their work. Citations are an
absolute necessity for habilitation, a doctorate and success in the compe-
tition for project funds, making it then more likely that such a professor
will be specifically honoured. Or they will easily become the most influ-
ential member of the university commission that decides on the habilita-
tion and promotion of their colleagues.
Last but not least, managing such a journal has become a lucrative
business: peer reviews and the publication of scientific work come at a
price: between 300 and 500 euros. Translations are expensive. And the
translators prefer to translate the entire work rather than give lectures.
The translation of a 15-page scientific paper costs from around 300 to 800
euros. At least seven publications in foreign journals with the highest rank
are required to become a full-time professor. The salary of an assistant pro-
fessor is about 1,800 to 2,000 euros. It is therefore easy to take up mathe-
matics (Faganel and Trnavčevič, 2016). However, to avoid misunderstand-
ings, the professors do nothing wrong and there is nothing substantial to
reproach them for. They are forced to do so in order to adapt to the sys-
tem, to promote it and to survive within it. That is the systemic problem!16
16 “Basically, this is a legal status issue. Only a short statutory provision that would guarantee
state universities the legal status of a non-profit self-governing (autonomous) corporation
would suffice the intention of the Constitution. The legal status of a non-profit corpo-
ration is, of course, not at all exotic, but it is quite common in Western democracies for
universities (public and private). The source of the problem is neither primarily nor only
in the Higher Education Act, but in the Institutions Act. With the Institutions Act, pre-
viously at least nominally self-governing institutions of both universities were essentially -
nationalized. It was only when this nationalization was carried out that the constitutional
absurdity represented by the Higher Education Act could take place” (Zupančič, 1994;
Svetlik, 1996, pp. 124–125), emphasises 25 years ago that due to the status of a public institu-
tion and the dominant public funding, the university passes from the direct influence of
politics to the influence of the state administration. This problem, as explained in my essay,
has deepened and grown worse in the last 25 years. It is unbearable, irrational, surreal and
absurd. In 2016, the Higher Education Act (ZViS-K) formally transferred some compe-
tencies of the National Commission for Higher Education (NAKVIS; this is supposed
to be a politically neutral and independent body acting autonomously and in line with
the commitments of the Bologna Process, but practice has shown a different functioning)
transferred to higher education institutions. The Council for Higher Education is sup-
posed to perform only a consultative role, and higher education institutions are supposed
to be autonomous, especially in the procedures for the accreditation and evaluation of
study programmes. Again, practice shows a different picture. The fundamental, even the
underlying problem not only remains, but in many respects even escalates: universities
do not operate autonomously, even in those segments where they could or even should
operate autonomously. The problem is similar to “media and journalistic self-censorship”:
public universities act as if they do not want to be autonomous.
146
