Soviet education in certain circles is considered to be the best in the world. In the same circles, it is customary to consider the modern generation as lost - they say, these young “victims of the Unified State Exam” cannot stand any comparison with us, technical intellectuals who went through the crucible of Soviet schools...
Of course, the truth lies far away from these stereotypes. If a certificate of completion of a Soviet school is a sign of the quality of education, it is only in the Soviet sense. Indeed, some people who studied in the USSR amaze us with the depth of their knowledge, but at the same time many others amaze us no less strongly with the depth of their ignorance. Not knowing Latin letters, not being able to add simple fractions, not physically understanding the simplest written texts - alas, for Soviet citizens this was the norm.
At the same time, Soviet schools also had undeniable advantages - for example, teachers then had the opportunity to freely give bad grades and leave “not performing” students for the second year. This whip created the mood necessary for studying, which is so lacking in many modern schools and universities now.
I smoothly move on to the essence of the post. Through the efforts of a team of authors, a long-overdue article on the pros and cons of Soviet education was created on the Patriot's Handbook. I am publishing this article here and ask you to join in the discussion - and, if necessary, even supplement and correct the article directly on the “Directory”, fortunately this is a wikiproject that is available for editing by everyone:
This article examines the Soviet education system from the point of view of its advantages and disadvantages. The Soviet system followed the task of educating and shaping individuals worthy of realizing for future generations the main national idea of the Soviet Union - a bright communist future. This task included not only the teaching of knowledge about nature, society and the state, but also the education of patriotism, internationalism and morality.== Pros (+) ==
Mass character. IN Soviet time For the first time in the history of Russia, almost universal literacy was achieved, close to 100%.
Of course, even in the era of the late USSR, many people of the older generation had only 3-4 years of education behind them, because not everyone was able to complete a full course of schooling due to the war, mass relocations, and the need to go to work early. However, almost all citizens learned to read and write.
For mass education, we must also thank the tsarist government, which in the 20 pre-revolutionary years practically doubled the level of literacy in the country - by 1917, almost half of the population was already literate. The Bolsheviks, as a result, received a huge number of literate and trained teachers, and they only had to double the share of literate people in the country for the second time, which they did.Wide access to education for national and linguistic minorities. During the process of so-called indigenization, the Bolsheviks in the 1920s and 1930s. for the first time introduced education in the languages of many small peoples of Russia (often, simultaneously creating and introducing alphabets and writing for these languages). Representatives of the outlying peoples were given the opportunity to learn to read and write first in their own language. native language, and then in Russian, which accelerated the elimination of illiteracy.
On the other hand, this same indigenization, partially curtailed in the late 1930s, managed to make a significant contribution to the future collapse of the USSR along national borders.
High accessibility for the majority of the population (universal free secondary education, very common higher education). IN Tsarist Russia education was associated with class restrictions, although as its availability grew, these restrictions weakened and eroded, and by 1917, if they had money or special talents, representatives of any class could get a good education. With the Bolsheviks coming to power, class restrictions were finally lifted. Primary and then secondary education became universal, and the number of students in higher educational institutions increased manifold.
Highly motivated students, public respect for education. Young people in the USSR really wanted to study. Under Soviet conditions, when the right to private property was seriously limited, and entrepreneurial activity practically suppressed (especially after the closure of the artels under Khrushchev), getting an education was the main way to advance in life and start earning good money. There were few alternatives: Stakhanovsky manual labor Not everyone had enough health, and for a successful party or military career it was also necessary to increase their level of education (illiterate proletarians were recklessly recruited only in the first decade after the revolution).
Respect for the work of teachers and lecturers. At least until the 1960s and 1970s, while the USSR was eliminating illiteracy and establishing a system of universal secondary education, the teaching profession remained one of the most respected and in demand in society. Relatively literate and capable people became teachers, moreover, motivated by the idea of bringing education to the masses. Besides, it was a real alternative hard work on a collective farm or in production. A similar situation was in higher education, where, in addition, during Stalin’s time there were very good salaries (already under Khrushchev, however, the salaries of the intelligentsia were reduced to the level of workers and even lower). They wrote songs about the school and made films, many of which entered the golden fund of Russian culture.
