In this edition of the blog, Eduard Galazhinsky, the Rector of Tomsk State University, delves into how industry leaders are responding to the ongoing reform of the national higher education system.
– Eduard Vladimirovich, the reform of higher education in our country has sparked widespread debate, not only within academic circles and government institutions. Many professional communities, where the quality of workforce preparation is of paramount importance, are also deeply engaged in these discussions. But are all stakeholders in this reform truly hearing one another?
– Recently, Tomsk hosted a special session of the State Duma Committee on Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. The goal was to foster dialogue between government representatives, universities, and businesses on the reform's progress. The session featured several key events, including a roundtable discussion that brought together Sergey Kabyshev, the committee’s chairman, Oksana Kozlovskaya, the chair of the Legislative Duma of Tomsk Oblast, and Lyudmila Ogorodova, Deputy Governor of Tomsk Oblast for Scientific and Technological Development, alongside other regional leaders and the rectors of all Tomsk universities.
The dialogue extended beyond Tomsk, with officials and university leaders fr om other Siberian and Far Eastern regions joining the conversation, as well as heads of several prominent Moscow universities. Notably, the roundtable also included senior executives fr om some of the country’s leading regional industrial companies.
In an atmosphere of transparency and candor, which was immediately set by Sergey Kabyshev, the discussion identified several key ‘milestones’ related to the substance of the reform, its interim outcomes, and the varying perspectives of different stakeholders. I can confidently say that the participants of this roundtable truly listened to one another.
– Still, how do employers themselves perceive this reform? What are their expectations and demands? And, crucially, what investments are they ready to make in higher education reform right now?
– As Oksana Kozlovskaya noted, during preparations for the roundtable, it became clear that many business leaders, including those from high-tech industries, are still somewhat unclear about the specific changes taking place in higher education today. Our subsequent discussion of these questions revealed that employers don’t have uniform answers. This isn’t surprising, given that employers come from a range of sectors —public, private, and nonprofit — and operate on different scales, from large corporations to small businesses. As such, their capacity for direct or indirect involvement in higher education reform varies widely. However, what unites all employers is their need for highly skilled workers. No one wants mediocre employees, let alone poorly trained ones.
The acute labor shortage across many sectors — manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, primary education, and beyond — leaves employers with little choice. They’re often forced to hire whoever shows up, even if these are less-than-ideal candidates who don’t stay long due to inadequate qualifications. Conversely, when top talent is hired, there's always the looming threat of competitors poaching them. Both scenarios lead to constant staff turnover.
This troubling dynamic suggests that employers at all levels could be motivated to take a more active role in the process of training future professionals. But for that to happen, we must collaborate with them to develop effective tools that align with the goals of the reform. This challenge is particularly acute for small businesses, which have fewer resources. Here, new approaches and scalable practices are essential. As Oksana Kozlovskaya pointed out, there are already accounting and auditing firms that serve multiple companies at once. Perhaps this model could be applied to address staffing needs for small businesses. Personally, I believe new forms of government support — at both the regional and federal levels — could be part of the solution. For example, allowing training costs to be counted as production expenses or adjusting tax policies. In any case, employers can already begin participating voluntarily in developing educational programs and assessing students and graduates, without waiting for special legislative measures. Universities, for their part, need to establish strong relationships with employers and invite them into these processes.
When it comes to employers’ specific demands, they vary greatly depending on the industry, its complexity, and even geographic location. Still, certain trends are emerging. During the roundtable, we reviewed some key findings from a major sociological study commissioned by the State Duma, which surveyed employers across 83 Russian regions about their expectations for the current reform of higher education. Key demands included increasing the amount of practical training for students during their studies, which is particularly critical for engineering education (47 out of 83 regions surveyed); adopting a more flexible approach to the length of study programs, based on agreements between employers and universities (22 regions); developing clear qualifications for graduates that align with the needs of businesses, whether large, medium, or small (28 regions); and defining the core disciplines essential for professional training, which should be required during the first two years of study (11 regions). There was also a call to deepen the foundational elements of education by expanding professional knowledge and the suite of courses that shape students' worldviews, values, and beliefs. This last point was especially emphasized by regions with a strong focus on defense and industrial sectors.
