Fighting Corruption in Georgia's Universities
Post-Soviet universities struggle to adjust to new conditions. Despite new laws and leaders, powerful institutional and cultural legacies threaten to undermine progress.
By Natia Janashia
In the Republic of Georgia, about 240 institutions of higher education serve a population of 5 million. On the surface, these numbers suggest a prosperous, highly educated society. Behind this facade, however, lies a reality of degraded standards, crumbling infrastructure, rampant academic fraud, and deteriorating educational quality.
At the center of this predicament is pervasive, systemic corruption. Economic, institutional, and organizational inadequacies have brought about an extralegal system of university governance that adheres to few ethical norms or standards. The passivity of the Georgian people and their willingness to accept the status quo have only exacerbated these deficiencies.
Corruption in academic life in Georgia occurs at all levels of the university, but it does not stop there. Widespread misconduct affects the entire higher education system. Corruption influences university examinations, the conferring of academic credentials, procurement of goods and services, and the licensing and accreditation of institutions. Instances of academic fraud have involved bribery, the establishment of diploma mills, forgery, falsification of examination results, patronage, cronyism, and professional misconduct among teachers. Students, parents, teachers, university administrators, public officials, and other professionals have all been perpetrators.
University admissions is perhaps the most corrupt area in Georgian higher education. The archaic admissions system is based mostly on oral examinations. It is unfair, inefficient, and highly subjective. Even the least-qualified candidates can easily gain entry to a university using backdoor means, such as bribery or political or personal connections and influence. Some estimates suggest that most slots at public institutions are sold outright to prospective students. Only 15 to 20 percent of the students who enter Tbilisi State University, the first university in the Caucasus, do so without paying bribes. According to anecdotal reports, the price for university admission can range anywhere from $200 to $10,000, depending on the prestige of a university department and a student's qualifications. (The average monthly salary in Georgia is $50.)
A system of private tutors who prepare students for entrance examinations advances the corruption. Unlike the fees of private tutors in Europe and North America, those paid in Georgia are, in fact, bribes to help ensure students' admission to the department of their choice. Private tutors, who often sit on examination committees, are familiar with the content of exam questions and can manipulate admissions processes to greatly improve a student's chances of gaining entry to a university. Having connections and simply "knowing the system" are equally important. Although it is still possible to enroll in a university without paying bribes, a student's chances of success are inversely related to the prestige of the department to which he or she applies.
Once admitted, students can practically buy their way through the institution, paying for every exam, each of which can cost hundreds of dollars. Or students can simply buy a diploma from an established university. Corruption sometimes involves educational materials: professors often require students to buy their books, and lack of compliance may result in failing an exam.
In many countries, universities gain public approval and recognition through accreditation. In Georgia, however, a fair system of accreditation has not accompanied the proliferation of private universities and the introduction of new programs at public institutions. The Accreditation Council, a special agency created by Georgia's parliament to develop accreditation mechanisms and complete state accreditation of universities by 2000, failed. Today, obtaining a license for a new university or approval for a new program often requires a bribe. As a result, the Ministry of Education ends up recognizing institutions and programs that do not satisfy minimum quality standards. In turn, those institutions license individuals who may not possess adequate professional qualifications.
Cause and Effect
Corruption arises partly from the dire economic situation in the country. The decline in public funding for education after the demise of the Soviet Union resulted in major changes in the governance, management, and operation of universities. These changes were not, however, always accompanied by corresponding modifications in law or regulatory systems. The responsibilities of university rectors and senior administrators are not clearly defined. And the salaries of faculty and administrators have declined so much that taking bribes has become a way to supplement meager incomes.
The government formally granted universities autonomy over academic and financial affairs. In reality, however, the centralized structure of Georgian universities prevents the development of strong academic leadership. State allocations to public universities are defined as line items in budgets, and university administrators have to comply with rigid spending criteria. Individual units and departments have little authority over funding or programmatic priorities, and faculty and administrators have few opportunities to affect institutional policies, shape academic decisions, or promote innovation and change.
