CHAPTER FIVE FROM «SOVEREIGN UNIVERSITY» TO BOLOGNA PROCESS: EFFECTS OF 20-YEARS OF HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS IN BELARUS AND UKRAINE ANDREI LAURUKHIN In the twenty year history of higher education reforms in Belarus and Ukraine, it is possible to fix two stages: 1) forming the national systems of higher education by the sovereign states and, 2) including the national higher education systems in a process of rapprochement and harmonization with the countries of Europe (Bologna process). Despite identical starting conditions between Belarus and Ukraine there are essential distinctions in the maintenance, rates, results and depth of reforms. At the same time, a number of experts ascertain the presence of an institutional crisis of higher education having common features in both countries. This paper addresses questions about the contradictions and problems that took place in the course of higher education reforms (1991- 2011) that have led to the current situation in Ukraine and Belarus. The Soviet heritage Belarus and Ukraine inherited the Soviet system of higher education with all its positive and negative effects: centralized management and placement of higher educational institutions (HEIs), 100% state financing, planning the reception and distribution of students, unification of problems, forms and methods of training, curriculums and organizational structure of educational institutions, an supposedly optimum parity of numbers of students and teachers, etc. In the 1990/91 academic year, Ukraine had 146 state higher education institutions (including 10 universities) with an aggregate number of 881 thousand students. 1 In Belarus were 33 state HEIs (including 3 universities) with 189 thousand students. 2 The countries had comparable personnel potential (in Ukraine, faculty totalled more than 70 thousand persons, in Belarus, about 15 thousand) and a relative parity in “student-teacher” ratio: in Ukraine teacher 12.6 students per teacher, and 40 students per professor. In Belarus, there were also about 12.6 students per teacher and 45 per professor respectively. 3 Thus, by the quantity of HEIs and the number of students and faculty, the data is comparable (proportional to the populations of Ukraine and Belarus). Tendency for nationalization National revival in the first years of independence became the defining factor in understanding the social roles and functions of HEIs as institutes for designing the new national and civil identity. The process of re- nationalizing higher education was considered in Belarus and Ukraine as an indicator of national identity, a catalyst of reforms and a guarantor of independence and sovereignty. The university therefore played the role of mediator between the historical and mythologized past and realistic present. It also became a public platform of civilized polemic and convention making as concerned the priority of national ideas and values. Therefore, in many respects the success of realizing their national projects depended on the success of forming sovereign national systems of higher education. In both countries the trend toward nationalization had a background that was connected with national movements and language policies. By the 90s, the university culture of Ukraine already had a three-century history. These historical circumstances were the reason that throughout the Soviet period, Ukrainian HEIs competed to lead Russian higher education. Only thanks to the centralization of intellectual power, financial and personnel resources in the 1 Derzavna sluzba statistiki Ukraini [State Statistics Service of Ukraine]. “Vishi navchalni sakladi,” [Higher Educational Institution]. Accessed October 5, 2012. http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/. 2 Statisticheskij ezegodnik Respubliki Belarus 2005. [Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Belarus 2005]. Minsk. 2006: 205. 3 Ibid.