Relatively high level of initial training of those entering higher education institutions. The number of students in the RSFSR at the end Soviet era was at least two times lower than in modern Russia, and the proportion of young people in the population was higher. Accordingly, with a similar population size in the RSFSR and in the modern Russian Federation, competition for each place in Soviet universities was twice as high as in modern Russian ones, and as a result, the contingent recruited there was of higher quality and more capable. It is precisely this circumstance that is primarily associated with the complaints of modern teachers about the sharp drop in the level of training of applicants and students.
Very high quality higher technical education. Soviet physics, astronomy, geography, geology, applied technical disciplines and, of course, mathematics were, without a doubt, at the highest world level. The huge number speaks for itself outstanding discoveries and technical inventions of the Soviet era, and the list of world-famous Soviet scientists and inventors looks very impressive. However, here too we must say special thanks to pre-revolutionary Russian science and higher education, which served as a solid basis for all these achievements. But it must be admitted that the Soviet Union managed - even despite the massive emigration of Russian scientists after the revolution - to fully revive, continue and develop at the highest level the domestic tradition in the field of technical thought, natural and exact sciences.
Satisfying the colossal state demand for new personnel in the context of a sharp growth in industry, army and science (thanks to large-scale state planning). During the course of mass industrialization in the USSR, several new industries were created and the scale of production in all industries was significantly increased, several times and tens of times. For such impressive growth, it was necessary to train many specialists capable of working with the most modern technology. In addition, it was necessary to make up for significant personnel losses as a result of revolutionary emigration, civil war, repressions and the Great Patriotic War. The Soviet education system successfully trained many millions of specialists in hundreds of specialties - thanks to this, the most important state tasks related to the survival of the country were solved.
Relatively high scholarships. The average stipend in the late USSR was 40 rubles, while an engineer's salary was 130-150 rubles. That is, scholarships reached about 30% of salaries, which is significantly higher than in the case of modern scholarships, which are large enough only for excellent students, graduate students and doctoral students.
Developed and free out-of-school education. In the USSR there were thousands of palaces and houses of pioneers, stations young technicians, young tourists and young naturalists, many other clubs. Unlike most of today's clubs, sections and electives, Soviet out-of-school education was free.
The best sports education system in the world. Soviet Union from the very beginning he paid great attention to the development of physical education and sports. If sports education was just emerging in the Russian Empire, then in the Soviet Union it reached the forefront in the world. The success of the Soviet sports system is clearly visible in the results Olympic Games: The Soviet team has consistently taken first or second place at every Olympics since 1952, when the USSR began participating in the international Olympic movement.
== Cons (−) ==
Low quality liberal arts education due to ideological restrictions and cliches. Almost all humanitarian and social disciplines in schools and universities of the USSR were, to one degree or another, loaded with Marxism-Leninism, and during Stalin’s life, also with Stalinism. The concept of teaching Russian history and even history is based ancient world lay " Short course history of the CPSU(b)", according to which all world history was presented as a process of maturing prerequisites for the revolution of 1917 and the future construction of a communist society. In the teaching of economics and politics, Marxist political economy occupied the main place, and in the teaching of philosophy - dialectical materialism. These directions in themselves are worthy of attention, but they were declared to be the only true and correct ones, and all others were declared either their predecessors or false directions. As a result, huge layers of humanitarian knowledge either completely fell out of Soviet system education, or were presented in doses and exclusively in a critical manner, as “bourgeois science.” Party history, political economy and mathematics were compulsory subjects in Soviet universities, and in the late Soviet period they were among the least liked by students (as a rule, they were far from the main specialty, divorced from reality and at the same time relatively difficult, so their study was mainly came down to memorizing stereotyped phrases and ideological formulations).
