F French University Traditions, Papacy, reducing the right of the local elites Napoleonic to Contemporary (bishops, princes, the king) to interfere. Consid- Transformation ered to be an association of defence and mutual aid,theuniversitygaveitsmembersaguaranteeof Jean-FrançoisCondette judicial privileges that could protect them from CREHS(EA4027)LaboratoryResearch,Artois the arbitrary decisions of the civil power while University,Arras,France offering them the right to elect their representa- ESPE-Lille-Nord-de-France,Villeneuve-d’Ascq, tives. At that time, there was no real operational France separation between secondary and higher education – students entered the Faculty of Arts attheageof14or15yearsandoverseveralyears Followingalongperiodofcommonhistorywith they attended various courses, ending with the theotherwesterncountries,universitiesinFrance French Baccalaureate. The new graduates then experiencedamajorbreakwhentheywereclosed became ‘real students’ and had to complete a in 1793 due to the French Revolution. The uni- master’s degree or a doctorate in one of the four versitieswererevivedonlypartiallyfollowingthe faculties (Canon Law, Roman Law, Theology, Revolution in the form of isolated faculties and Medicine) (Verger Jacques, Les Universités au were closely watched by the political powers of Moyen-Age, Paris, PUF, 2013). From the end of the time. The re-emergence of real universities the fifteenth century, ordinary boarding schools turned out to be difficult in a context originallydedicatedtothegrantholdersofFacul- corresponding to the massification of higher ties of Arts, the French ‘collèges’ (middle education. schools), became high schools at which students attended all of their courses. From this point onwards, the Faculties of Arts tended to decline; ALongCommonPastwithEuropean at the same time, universities lost autonomy and Universities facedgrowingcontrolfromtheroyalpowers.No major change can be observed between the six- In the early years of the eighteenth century, uni- teenth and eighteenth centuries, but new ideas, versitieswerecorporations,i.e.,communitiesthat especiallythoselinkedtotheEnlightenment,sel- gathered professors and students around fran- dom entered universities as they appear to have chises. The oldest Paris University statuses were remained deeply dependent on the Church. In foundin1215.Theacademicsofthetimeplaced 1789, the 22 French universities had between themselves under the direct protection of the #SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2017 J.C.Shin,P.Teixeira(eds.),EncyclopediaofInternationalHigherEducationSystemsandInstitutions, DOI10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_2-2 2 FrenchUniversityTraditions,NapoleonictoContemporaryTransformation 12,500 and 13,000 students within the limits of created in 1802) under the control of the Educa- thecurrentterritory. tion Minister (‘Grand-Maître’) and the Regional SchoolOfficers(‘recteursd’académie’). The French high school system remained TheRevolutionaryBreakandthe unimprovedforalongtime.However,startingin NapoleonicOrganisation(1793–1880) 1794, health schools were restored and trans- formed into faculties of medicine in Paris, TheFrenchRevolutionwasafundamentalrupture followedbyMontpellierandStrasbourgin1808. in society that promoted the advent of a French Inmanycities,oftenontheinitiativeofthelocal distinctiveness. The Convention Decree of administration,medicinesecondaryschoolswere 15 September 1793 abolished universities and launched at this time, before becoming prepara- ‘collèges’, which were considered symbols of torymedicineandpharmacyschoolsin1837.An the Ancien Régime. ‘Écoles centrales’ for pupils Act dated 1 March 1802 reorganised French agedbetween12and18yearswereestablishedto higher education legal studies and decided the replace‘collèges’andFacultiesofArts.Therev- establishment of ten Law Schools. The reborn olutionariesalsocreatedspecialschools,withset Arts and Sciences faculties under the regional examinations,inordertoofferhigh-qualitylearn- education authorities remained closely related to ing within specific fields. Thanks to that new high schools (‘lycées’). At first, those regional situation, the National Public Works Institute faculties (Arts and Sciences) were in charge of (‘Ecole Centrale des Travaux Publics’) deliveringdiplomas,especiallythebaccalaureate. (September1794),whichwastobecomethePoly- DespiteallArtsandSciencesfacultiesbeingcom- technic School (‘École Polytechnique’), and the posedofthreetofiveprofessors,adheringtostrict ‘École Normale Supérieure’ for teacher