Public universities still use the Soviet system of remuneration, which is based on an individual's formal qualifications and length of service rather than on performance and achievement. This system provides few incentives for improved performance and fails to create an atmosphere conducive to professional growth. Another powerful factor contributing to corruption is the absence of formal codes of conduct, policies on misconduct, and standards for good professional practice.
The lack of a national system for assessing institutions of higher education adds to the array of forces behind academic corruption. The Ministry of Education, responsible for licensing universities, has failed to develop quality-assurance mechanisms or objective assessment criteria. Licensing is a formal procedure frequently subject to abuse and corruption. One result of the inefficient system has been a mushrooming of institutions, which has increased the number of diplomas of dubious quality and inadequately prepared specialists.
Universities themselves rarely engage in self-assessment and have no mechanisms to ensure quality. Few have tried to improve quality through cooperation with Western associations and accreditation agencies. The absence of publicly available comprehensive data on the quality of institutions of higher education compounds the problem.
Still, some instances of corruption do not arise solely because of economic, regulatory, or structural difficulties. Social and cultural factors also contribute to academic misconduct. Corruption in education reflects a general problem in post-Soviet Georgian society, where cheating and bribery are widely accepted practices. During the Soviet era, Georgians mastered the art of beating the system, and corruption pervaded almost every social sphere. Traditionally, personal and family loyalties have superseded impersonal and legalistic principles and values. It is culturally acceptable to use family and political ties for academic or professional promotion.
Increased competition for the limited number of slots at public universities is another cause of academic corruption. University education is perceived to be the gateway to educational, professional, and social advancement. However paradoxical it may seem, experts say that Georgians pay bribes for substandard education at free public universities when they could get a cheaper and better education at private institutions because society sees those who pay formally for education as less talented than those who do not.
Corruption also thrives because of the poor quality of secondary schools, which do not adequately prepare students for the entrance requirements of universities. Because students are ill prepared, some turn to cheating and bribery. In addition, students depend increasingly on private tutoring. As noted above, they know that investing in tutoring can lead to success on examinations.
Controversies over academic fraud have triggered student movements. In August 2002, students gathered at the public defender's office in Tbilisi to protest unfair admissions practices at Tbilisi State University and to file lawsuits against corrupt professors and university officials. Later, TSU's rector was forced to resign after the youth movement Kmara (Enough) accused him of corruption. He returned to his position a day later, however, following demonstrations by students and lecturers who demanded his reinstatement. TSU students also created an association seeking greater transparency in university management and governance.
Although the former government approved some anti-corruption measures, no substantial changes have taken place. University staff and government officials widely acknowledge the existence of corruption, but offending professors or administrators are rarely punished. Those at the top have a stake in sustaining the status quo, because they themselves greatly benefit from the system.
Pervasive corruption has a deleterious effect on all aspects of the university. It leads to educational inefficiency and the misuse of scarce public resources. It impairs the quality of the education students receive. It destroys the concepts of meritocracy and honest academic achievement. It leads to frustration and damages the morale of students and faculty. It undermines institutional cohesion and destroys trust among members of the university community. It weakens public trust in the processes and products of the university and the academic enterprise, and it reduces the value of degrees.
Education is of paramount importance to the development of a democratic and prosperous society. It is through higher education that a country educates and chooses its leaders. When a country bases university admissions on social status and bribery rather than on academic abilities, it greatly endangers its economic and social future. Such admissions practices result in an uneven distribution of educational opportunities and compromised access to higher education.
Corruption in higher education may have even greater repercussions in Georgian society than elsewhere, because it encourages and legitimizes corruption in other spheres. When universities fail to convey to students the importance of integrity, civil society, and civic obligations, they compromise their graduates' ability to work professionally in their fields and contribute to the democratic and social progress of their country.
Past Achievements and Future Challenges
Georgia's future prosperity depends on the quality and performance of its educational system. Higher education has traditionally enjoyed great prestige and recognition in the country. In the Middle Ages, educational centers helped to develop and preserve Georgian culture and society. Georgia was the first country in the Caucasus to establish a national university. The Soviet government imposed centralized decision making on Georgian universities and other important limits, including the lack of a legal guarantee of academic freedom. Still, Georgian institutions of higher education continued to serve as centers for intellectual inquiry and objective scholarship, and they made significant contributions to world-class research. They also strengthened national identity and helped to preserve Georgian culture.