Denigration of history and distortion of moral guidelines. In the USSR, school and university teaching of history was characterized by denigration of the Tsarist period in the history of the country, and in the early Soviet period this denigration was much more widespread than the post-perestroika denigration of Soviet history. Many pre-revolutionary statesmen were declared “servants of tsarism”, their names were erased from history textbooks, or mentioned in a strictly negative context. And vice versa, outright robbers, like Stenka Razin, were declared “ folk heroes", and terrorists, like the assassins of Alexander II, were called "freedom fighters" and "advanced people." In the Soviet concept of world history, very much attention was paid to all kinds of oppression of slaves and peasants, all kinds of uprisings and rebellions (of course, this is also important topics, but by no means less important than the history of technology and military affairs, geopolitical and dynastic history, etc.). The concept of “class struggle” was implanted, according to which representatives of the “exploiting classes” were to be persecuted or even destroyed. From 1917 to 1934 history was not taught at universities at all, all history departments were closed, traditional patriotism was condemned as “great power” and “chauvinism,” and “proletarian internationalism” was implanted in its place. Then Stalin abruptly changed course towards the revival of patriotism and returned history to universities, however Negative consequences post-revolutionary denial and distortion historical memory are still felt today: many historical heroes have been forgotten, for several generations of people the perception of history is sharply divided into periods before and after the revolution, many good traditions have been lost.
The negative impact of ideology and political struggle on academic staff and individual disciplines. As a result of the revolution and civil war in 1918–1924. About 2 million people were forced to emigrate from the RSFSR (the so-called white emigration), and most of the emigrants were representatives of the most educated segments of the population, including a very large number of scientists, engineers and teachers who emigrated. According to some estimates, about three quarters of Russian scientists and engineers died or emigrated during that period. However, already before the First World War, Russia occupied first place in Europe in terms of the number of students at universities, so that there were a lot of specialists trained in tsarist times left in the country (although, for the most part, quite young specialists). Thanks to this, the acute shortage of teaching staff that arose in the USSR was successfully filled in most industries by the end of the 1920s (partly due to an increase in the workload on the remaining teachers, but mainly due to the intensive training of new ones). Subsequently, however, the Soviet scientific and teaching cadres were seriously weakened during the repressions and ideological campaigns carried out by the Soviet government. The persecution of genetics is widely known, because of which Russia, which at the beginning of the 20th century was one of the world leaders in biological science, by the end of the 20th century became a laggard. Due to the introduction of ideological struggle into science, many outstanding scientists of the humanities and social sciences suffered (historians, philosophers and economists of a non-Marxist persuasion; linguists who participated in discussions on Marrism, as well as Slavists; Byzantologists and theologians; orientalists - many of them were shot on false charges espionage for Japan or other countries because of their professional connections), but representatives of the natural and exact sciences also suffered (the case of the mathematician Luzin, the Pulkovo case of astronomers, the Krasnoyarsk case of geologists). As a result of these events, entire scientific schools, and in many areas there was a noticeable lag behind world science. The culture of scientific discussion was overly ideologized and politicized, which, of course, had a negative impact on education.
Restrictions on access to higher education for certain groups of the population. In fact, opportunities for higher education in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. The so-called disenfranchised were deprived, including private traders, entrepreneurs (using hired labor), representatives of the clergy, and former police officers. Children from families of nobles, merchants, and clergy often encountered obstacles when trying to obtain higher education in the pre-war period. In the Union republics of the USSR, representatives of titular nationalities received preferences when entering universities. In the post-war period, a percentage rate for admission to the most prestigious universities was secretly introduced in relation to Jews.