training statutesandofferingstudiesspecifiedbytheState, (October1794)werelaunched.Thoseprestigious mosthadfewstudents.Vocationalfaculties(Law schools,mostlybornintheRevolutionaryperiod and Medicine) attracted more students and pro- (although some were created before, as was the vided them with technical skills training. The caseofthe‘ÉcoledesPonts-et-Chaussées’[1747] Napoleonic restructure strongly impacted the or the ‘École des Mines’ [1783]), can be consid- French higher education system due to the ered a French high school originality because of strength of the State control, which entailed dis- thedivisionintouniversitiesontheonehandand empowermentandemphasisedthefragmentation highschoolsontheother,withtheirfamouspre- oftheexistingorganisationintosmallunitsmade paratory classes for with selection postgraduate up of related subjects (the faculties). The third schools, which still attract the best students to characteristic of the education system consisted thisday. ofthelowimportancegiventoscientificresearch Infact,between1802and1808,thesechanges within those structures that primarily focused on destroyedthemedievaluniversityframeworkand juriesdeliveringgradesandonprofessionaltrain- contributed to moving the French high school ing.Sciencewasnotconsideredapriorityandwas systemawayfromtheGermanHumboldtianuni- setasideinfavourofpractice.Therewere52fac- versity model, which is based on teaching free- ulties under the French Empire (23 dedicated to dom and research promotion. The Imperial Arts, ten to Sciences, seven to Theology, nine to University, instituted by an Act passed on LawandthreetoMedicine)(Vergeretal.1986). 10 May 1806 and implemented by Imperial The French Restoration (1818–1830), which Decree on 17 March 1808, imposed a state distrustedhighereducation,suppressed 17facul- monopoly on the school system and organised a tiesofArtsandthreefacultiesofScienceswitha national administrative structure. The Imperial decree on 18 January 1816, but it kept and took University was a state corporation that gathered advantage of the centralised administrative the whole secondary and higher education (the structure–universitieswerebroughttoheel.The ‘lycées’ – French secondary schools – were July Monarchy (1830–1848) implemented no FrenchUniversityTraditions,NapoleonictoContemporaryTransformation 3 fundamental transformation in the faculties’ makinglevers,achievingitsprogrammeofreform everydaylife,althoughitauthorisedthereinstate- within the faculties’ framework (Charle 1996; mentofafewfaculties.Withadecreeon14June Charle andVerger2012). 1854 reinforcing State power in the field of edu- Under this system, training programmes were cation, Hippolyte Fortoul launched the basis of enrichedanddiversifiedwithmodernisedexami- future university development. Five Science and nationsthatenhancedthescientificcontentofthe threeArtsfacultieswererestoredbythedecreesof chosen disciplines. Research laboratories devel- 22 August 1854, with the aim of revitalising oped and their allocated resources progressively regional university life; new faculties also increased while the number of specialised insti- reappeared in the 1860s. In order to stimulate tutesgrew.Inaddition,thedoctoralthesisbecame free research, Victor Duruy created the School a landmark in erudition. The impact of these for Higher Studies (‘École Pratique des Hautes reforms and their economic needs entailed a sig- Études’)in1868.In1875,therewere69faculties nificant increase in the number of students and andhigherschools.However,thenumberofuni- staff.Thestrongdemandforsecondaryeducation versitiesdidnotevolveuntil1960,withsomelate teachers, the creation of scholarships for Bache- additionsinthe1870s. lor’s degrees (1877) and academic graduation – ‘agrégation’ – (1881), and the growth of jobs linkedtoliterarystudies(press,journalism,cleri- TheMajorButUnfinishedReformUnder caloccupations,etc.)orassociatedwiththemas- theThirdRepublic(1880–1940) tery of a scientific culture offered a particularly favourable context. There were 11,204 students From 1879 to 1880, the Third Republic enrolledinStateHigherEducationin1876,grow- implemented an ambitious reform policy. The ingto29,901in1900–1901,3.15%ofwhomwere Lawof12July1875relatingtohighereducation female students. This number rose to 78,973 in freedomgrantedtherighttoestablishfreeuniver- 1938–1939, with 30.45% being female students. sitiesandpromotedamixedjurysystemforexam- Yet the university geography remained specific inations. This was modified by the Act of with a very strong attraction from the Sorbonne. 