– The last two requests are rather unexpected.
– Indeed, previously there were almost no demands from employers regarding the fundamental nature of university education. But, as we can see, employers are also evolving in their understanding of what modern higher education should be. At the same time, they still want as much practical experience as possible for students during their studies. This raises one of the most challenging questions of the reform: how do we create and maintain a balance between the fundamental nature of higher education and its practical orientation? This question leads to other equally complex ones. What exactly is the fundamental nature of higher education? Is this ‘fundamentality’ some kind of classical legacy, passed down with little change from one generation of educational programs to the next? Or does it also evolve, and even undergo revolutionary shifts? I’m referring to the paradigm shifts in scientific knowledge that Thomas Kuhn wrote about in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. If that’s the case, who will define these shifts, and how will they upd ate the content and core disciplines for the first and second years of university education? And how often should this be done?
In my view, the understanding of the fundamental nature of education is not only tied to the dominant societal ideas about the principles of the world order but also to the type of professional activity that universities are preparing students for. As the nature of these activities changes, so too does our understanding of what constitutes the fundamental foundation of education. No one would likely argue that the fundamental nature of IT education is primarily defined by knowledge of mathematics. Mathematics, as we know, is one of the oldest and most 'traditional' sciences. But over the past century, even here we see a revolution: mathematics, once a collection of formal logical systems, is turning into mathematics as a se t of abstract constructions and meaningful frameworks. This emerging paradigm shift has led to the creation of branches of mathematics that didn’t exist before, which are now being taught in higher education.
The transformation of knowledge structures is a very complex process. Another aspect of it involves the rise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in most professional fields. These changes are particularly striking in the economic and financial sectors. What should future economists and financiers study today in order to build a foundation for learning about the latest developments in cryptocurrency, blockchain, the digital ruble, and similar innovations? It seems obvious to everyone, but when we try to define the specific sets of the most important disciplines, intense debates often begin. Sometimes these discussions result in lists of dozens of subjects. But if we take a ‘carpet-bombing’ approach, offering students everything at once and as much as possible, how do we ensure their accelerated entry into the job market? Dealing with the fundamentals of higher education is a distinct, complex task that must be addressed in collaboration with industry leaders
– When will this work truly begin?
– In fact, it has already begun. The recent roundtable discussion was itself part of this joint effort. During the event, various industry leaders shared their perspectives on balancing fundamental and applied disciplines in higher education, and those views were far from uniform. For instance, Kirill Novozhilov, President of the Intersectoral Industrial Employers’ Association of Tomsk, believes that a compromise is needed between fundamental and applied educational programs. He stressed that fundamental knowledge remains crucial because it enables individuals to continue learning and retraining in a fast-changing world. Yet, he argued, the focus should shift slightly toward more practical, hands-on training.
Baer Manzarov, General Director of JSC Polyus, who has experience collaborating with Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR), takes a different approach. He insists that the joint efforts of universities and industry should prioritize specialized training, which is exactly what the modern electronics sector demands.
Meanwhile, Sergey Chirikov, General Director of JSC ELESI, highlights the importance of fostering systems thinking in future technical specialists, as well as developing their ability to defend their ideas, critically analyze opposing views, and sift through vast amounts of information. According to him, this should be at the core of their education. Chirikov also raised concerns about the impact of the current focus on computer-based education, noting that many graduates today struggle to clearly articulate their ideas. He argued that even a well-educated specialist is ineffective if they cannot communicate their knowledge and insights to others. For this reason, Chirikov and his colleagues are enthusiastic about reforms in higher education, particularly those that emphasize teaching students business communication skills and how to organize conferences and seminars. In his view, without these abilities, students will not succeed as researchers, especially in fields like quantum technology, which require advanced communication skills — far beyond the use of emojis and superficial exchanges.