Restrictions on familiarization with foreign scientific literature, restrictions on international communication of scientists. If in the 1920s. In Soviet science, the pre-revolutionary practice continued, involving very long foreign business trips and internships for scientists and the best students, constant participation in international conferences, free correspondence and an unlimited supply of foreign scientific literature, then in the 1930s. the situation began to change for the worse. Especially in the period after 1937 and before the war, the presence of foreign connections simply became dangerous for the lives and careers of scientists, since many were then arrested on trumped-up charges of espionage. At the end of the 1940s. During the ideological campaign to combat cosmopolitanism, it came to the point that references to the works of foreign authors began to be regarded as a manifestation of “adulation to the West,” and many were forced to accompany such references with criticism and stereotyped condemnation of “bourgeois science.” The desire to publish in foreign journals was also condemned, and, most unpleasantly, almost half of the world's leading scientific journals, including publications like Science and Nature, were removed from public access and sent to special storage facilities. This “turned out to be beneficial to the most mediocre and unprincipled scientists,” for whom “massive separation from foreign literature made it easier to use it for hidden plagiarism and pass it off as original research.” As a result, in the middle of the 20th century, Soviet science, and after it education, in conditions of limited external relations, they began to fall out of the global process and “stew in their own juice”: it became much more difficult to distinguish world-class scientists from compilers, plagiarists and pseudoscientists, many achievements of Western science remained unknown or little-known in the USSR. “Soviet science was corrected only partially, as a result there is still a problem of low citation of Russian scientists abroad and insufficient familiarity with advanced foreign research.
Relatively low quality of teaching foreign languages. If in the post-war period the West established the practice of involving foreign native speakers in teaching, as well as the practice of large-scale student exchanges, in which students could live in another country for several months and learn the spoken language in the best possible way, then the Soviet Union lagged significantly behind in teaching foreign languages from -due to the closed borders and the almost complete absence of emigration from the West to the USSR. Also, for censorship reasons, the entry of foreign literature, films, and song recordings into the Soviet Union was limited, which did not at all contribute to the study of foreign languages. Compared to the USSR, in modern Russia there are much more opportunities for learning languages.
Ideological censorship, autarky and stagnation in art education in the late USSR. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and the early USSR were among the world leaders and trendsetters in the field of artistic culture. Avant-garde painting, constructivism, futurism, Russian ballet, the Stanislavsky system, the art of film editing - this and much more aroused admiration from the whole world. However, by the end of the 1930s. the variety of styles and trends gave way to the dominance of socialist realism imposed from above - in itself it was a very worthy and interesting style, but the problem was the artificial suppression of alternatives. Reliance on one's own traditions was proclaimed, while attempts at new experiments began to be condemned in many cases (“Confusion instead of music”), and the borrowing of Western cultural techniques was subject to restrictions and persecution, as in the case of jazz and then rock music. Indeed, not in all cases, experiments and borrowings were successful, but the scale of condemnation and restrictions was so inadequate that it led to the disincentive of innovation in art and to the gradual loss of world cultural leadership by the Soviet Union, as well as to the emergence of “underground culture” in the USSR.
Degradation of education in the field of architecture, design, urban planning. During the period of Khrushchev’s “fight against architectural excesses,” the entire system of architectural education, design and construction suffered seriously. In 1956, the USSR Academy of Architecture was reorganized and renamed the USSR Academy of Construction and Architecture, and in 1963 it was completely closed (until 1989). As a result, the era of the late USSR became a time of decline in design and a growing crisis in the field of architecture and the urban environment. The architectural tradition was interrupted and was replaced by the soulless construction of microdistricts inconvenient for life; instead of a “bright future” in the USSR, a “gray present” was built.
Canceling the teaching of fundamental classical disciplines. In the Soviet Union, such an important subject as logic was excluded from the school curriculum (it was studied in pre-revolutionary gymnasiums). Logic was returned to the curriculum and a textbook was published only in 1947, but in 1955 it was removed again, and, with the exception of physics and mathematics lyceums and other elite schools, logic is still not taught to schoolchildren in Russia. Meanwhile, logic is one of the foundations of the scientific method and one of the most important subjects, which provides skills in distinguishing between truth and lies, conducting discussions and resisting manipulation. Another important difference between the Soviet school curriculum and the pre-revolutionary gymnasium curriculum was the abolition of teaching Latin and Greek. Knowledge of these ancient languages may seem useless only at first glance, because almost all modern scientific terminology, medical and biological nomenclature, and mathematical notation are based on them; In addition, learning these languages is good mental gymnastics and helps develop discussion skills. Several generations of outstanding Russian scientists and writers who worked before the revolution and in the first decades of the USSR were brought up in the tradition of classical education, which included the study of logic, Latin and Greek, and the almost complete rejection of all this hardly had a positive effect on education in the USSR and Russia.