19 March 1880 which forbade Catholic faculties The restoration of universities was a challenging from taking the name ‘university’ and ended risk and remained incomplete in France from mixed juries. For the Republicans, as Louis 1880 to 1968. However, a decree in 25 July Liard – director of the French Higher Education 1885endowedthefacultieswithlegalpersonality from1884to1902–noted,theaimwastocreate (authorisation to receive grants and bequests). In “Homes for Science” (Liard, Universities and 1893,LouisLiardendowedthatGeneralCouncil Faculties,1890),basedonthemodeloftheGer- with legal personality. While a decree in man universities, and “Homes for Public Spirit” 28December1885reorganisedtheadministrative capable of disseminating common values among framework, the basic unit of university life the youth. This significantly contributed to the remained the faculty, managed by a Dean and rebuilding of the nation after the disaster of the assisted by a Board and an Assembly. However, Franco-PrussianWarof1870–1871.Thereforms the decree did open the way to an emerging col- thatfollowedwerefundamentalandsetupauni- lectivelifewiththefoundationofaGeneralCoun- versity system that remained until 1968. The cil of the faculties in charge of dealing with all higher education budget was significantly daily affairs. In 1893, Louis Liard endowed that increasedandthefacultieswererelocatedtonew Council with civil personality. After more than buildings. In addition, the academic chairs were ten years of observation, the 10 July 1896 law multiplied,allowingspecialisedteaching (Verger authorised the return of universities in France, etal.1986).However,theRepublicansystemwas each one gathering its whole regional faculties waryofthepossibleautonomyofuniversitiesand (Musselin 2001). However, the university the State retained the majority of the decision- remained under control and was deprived of real 4 FrenchUniversityTraditions,NapoleonictoContemporaryTransformation autonomyastheuniversitycouncilwasnotledby spread their ideologies. The reform attempts apeer-electedPresidentbutratherbytheregional were disputed (i.e., the Fouchet reformin 1966), DirectorofEducationtheministerappointed.The some students considering that the reforms pro- main decisions were channelled through Paris motedaselectivemodelbasedonthesameadmis- whilethefacultymadeupitsbasicstructure.The sion procedures implemented in the university number of universities stayed stable at 16 for a institutes of technology (Instituts universitaires long time (including Algiers, but not including detechnologie[IUT],createdin1966). Strasbourg as it had become part of the German The civil unrest of May–June 1968 destroyed Empire);therewere17universitiesbetween1919 theuniversitymodelinheritedfromthenineteenth and1960. century,requiringarapidsolution.Themainpur- poseofthe12November1968Lawwastofacil- itate resumption of the universities. The Faure TheFrenchUniversities,theFirstMass Lawrestedonthree principles: autonomy,multi- EducationPeriodandtheImpactofMay disciplinary activities and participation. On that 1968 basis,itmarkedafundamentalbreakinthehistory of the French university. The proclaimed auton- Therewerenomajormodificationstotheuniver- omy eliminated the former 1896 framework and sitysystemduringtheinter-warperiod.However, favouredthecreationofaBoardofDirectorsand the baby boom and the slow but real theelectionofaPresidentfromwithinthatrepre- democratisationofsecondaryeducationgenerated sentative body. But the State did not intend to ariseinthenumberofstudentsfromthe1950s.In waive its privileges. The Ministry of Education addition, the economy also demanded a well- continued to define the programmes leading to trained labour pool. The numbers of students examinations and national diplomas, and it kept increased from 145,000 in 1950 to 214,572 in controlofstaffingcostsviatheFinanceAct.How- 1960–1961, 509,898 (including the students in ever,involvementwasreallyencouragedandstaff Technological Institutes) in 1967–1968 and and students’ participation was implemented in 694,800in1970.However,thelackofbuildings, thevariouselections.Thatnewlocalorganisation classroomsandmaterials,questioningoftheped- then established the management authorities of agogicalmethodslinkedtotheimplementationof university departments (‘Unités d’enseignement numerous lectures, the absence of students’ rep- etdeRecherche’[UER]).Thesemultidisciplinary resentatives on university councils and tensions activities brought the various disciplines closer amongst the teaching staff led to significantly and led to the sharing of experience and