As we can see, these are not trivial matters. I believe the fundamental nature of higher education warrants a more focused discussion, especially given that this debate has been ongoing at Tomsk State University for quite some time. However, there’s a practical challenge: while we can endlessly theorize about what constitutes a ‘fundamental’ education, the State Duma of the Russian Federation must soon make legislative decisions regarding the reform of higher education. This will likely require a certain degree of reductionism, simplifying the complex idea of ‘fundamentality’ into a series of relatively straightforward components, including a defined set of core disciplines for each field of study.
– Yes, a conversation about the fundamentals of education, whether in a broader sense or in a more 'reduced' form, is certainly critical. This is especially true for those currently working on pilot programs and who will soon be tasked with defining the core set of fundamental disciplines. But let’s return to the evolving role of employers. Their demands are clear. But are they prepared to actively engage in the reform of higher education? Or has their evolution not yet reached that point?
– We are currently in the phase of bringing major employers—industry leaders—into these processes. And it’s worth noting that the most forward-thinking among them, those representing genuinely innovative enterprises, not only understand the necessity of their involvement in education reform but are also ready to take part. This was made clear by the presentations from leaders of key industrial and IT companies in our region at the offsite session of the State Duma Committee on Science and Higher Education.
For instance, Konstantin Izmestyev, Technical Director of the Siberian Chemical Combine, shared that they are already prepared to introduce their educational programs into universities and involve their top scientific experts. Meanwhile, Vladimir Yeliseev, head of the research center at InfoTeKS (Moscow), discussed his company’s project to establish a quantum network for Tomsk’s Big University. This initiative involves around 15 organizations, including universities, research institutes, and industrial partners. It will allow Tomsk universities to blend the fundamental training of future quantum technology specialists with practical education on the equipment that will be used to build quantum networks across Russia. InfoTeKS is looking for support for this project at both the regional and federal levels.
At the roundtable, Viktor Rulevsky, Rector of TUSUR and a regional Duma deputy, suggested that employer engagement in higher education reform would accelerate if Tomsk’s Big University took on the role of coordinator, linking large corporations and medium- and small-sized businesses with Tomsk universities. Andrey Voronin, Acting Vice-Rector of the National University of Science and Technology MISIS in Moscow, underscored the importance of timely and comprehensive communication to employers about the changes unfolding in the reform process. He noted that, so far, only three universities participating in the pilot project—Kant University in Kaliningrad, Tomsk State University, and MISIS — have awarded diplomas for one-year specialized higher education programs. However, there is still some misunderstanding among industry leaders and applicants about what this level of education represents. The conclusion: there needs to be more consistent and clearer messaging to explain the purpose of these programs.
Another key issue raised was the question of 'training the trainers.' Who will be responsible for implementing all these new educational programs that are currently being developed and tested during the pilot phase? Wh ere will university instructors gain the competencies needed to teach them? As such, it is already necessary to design and test a new system for training and retraining professors. In this context, Alexander Shelupanov, President of TUSUR, noted that in some countries, professors cannot work in a university unless they have completed a year-long internship at an industrial enterprise. His university has adapted this idea: deans, department heads, and professors are sent to space industry enterprises in what they call 'space landings.' While this initiative is certainly intriguing, what’s needed is a system that works across the entire higher education sector in the country.
– What other challenges in the reform of Russian higher education cannot be solved without the active involvement of industry-leading employers?
– One key issue is undoubtedly the need to enhance the relevance and expand the diversity of both primary and supplementary professional qualifications. The introduction of the Bologna system into Russian higher education several years ago, while bringing some positive changes, also led to a certain 'blurring' of qualifications. Historically, the Russian education system was tightly linked to the professional qualifications framework. In simpler terms, a university graduate not only received a diploma but also earned the right to practice a specific profession. The Bologna system brought in some rational aspects, such as broad initial training for different types of professional activities, which was essentially the goal of the bachelor’s degree. But a 'bachelor' is an academic degree, not a professional qualification. In the Russian context, however, the terms 'degree' and 'qualification' became conflated, leading to a scenario wh ere a 'bachelor' was seen as both an educational achievement and a professional qualification, a concept that many professional fields — like law — did not fully embrace. These and other contradictions that accumulated during the Bologna phase prompted the decision to revise the system, aligning it more closely with labor market demands and professional qualifications. But if that’s the case, the qualifications framework itself must also be adjusted.