Problems with parenting moral values, partial loss of the educational role of education. The best Soviet teachers always insisted that the purpose of education is not only the transfer of knowledge and skills, but also the education of a moral, cultural person. In many ways, this problem was solved in the early USSR - then it was possible to solve the problem of mass child homelessness and juvenile delinquency that arose after the civil war; managed to raise the cultural level of significant masses of the population. However, in some respects, Soviet education not only failed to cope with the education of morality, but in some ways even aggravated the problem. Many educational institutions pre-revolutionary Russia, including church education and institutes for noble maidens, explicitly set themselves the main task of raising a moral person and preparing him either for the role of a spouse in the family, or for the role of “brother” or “sister” in the community of believers. At Soviet power all such institutions were closed, specialized analogues were not created for them, the education of morality was entrusted to the ordinary mass school, separating it from religion, which was replaced by the propaganda of atheism. The moral goal of Soviet education was no longer the education of a worthy member of the family and community, as it was before, but the education of a member of the work collective. For the accelerated development of industry and science, this may have been a good thing. However, such an approach could hardly solve the problems of the high level of abortion (for the first time in the world legalized in the USSR), the high level of divorce and the general degradation of family values, the sharp transition to small children, growing mass alcoholism and the extremely low life expectancy of men in the late USSR by world standards.
Almost complete elimination of home education. Many outstanding figures of Russian history and culture received home education instead of school, which proves that such education can be very effective. Of course, this form of education is not available to everyone, but either to relatively wealthy people who can hire teachers, or simply to intelligent and educated people who can devote a lot of time to their children and personally go through the school curriculum with them. However, after the revolution, home education in the USSR was by no means encouraged (largely for ideological reasons). The external education system in the USSR was introduced in 1935, but for a long time it was designed almost exclusively for adults, and a full-fledged opportunity for external education for schoolchildren was introduced only in 1985–1991.
Non-alternative co-education of boys and girls. One of the dubious Soviet innovations in education was the compulsory co-education of boys and girls instead of the pre-revolutionary separate education. Then this step was justified by the struggle for women's rights, the lack of personnel and premises for the organization of separate schools, as well as the widespread practice of co-education in some leading countries of the world, including the USA. However latest research in the same USA they show that separate education increases student results by 10-20%. Everything is quite simple: in joint schools, boys and girls are distracted by each other, and noticeably more conflicts and incidents arise; Boys, right up to the last grades of school, lag behind girls of the same age in education, since the male body develops more slowly. On the contrary, with separate education, it becomes possible to better take into account the behavioral and cognitive characteristics of different sexes to improve performance; adolescents’ self-esteem depends to a greater extent on academic performance, and not on some other things. It is interesting that in 1943, separate education for boys and girls was introduced in cities, which, after the death of Stalin, was again eliminated in 1954.
The system of orphanages in the late USSR. While in Western countries in the middle of the 20th century they began to close orphanages en masse and place orphans in families (this process was generally completed by 1980), in the USSR the system of orphanages was not only preserved, but even degraded compared to pre-war times. Indeed, during the struggle against homelessness in the 1920s, according to the ideas of Makarenko and other teachers, the main element in the re-education of former street children was labor, while pupils of labor communes were given the opportunity to self-govern in order to develop skills of independence and socialization. This technique gave excellent results, especially considering that before the revolution, civil war and famine, most street children still had some experience family life. However, later, due to the ban on child labor, this system was abandoned in the USSR. In the USSR by 1990, there were 564 orphanages, the level of socialization of orphanages was low, and many former orphanages ended up among the criminals and marginalized. In the 1990s. the number of orphanages in Russia almost tripled, but in the second half of the 2000s the process of their liquidation began, and in the 2010s. it is already close to completion.