skills, increasedconflictwithinthefaculties(Chapoulie and the former sections (history, classics, mathe- et al. 2010). To face the greater number of stu- matics, etc.) had to work together within the dents,newcampuseswerebuiltinthesuburbsand departments. However, in reality, the establish- new faculties were constructed in the 1960s (ten ment of new disciplines often remained limited. faculties surrounding Paris, 15 distributed in the InMarch1971,56universitiesandnineuniversity regions). New universities were also launched in centres had replaced the former faculties. The connectionwiththeterritorialneedsandthelocal Faure Law modernised the university structures presence of regional education authorities. In but resulted in a division of the universities 1939, there were 24 cities with at least one uni- formed in 1896 into numerous units specialising versityfacultyandthisnumberroseto40in1968. in specific disciplines (Paris I, Paris II, Paris III, In the same period, youth seemed to be more ParisIV,etc.). critical of the university system, which they said favoured “the heirs” (as Bourdieu and Passeron pointed out in Les Héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture, Paris, éditions de Minuit, 1964) radical politicised groups (Maoists, Trotskyists, etc.) FrenchUniversityTraditions,NapoleonictoContemporaryTransformation 5 TheFrenchUniversitiesandtheSecond moreorlessfocusedonaregionalarea.Theaim MassEducationPeriod(1980sOnwards) wastoencourageeducationinstitutionstomerge within the Research and Higher Education Cen- The fear of facing another ‘May 1968’ could tres(‘Pôlesderechercheetd’enseignementsupér- explain the ministerial hesitation relating to a ieur’ [PRES]) established by the Research Law number of reform proposals. The real power of enacted in 2006 and the Campus Programme theuniversityPresidentanddepartmentmanagers (2008).Morerecently,therehasbeenafederation tomakedecisionsdecreasedinfavourofthevar- process taking place within the Communities of ious councils which regularly met and debated. Universities and High Schools (‘Communauté TheAlainSavaryLawof26January1984triedto d’Universités et d’établissements’ [COMUE]) as remedysomeofthegapsnoticedintheFaureAct a result of the Law on Higher Education and in order to strengthen the training provided, pro- Scientific Research (2013). Today, the practical fessionalisation and articulation of scientific work of these superstructures remains very research,butdidnotquestiontheinheritedsystem complex. of 1968. Universities became public institutions French universities face several challenges withscientific,culturalandprofessionalcharacter today. The first challenge consists of the shared (‘établissement public à caractère scientifique, endeavour to enhance students’ performance culturel et professionnel’ [EPCSCP]) while the although an enduring tradition of non-selective UER were transformed into university depart- admission for higher learning (except for rare ments. Those reforms took place in a context of disciplines) is promoted. That principle is at the an accelerated demand for mass education. Reg- heart of the high failure rate for Bachelor’s istered students attending universities numbered degrees. There is also a major challenge relating 837,776 (included IUT students) in 1977–1978 to the professionalisation and diversification of and this increased hugely to reach 1,429,750 in training but the situation seems to be improving. 1998–1999 (82% of 1,748,300 students in total The focus should be on a new economic model were registered in post-secondary training). In thatislessdependentonStatesubsidiesandbased 2005–2006, France had 2,275,044 students more on calls for projects and on the search for (1,309,122 attended universities), and in privateorinternationalsupport.Finally,thechal- 2014–2015 there were 2,470,700 students lenge of governance remains. At this level, the (55.2%women)with1,385,800attendinguniver- French management model, characterised by sities. To keep up with this situation, new local strongStatesupervision,isgraduallyevolvingas universities were created – former substructures aresultofthegrowingdemandforempowerment. of parent universities – in connection with the The implementation of a contractual partnership University 2000 programme,whichwas adopted policy between the State and the universities, in May 1990; the U3 M (Universities of the 3rd enforced from 1989, can be considered a land- Millennium) programme was launched in 1998. mark decision. With these agreements, which Thus,thenumberofuniversitiesincreasedto74in encourage