The demise of the Soviet Union changed the country's economic, political, and regulatory environment. In the higher education sector, dramatic cutbacks in public financing and increased enrollments undercut educational quality. A lack of experience in higher education policy making, planning, and management further aggravated the developing crisis.
Georgian education leaders have drafted new laws and resolutions to deal with the situation. The Decree of the Parliament of Georgia on Main Directions of Higher Education Development in Georgia, for example, outlines the mission and strategic direction of the modern system of Georgian higher education. It also addresses important issues such as access to higher education, educational quality, accountability, transparency of processes, institutional governance and financing, and the state's role in creating a viable future for highereducation.
Similarly, the New Georgian Law on Higher Education, drafted in 2003, contains important provisions for a transparent system of student admissions and the licensing and accreditation of universities. The implementation of the new decrees and resolutions has, however, proved difficult, and many of the regulations remain only a wish list.
To deal with these circumstances, universities have become more entrepreneurial, seeking additional sources of funding. They have had to adapt to new governing authorities and regulations. They have introduced new subjects in economics, business, and the social sciences in response to dramatic changes in the labor market. Yet despite their considerable accomplishments over the past decade, most universities have failed to provide quality education to students or to contribute to Georgia's new national priorities.
Today, Georgia is struggling to achieve democratization and sustainable economic development and to alleviate poverty. Georgian universities can contribute to these goals by educating students for active citizenship, creating an essential knowledge base, and serving as a forum for open debate and inquiry. But doing so requires a system that is transparent, fair, efficient, and free of corruption.
As the country moves toward integration with Europe, the stakes will become even higher. Universities will have to make enormous efforts to curb corrupt practices and promote ethical behavior as they move toward greater compatibility with European higher education and become involved with other European countries in achieving a system of university education that promotes mobility and employability across the continent.
The ousting of Georgia's former president, Eduard Shevardnadze, following allegations of widespread fraud in Georgia's 2003 parliamentary elections, and the election of new leaders earlier this year brought hope to Georgia. The media described the new president, Mikhail Saakashvili, as a "crusader against corruption" and "an enemy of poverty." He declared the struggle against corruption to be one of the highest national priorities, and the new government has already undertaken some drastic anticorruption measures.
One important change has been the establishment of the National Center for Examinations as part of the World Bank's Georgia Education System Realignment and Strengthening Program. The standardized national examinations that will replace the existing university entrance examinations should result in fairer and more efficient admissions processes, decreased corruption, and more equitable access. This step is undoubtedly positive. Eradicating academic corruption will, however, require the development of a coherent systemwide strategy.
A System to Curb Corruption
To start, Georgian universities need to engage in an ongoing, systematic study of academic corruption and its causes through research and student, faculty, and administration surveys. Reform efforts should encourage public interest and involvement in higher education. Reforms should not only change systems and regulations, but also empower students and faculty to undertake initiatives to combat corruption.
Systemic changes may include encouragement of competition among universities and of private-sector support in financing higher education; creation of a transparent accreditation system; reform of regulatory and tax systems and procurement procedures; decentralization of governance to individual institutions; establishment by professional associations of ethics codes for university faculty and administrators; support for student anticorruption movements; and empowerment of student governments.
At the campus level, institutions must clearly define what constitutes academic corruption, what the consequences of infractions will be, and who will be responsible for curbing corrupt practices. Equally important is the development of systems to monitor and evaluate progress toward reduced corruption. Possible reforms may include redefining institutional missions and drafting honor codes that emphasize quality, academic integrity, and honesty; improving remuneration to provide incentives for better productivity; developing structures that reward achievement; establishing internal rules and regulations for administrative practices; redesigning and rationalizing academic programs; and setting performance targets.
To achieve democracy and economic development, Georgia cannot afford to waste its limited resources. The country's leaders must make every effort to eliminate corruption in higher education and to ensure that every policy or structural change is an informed decision based on empirical research and systematic study.
Natia Janashia is an intern in the American Council on Education's Division of Programs and Analysis. Before coming to the United States, she was director of studies at a private college in Tbilisi, Georgia.
|