Degradation of the system of secondary vocational education in the late USSR. Although in the USSR the working man was extolled in every possible way and blue-collar professions were promoted, by the 1970s. The system of secondary vocational education in the country began to clearly degrade. “If you do poorly at school, you’ll go to a vocational school!” (vocational technical school) - this is what parents told careless schoolchildren. They took into vocational schools those students who had failed and failed to enter universities, and juvenile criminals were forcibly placed there, and all this against the backdrop of a comparative surplus of specialist workers and the weak development of the service sector due to the lack of developed entrepreneurship (that is, alternatives in employment, as now, then there were no was). Cultural and educational work in vocational schools turned out to be poorly placed, “vocational school students” began to be associated with hooliganism, drunkenness and a general low level of development. The negative image of vocational education in blue-collar occupations still persists in Russia, although qualified turners, mechanics, milling operators, and plumbers are now among the highly paid professions, the representatives of which are in short supply.
Insufficient education of critical thinking among citizens, excessive unification and paternalism. Education, like the media and Soviet culture in general, instilled in citizens faith in a powerful and wise party that leads everyone and cannot lie or make major mistakes. Of course, faith in the strength of one’s people and state is an important and necessary thing, but in order to support this faith one cannot go too far, systematically suppress the truth and harshly suppress alternative opinions. As a result, when during the years of perestroika and glasnost these very alternative opinions were given freedom, when previously suppressed facts about history and modern problems countries, huge masses of citizens felt deceived, lost confidence in the state and in everything that they were taught at school in many humanitarian subjects. Finally, citizens were unable to resist outright lies, myths and media manipulation, which ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR and the deep degradation of society and the economy in the 1990s. Alas, but Soviet educational and social system failed to cultivate a sufficient level of caution, critical thinking, tolerance for alternative opinions, and a culture of discussion. Also, late-Soviet education did not help to instill in citizens sufficient independence, the desire to personally solve their problems, and not wait for the state or someone else to do it for you. All this had to be learned from the bitter post-Soviet experience.
== Conclusions (−) ==
In assessing the Soviet education system, it is difficult to come to a single and comprehensive conclusion due to its inconsistency.
Positive points:
Complete elimination of illiteracy and provision of universal secondary education
- World leadership in the field of higher technical education, in the natural and exact sciences.
- The key role of education in ensuring industrialization, victory in the Great Patriotic War and scientific and technological achievements in the post-war period.
- High prestige and respect for the teaching profession, high level of motivation of teachers and students.
- High level development of sports education, widespread encouragement of sports activities.
- The emphasis on technical education made it possible to solve the most important problems for the Soviet state.Negative points:
Lagging behind the West in the field of humanities education due to the negative influence of ideology and the foreign policy situation. The teaching of history, economics and foreign languages was especially hard hit.
- Excessive unification and centralization of school and, to a lesser extent, university education, coupled with its small contacts with outside world. This led to the loss of many successful pre-revolutionary practices and to a growing lag behind foreign science in a number of areas.
- Direct blame for the degradation of family values and the general decline of morals in the late USSR, which led to negative trends in the development of demography and social relations.
- Insufficient education of critical thinking among citizens, which led to the inability of society to effectively resist manipulation during the information war.
- Art education suffered from censorship and high ideologization, as well as from obstacles to the development of foreign techniques; one of the most important consequences of this is the decline of design, architecture and urban planning in the late USSR.
- That is, in its humanitarian aspect, the Soviet education system ultimately not only did not help solve the key tasks of preserving and strengthening the state, but also became one of the factors in the moral, demographic and social decline of the country. Which, however, does not negate the impressive achievements of the USSR in the field of humanities and art.
PS. By the way, about logic. A textbook of logic, as well as other entertaining materials on the art of civilized discussion, can be found here.