new dynamics within universities by 1984 and 85 in 2006. Within this development, leadingthemtodevelopspecificandadaptedpol- the influence of Paris remained fundamental icies, the French universities become more and (26.2% of French students were located in the moreheterogeneous. Ile-de-France regionin 2014–2015). As aconse- Ataninstitutionallevel,threemajorobjectives quence,theuniversitylandscapewasdividedinto relating to reform were pursued in this period. numerousentities. First,since1989andemphasisedbytheBologna Reinforced by free-market and classification Process in June 1999, the construction of a logic, a merging process took place between European university area, with free movement localuniversitiesand,asaconsequence,thenum- grantedtograduatesandleadingtothereformof berofuniversitiesslowlydecreasedto71in2016. the Bachelor–Master–Doctorate structure At the same time, a process of federation began, (‘Licence–Master–Doctorat’ [LMD]) and the 6 FrenchUniversityTraditions,NapoleonictoContemporaryTransformation adoptionoftheEuropeanCreditsTransferSystem The world has changed and the centralised (ECTS), provided a useful means for monitoring Napoleonic University seems to be more and thecurriculaandstandardisingthediplomas.The moredistant... second objective consisted of strengthening the researchstructuresandteams,resultinginavery competitivesystemthatrequiredarestructuringof References laboratories and the financing terms of projects. Thirdly, the reinforcement of the autonomous BourdieuandPasseron.1964.pointedoutinLesHéritiers. power of universities, following the logic of Lesétudiantsetlaculture,Paris,éditionsdeMinuit. ‘NewPublicManagement’,inevitablyquestioned Chapoulie, Jean-Michel, Patrick Fridenson, and Antoine Prost (dir.). 2010. “Mutations de la science et des the role of the State. The very controversial Lib- universitésenFrancedepuis1945”[Sciencesanduni- erties and Responsibilities of University Act of versitymutationsinFrancesince1945],LeMouvement 10 August 2007 (known as the ‘LRU’ or the Social,no.233,octobre-décembre2010,224p. ‘Pécresse Law’) changed the governance of uni- Charle, Christophe. 1996. La République des universitaires (1870–1940) [The university republic]. versitiesbyawardingthemmoreautonomyinthe Paris:Seuil,520p. management of their finances and human Charle,Christophe,andJacquesVerger.2012.Histoiredes resources. The Act also granted more powers to universités (XIIe-XXIe siècle) [A university history]. Paris:PUF,334p. the university President and the Board of Direc- Musselin, Christine. 2001. La longue marche des tors, the number of members of which was universités françaises[Thelongmarchof theFrench reduced. At the same time, universities were Universities].Paris:PUF,218p. invited to adopt ‘broad power and responsibili- Verger, Jacques (dir.), W.B. Laurence Brockliss, Domi- ties’ (‘responsabilités et compétences élargies’ niqueJulia,VictorKarady,Jean-ClaudePasseron,and Charles Vulliez. 1986. Histoire des universités en [RCE]),withincreasedbudgetautonomy. France[AhistoryofuniversitiesinFrance].Toulouse: Privat,432p. U University Traditions: Russia its coherence with the state (e.g., Clark 1983, pp. 98–99), and whatever goals the latter might IsakFrouminandDmitrySemyonov havehadatanygiventime.Theissuesofuniver- InstituteofEducation,NationalResearch sity autonomy and these institutions’ role vis-a- UniversityHigherSchoolofEconomics, vis the government and society were central to Moscow,Russia mosttransformationsofthehighereducationsys- tem (Avrus 2001; Vishlenkova and Dmitriev 2013). This main feature has prevailed despite Definition the fact that the Russian Empire and the Soviet Unionhadeachintegratedseveralcountrieswith Russian university tradition is a combination of theirowntraditionsofhigherlearning(theBaltics ideas,universitymodels,andpractices,thatwere andCentralAsia). implemented during the historical development Russia missed the “mediaeval” stage in its ofhighereducationinRussia. universitydevelopment.Thedelayinestablishing thefirstuniversities(incomparisonwithEurope) mightbeexplainedbysuchfoundationsnothav- Introduction ing been a necessity for the state. Yet, with the gradualexpansionoftheuniversityidea,itarrived The Russian university tradition is complex. It inRussiaatthesametimeasmanyother“foreign” combines several patterns of higher education ideas appeared in the country (Andreev 2009, development and ideas about what constitutes a p.89). university. As the term “tradition” usually refers This entry covers three periods between the totheperceptionsofthepast,thenationaluniver- key