Currently, what leading universities are doing exists mostly as isolated examples, depending on their individual relationships with employers. What we need, though, is a standardized approach across the board. So, what are we proposing? First, every professional pathway must be broken down into a system of qualifications that would allow students to enter the workforce in positions like judicial assistants, for example. Second, universities must create conditions for an accelerated transition to the labor market. This can be done through four key mechanisms. These include: integrating professional training modules into educational programs during the first through third years; establishing 'training firms' (such as legal clinics or media studios) that operate either as quasi-functional or fully functional entities within universities; placing students in internships at enterprises during their second and third years; and offering independent assessments of qualifications in partnership with employers. Clearly, if we’re moving towards programs with flexible timelines and varied qualifications, we will need to reconsider the national qualifications framework. This would allow, for instance, a student in a 'Ballistics' program to study for either four or five years. Both would be considered basic higher education required for professional activity, but at different levels of qualification. For an engineer, this might translate to qualifications at levels 7/1 or 7/2, with the former qualifying the graduate as an operational engineer and the latter as a systems engineer.
In our view, the current system for developing educational programs should not be tied to professional standards but rather to the qualifications framework. That’s because the former doesn’t allow for rapid responses to the fast-paced changes in the labor market, creating what Russian Labor Minister Anton Kotyakov referred to as 'the risk of chronic lagging' during an expanded session of the State Council Presidium a year ago. At the same session, President Vladimir Putin emphasized that universities and colleges should more widely adopt the practice of allowing students to acquire multiple qualifications simultaneously, as well as enabling changes in specialization or study focus during their academic journey. Previously, universities might not have understood such recommendations, but today, these measures have become a necessity if they want to avoid falling behind the evolving demands of the labor market.
– Fr om what you’ve shared, it seems that university programs, professional competencies, and qualification frameworks can no longer be developed in isolated, industry-specific "silos." So, what models of collaboration between universities and companies exist today?
– We’ve identified three key models. The first: the company acts purely as a customer, seeking future high-skilled talent while participating in the design and alignment of the content and outcomes of their training. The second: the company becomes both a customer and a partner. Here, training takes place not only within the university but also within the partner company itself. This could involve joint laboratories, mentorships, internships, and training for both students and faculty at the companies.
This model requires the institutionalization of practitioner roles within universities, such as the creation of “practitioner-professor” positions. The third model: companies and universities function as strategic partners in the development of human capital and regional growth. This is when an entire sector is undergoing transformation, as we’ve seen with the banking industry, wh ere banks are rapidly evolving into IT companies. In these cases, the entire framework of qualifications, competencies, curricula, and education formats needs to be overhauled. But this brings up a larger question: by what mechanisms should the content and formats of education be continually updated? For example, how should emerging trends like the ‘digital ruble’ in banking be integrated into the curricula and professional development for university instructors in relevant departments? As the saying goes, each major problem that is identified tends to lead to a cascade of others. But that doesn’t mean we should avoid facing these issues. The French philosopher Henri Bergson famously said that the history of human thought is, at its core, the history of identifying problems and finding ways to solve them.
– How would you like to conclude this part of our conversation on higher education reform?
– With a direct appeal to industry leaders and all employers: I urge you to take a more active role in the reform of higher education. To educators and university program developers, I urge you to study more deeply what is happening across various sectors—both in industry and agriculture—and to update your knowledge through internships at production facilities, which we and our partners are ready to support. The future shape of our national higher education system, and by extension, the success of our economy and entrepreneurship, depends on this. Let’s work together for the benefit of our country!
Eduard Galazhinsky,
Rector of Tomsk State University,
Member of the Presidential Council for Science and Education of the Russian Federation,
Vice President of the Russian Union of Rectors
Interview conducted and materials compiled by
Irina Kuzheleva-Sagan