If we follow the logic of Soviet patriots that the Soviet education system was better than under the Tsar, then those people who did not study in any Tsarist gymnasium, but studied in Soviet schools, or who studied at universities not with former Tsar professors, and even the most Soviet ones should show no less, and, perhaps, even greater results than those people whom I listed above. That is, people born in some Soviet 50s (the apotheosis of “Soviet” science), who studied in Soviet secondary schools in the 60s and received higher education in Soviet universities in the 70s, would have to show the whole world something new extraordinary. Well, where are these new Kurchatovs, Keldyshs, Kapitsa, Landaus, Tupolevs, Korolevs, Lebedevs, Ershovs? For some reason they are not there.
That is, in fact, any unbiased person can see that the explosion of scientific and design thought in the USSR was based on people who received the basis of their education in tsarist times or, in any case, studied with tsarist specialists. Their work was continued by their students, but as the first and second passed away, the so-called. “Soviet science and technology” are becoming more and more dull. In the 80s of the 20th century, both Soviet science and Soviet design thought no longer amaze anyone and cannot boast of a galaxy of world-class names. That is, the Soviet education system, in any case, showed itself to be more flawed than the education system of the “bast shoes” of Tsarist Russia. There were so many academicians in the 80s, but just how these academicians enriched science is an open question.
Thus, it can be argued that the scientific and design breakthrough that characterized the USSR in the 30-60s became possible not thanks to, but in spite of the Soviet system. In spite of the disfiguring souls and brains of the people of Soviet power, Landau, Tupolev, Ioffe, Lyapunov, Rameev, Korolev created. Of course, a number of these people, thanks to the military ambitions of the communists, at some point received colossal human and material resources, however, only a completely presumptuous communist agitator can claim that people like Kapitsa, Landau or Kurchatov in another political and economic system life organizations would not be able to achieve world-class results.
Science is not Soviet or capitalist or tsarist. Science is thought, idea and the free exchange of these ideas. Therefore, until 1917 Russian science was a full-fledged component of European science. For example, Popov and Marconi were integral part a unified science, albeit with a national flavor. And when the Bolsheviks decided to create some kind of separate “Soviet science,” it initially seemed that the experiment was a success, since in the name of developing military industries, the Bolsheviks actually invested a lot of money in the scientific and technological development of some industries (to the detriment of many others). However, the isolation of “Soviet science” inevitably led to regression and stagnation, a clear eloquent evidence of which was the fact of the disappearance of the Russian language as a second compulsory language for scientists around the world. international symposiums. And this happened already in the 70s of the 20th century. World science I stopped speaking Russian because I no longer expected anything interesting from “Soviet science.” The times of Ioffe, Landau and Kurchatov, who were brought up in the royal gymnasiums, ended when the times of ordinary “Soviet scientists”, brought up in the Soviet education system, began.
The transition of Russian universities to the Bologna system, which presupposes a four-year course in higher education, was a mistake. This recognition was made by the rector of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University Viktor Sadovnichy, speaking on Wednesday - December 7 - at the III Congress “Innovative Practice: Science Plus Business”, which takes place at the university site.
“I can’t resist saying it again. I consider it a mistake that we made the transition to a four-year education in higher education,” TASS quotes the words of the head of the country’s main university.
Europe, he noted, “did its job” - unified professional standards and structured education accordingly. “Unfortunately, we transferred this four-year education, now in some cases it is already three-year, to our higher school,” Sadovnichy said. In his opinion, studies in Russian universities should last five to six years, like in leading Western universities.
It is not entirely clear why the rector did not remember the Soviet system of higher education with the same five or six years. However, the very fact that he even touched on this topic says something. And, first of all, it is possible that the Bologna system, designed to adapt university education in Russia to European standards, does not really justify itself. And there was no point in introducing it.
I said that the transition to the Bologna system was a mistake when they were just beginning to impose this system on us. Further experience both in our country and abroad has quite clearly proven that it is, indeed, extremely harmful for the country and the world. Therefore, I completely agree with Sadovnichy that it must be abolished as soon as possible.
Moreover, now we still have such an opportunity. Because almost all teachers still know how to work in the normal system, and not in the Bologna one. Eat teaching materials for such work. But if we miss a whole generation, as happened in Europe, then we risk losing the opportunity to quickly return to a reasonable teaching system. And then we will be forced to recreate it almost from scratch.