historical milestones that have shaped the sity tradition therefore represents a sophisticated developmentofhighereducationinRussia. productofreflectionsandopinions(Vishlenkova Thefirstpartconsidersideasoftheuniversity 2014;VishlenkovaandDmitriev2013). from its creation to the last days of the Russian It would not be appropriate to consider the Empire. The European concept of a university Russian university tradition as the outcome of a was imported over 300 years ago but it would continuousevolutionarydevelopment.Itisrather firsttakeonrecognizableforminthesecondhalf the cumulative result of several periods, which oftheeighteenthcentury(Andreev2005,p.110). represented alternatives to each other. However, Inthenineteenthcentury,Humboldtianprinciples at least one peculiarity remained constant convergedwiththeNapoleonicemphasisonedu- throughout the history of the Russian university: cating a bureaucracy (Charle 2004, p. 52), and #SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2017 J.C.Shin,P.Teixeira(eds.),EncyclopediaofInternationalHigherEducationSystemsandInstitutions, DOI10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_3-1 2 UniversityTraditions:Russia withstrongreferencetothesociopoliticalrequire- In 1754, the Russian scientist Mikhail ments of the Russian Empire. The next part pre- Lomonosov(agraduateoftheAcademicUniver- sents how the Revolution turned the university sity and former visiting student at Marburg Uni- idea in a new direction. The Bolsheviks versity), together with the influential member of reconceptualized the role of higher education the imperial court Ivan Shuvalov, convinced the with regard to the goals of social engineering Empress Elizabeth to establish a university in and nation-building (Froumin et al. 2014). By Moscowbasedonaforeignmodel.MoscowUni- second half of the 1930s, the system had versity,establishedin1755,becamethelandmark expanded and gained most of the features of the oftheRussianhigherlearningideaandmanaged Soviet model: full central government control, to sustain its primary role throughout the narrow specialization of entities, embeddedness entirenationaluniversityhistory.Theuniversity’s in national industrial structure, vocationalism, first Statute reflected various traditions of and detachment of research from most of higher existing European universities (Andreev 2005, education institutions. The third part refers to pp.110–12).Forthefirstfivedecades,theuniver- university development after the collapse of the sityhadtoovercomesuchobstaclesasthelackof USSR.Massificationandmarketizationaswellas facultyandlowdemandinsociety,whichconsid- theradicalreformschangedtheinstitutionalland- ered it the “Tsarina’s toy.” It later managed to scape and the made the character of the Russian expandgraduallyandgaininprestigeandpower. university tradition more dispersed. Final sum- Atthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,the mary provides some concluding remarks and government opened new universities in Derpt reflections. (now Tartu, Estonia), Kharkov (now in the Ukraine),Kazan,andSaintPetersburg.However, at the beginning of the 1820s, these universities AdoptionoftheUniversityIdea werestillrathersmall,withtheaveragenumberof studentsreaching100,exceptforatMoscowUni- Despite several previous attempts to establish versity (700 students) (Avrus 2001, p. 17). The higher learning institutions (e.g., the Slavo- universitystatute(1804)providedthemwithsig- Greco-LatinAcademy),thestartoftheuniversity nificant autonomy (for instance, the election of traditionreferstothefoundationoftheAcademic professors) (Avrus 2001, pp. 13–15). At the University in Saint Petersburg. It was opened in same time, the statute brought the universities 1724 by decree of Peter the Great, the Russian into the government hierarchy, making them the Emperor, who was keen on reforms based on centers of the education districts in their respec- European ideas. The Academic University and tivecountriesandtheirrectors–headsofdistricts the Gymnasium were parts of a new larger (Andreev2009,p.292). establishment – the Academy of Science, which ThemodelofthePrussianuniversity(seeThe engaged several famous scholars from Europe GermanUniversityTradition),alreadysoremark- (e.g., Daniel Bernoulli and Leonhard Euler). able at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Thus,itwouldbeaccuratetoconsideritaproto- provided the benchmark for the Russian govern- university,astheinstitutionfirstofallrepresented ment in its development of a university system. theeducationalfunctionthathadbeenassignedto The basic defining element of this model, the the Academy (Andreev 1998). It was more the unification ofteaching and research, took rootin graduate school that helped to disseminate the Russia. Nevertheless, as in certain other places ideas of modern science in Russia and train the around Europe, the model was localized with first Russian-born scholars, though. The univer- regardtonationalparticularityandthemonarch’s sity existed formally until 1766, but did not visiononthepurposesofhigherlearning.There- become a model for higher learning in Russia fore, the Napoleonic model, with its centralized due to the lack of demand and its insufficient bureaucratic structures, direct orientation toward scale. thefutureworkplace(asinthecaseoftheGrands UniversityTraditions:Russia 3 Écoles), and control over curriculum, also found universities were established. The awarding of its representation in the practice of building a degrees and doctoral training that started later national university tradition (Andreev 2005). compensatedforthelackofprofessors.Professors Fromthattime,thebasicfeatureoftheemerging becamewealthier;hencetheuniversitiesattracted university system was its incorporation in the new personnel. The growth and consolidation of state’sbureaucracy.Forinstance,theopportunity the faculty body enhanced the university’s to embark on thecareer path ofa publicservant, researchactivities. avoiding the traditional military route, attracted In prerevolutionary Russia, students and pro- people to university. The primary orientation of fessors took a more active part in various social graduates to public service, an element of the movements and protests (Kassow 1989). At one Frenchmodel,maintainedacertaincontradiction point,political parties could evenoperatelegally intheRussianuniversitiesallthewaythroughthe withintheuniversities.Ontheonehand,thegov- tsaristperiod(Charle2004,p.52;Andreev2009, ernment intended to avoid the transformation of pp.292–93). universities into centers of protest. On the other Hence, the government often considered uni- hand, the need for a mature higher education versities as centers of opposition, and occasion- system pushed the authorities to loosen control allytriedtooppressthelibertyoftheirprofessors and regulation of university life (Andreev 2009; and administration. With seven universities Avrus2001). spread out around the country, Nicholas I began By the end of the nineteenth century, the his reign with an offensive launched against the Russianhighereducationsystemalreadyincluded universities on behalf of the conservatives. various other kinds of institution apart from uni- Increasing government control led to the change versities.AlmosthalfofstudentsbeforetheFirst of regulations developed by the minister of edu- World War studied in professional programs that cation Sergei Uvarov. He was the author of would still be relevant to refer to as higher famous the policies maxim: Orthodoxy, Autoc- learning (Russian Academy of Science 1995). racy, and Nationalism. The main reforms of These institutions included “higher schools” and 1830–1840 brought unification of university life colleges of law, oriental studies, medicine, aswellasinthebroaderlifeofthecountry.That teacher training, agriculture, theology, engineer- was the time, when the state started to regard ing (making up two thirds of the nonuniversity universities as a system (Vishlenkova and sector),agriculture,veterinarianscience,arts,and Dmitriev 2013). Elimination of international military and naval academies. This is significant recruitment of professors came along with an foranunderstandingoftheRussianhighereduca- increaseinlong-termacademicinternshipsabroad tiontraditionthat getsbeyondthepurenotionof for Russian professors. Faculty members also the university. The expansion of the higher edu- obtained the status of high-level public officials. cationsectorattheendofthenineteenthcentury By the second half of the century, the university and beyond was due not only to increase in the systemhadincreasedenrolmentandstrengthened number of universities but also that of “profes- itsroleinthenationaleliteandthestateingeneral. sional”institutesandpolytechnics(Alston1983). Yet,revolutionsinEuropeandnewrevelationsof Asweseefromthesubsequentdevelopmentof potential dangers ended up bringing a new wave higher education in the Soviet era and later, the ofassaultsonuniversities,decreasingtheirauton- searchforabalancebetweenapragmaticutilitar- omy and forcing changes to the curriculum ianviewandthetraditional(“classic”)imageofa (including military studies and Orthodox theol- higher learning institution was almost always in ogy,insteadofthehumanitiesandsocialstudies). thepolicyagenda. Alexander II brought more liberalization for universities as for other spheres of life (e.g., the abolition of serfdom in 1861). During his reign, theuniversitysystemexpanded,andseveralnew 4 UniversityTraditions:Russia HigherEducationRedefined:AClassless However, for the description of the Russian uni- SocietyandInstitutionsofHigher versity tradition, itissignificanttokeepallthese Learning different kinds of higher learning institution in focus.ThepragmaticvocationalismoftheSoviet TheSovieteconomyandsocialmodelrequireda university model partly coincides with the very specific higher education system. The basic Europeantraditionsoffocusedprofessionaltrain- functionofthissystemwastoproducemanpower ing. This model implied that people follow job for theplannedand state-owned economy.Some pathways, meaning more determinism in the scholars claim that Soviet pragmatism detached visionofprofessionaltrajectories(includingona the national university model from European territorialbasis).TheSovietapproachconsidered ideasoneducation(Kuraev2016).However,one this as the way to professional excellence, while canalsoseethereinventionofGermanvocation- analternativeviewpointwouldpointoutthelim- alismortheFrench(Napoleonic)notionofhigher itationsformobilityandcareerbuilding. educationinstitutionsservingtheutilitarianobjec- Another feature of the Soviet model was the tives of the state. Moreover, Soviet institutions organizational separation of research and educa- functionedasamajorelementinthestate’ssocial tionalactivities.Universitieshadlimitedaccessto engineeringsystemasawhole. the national research infrastructure, mostly con- AftertheOctoberRevolution,therulingelites centratedintheAcademyofSciencesandspecial- had different views on the future of universities ized institutes under the sectoral authorities. (Froumin and Kouzminov 2017). Some even Hence,itwasnotnaturalforthemajorityofuni- advocated the shutting down of existing entities versities to combine research and education in a as producers of capitalist culture and ideology. consistent manner (Johnson 2008, p. 160). Yet, However, communist idealism had another side: thisseparationletthesciencesectordevelopinits higher education as an equalizer, as a social own autonomous way. In fact, some major engineering mechanism, and as a channel for researchcenterswereimplicitlytiedtothestrong ideological influence. Hence, higher education universities.Besides,thetop-tierresearchcenters institutionshadtobeopenedfor underprivileged existed within “oases” of science. For instance, groups, the student community had to be vastly Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology changed,andcurriculahadtofallinlinewiththe (est.1946)waswellknownforits“PhysTechsys- newgoalsofthecommuniststate. tem”: highly selective admission (including the The authorities did not favor the traditional networks for identification of the gifted youth), university model (Dmitriev 2013). During the engagement of leading scientists in education early Soviet period, the government established process, environment of research and creative many specialized institutes, often by means of engineering.Anotherexample,NovosibirskUni- dividing large multidisciplinary universities into versity (est. 1959) emerged as an example of smallerparts.Alongwiththisprocess,theseinsti- synergy between the Academy of Science and a tutes were transferred under the jurisdiction of high-quality comprehensive university. These various sectoral ministries (David-Fox 2012). “islands of science” represented Soviet-type Those changes resulted in a system with a large researchuniversities;thusthismodelwasbrought numberofhighlyspecializedandrelativelysmall tolifeatseveralspotsinthecountry. institutions.Thisdesignwasalmostcompletedby Theidealsoftheperioddeterminedseveralof theend ofthe1930sand would notseeessential the achievements of the Soviet university, which changeuntilthe1990s(Frouminetal.2014). became a natural part of the Russian tradition. Importantly, the government did not assign Firstly, the total absence of a market laid the these specialized institutions a university status, groundforpublichighereducation.Itwasconsid- andtheclassicalcomprehensiveuniversitiescon- ered the social responsibility of the state to pro- tinued to exist as another model aimed at the vide a reasonable degree of access to higher production of political and academic elites. education to all (although with admission on a