“SP”: - What don’t you like about the Bologna two-stage system of higher education?
The main problem is that this system puts, as they say, the cart before the horse. The future bachelor has to memorize practical professional recipes for three to four years, having no idea about theoretical foundations this knowledge. You become a master after two years in-depth study theory, when a significant part of practical skills is already half-forgotten. This, of course, leads to a sharp drop in the effectiveness of education, since less is learned in six years than in five years under the classical system.
“SP”: - It turns out that a bachelor’s degree provides an inferior education? As they used to say, “unfinished higher education”?
It turns out like this. But the main thing is not that it is unfinished, but that it has not been started. What is taught in undergraduate courses comes from theory, as I said. And since the theory itself is not taught (the theory is now being taught in graduate schools), much of what is communicated turns out to be incomprehensible. The correct sequence is to start with the basics of the theory, and then gain practical knowledge based on this theory.
“SP”: - What difference does it make if in any case the same document is issued - a diploma higher education?
According to the Bologna system, this is considered normal. But there is back side Problems. Because Russian diplomas are beginning to be recognized in the West. And, we know, they show very serious interest in our most talented graduates. But is it then worth spending money and effort so that our best minds leave the country immediately after studying?
“SP”: - Nevertheless, Sadovnichy suggests focusing again on “leading Western universities.” Why?
I think the rector did not refer to the Soviet system solely for ideological reasons. Nowadays it is not customary to mention it. It is generally accepted that everything connected with the Soviet Union was obviously bad.
Otherwise, it is not clear why we, in fact, abandoned the Soviet system and switched to a market system, if it is obviously bad.
The Bologna process is precisely a process of coordinating interests different countries. In order to ensure academic mobility of students and teachers. Level up the quality requirements for programs implemented by the university. Switch to a modular system. And each student should form his own educational program depending on his interests and the tasks that he sets for himself as professional development tasks.
In this sense, this is a process of coordinating interests, requirements for the future development of education, as a joint pan-European, but - in general - global.
Two-stage is one of the implementation mechanisms. It assumes that bachelor's degree programs are implemented in the areas of training - namely in the areas of training. And in many countries of the world (primarily developed ones, including the USA), this education, as a rule, is absolutely sufficient to work in most professions. And which does not close, but opens a long, almost continuous, professional education. In particular, it can be more in-depth in a master’s degree.
“SP”: - Explain?
It doesn’t matter where a person graduated from a university in a certain field of study - in America, Europe, Russia or China - he has certain competencies. And employers understand this.
Nobody prohibits specialty in Russia (five-year higher education - ed.). It is allowed in our country and is classified by law as the second level of higher education, just like a master’s degree. Moreover, many of the world's leading universities already implement integrated six-year programs - bachelor's and master's degrees.
You know, Great Britain did not join the Bologna system at first either. They believed that they already had the best education in the world. But then they quickly realized that the Bologna process is about designing a joint future of education. And there is no point in standing aside. No one will make someone else's past better for their common future.
“SP”: - But our employers quite often treat specialists who have completed a bachelor’s degree with prejudice. They are perceived as dropouts and are refused employment in more or less significant positions. Do you know about this?
Any employer for one thing or another workplace has the right to make certain demands. Lack of qualifications? Let him finish his master's degree. It depends on what position you are applying for. Often, higher education is absolutely not necessary. We need workers with secondary vocational education.
In the modern world - the concept of lifelong education. A person changes at least several professions, jobs, etc. throughout his life. And mobility in a working career is a top priority today. In the first three years after graduation, young people change jobs at least two or three times.
“SP”: - Are there statistics on how many of our bachelor’s graduates go on to master’s programs?
So far no more than thirty percent. Moreover, if almost 60% of our bachelor’s programs study at their own expense, then only 15% of our master’s programs study at their own expense. Many people think that they can go to a master’s program later, not necessarily right away. That is, continuing education in a master's program is not such an unambiguous, continuous trajectory.
But if we are talking about integration into the global educational space, then, of course, this mutual recognition, as it were, agreement on common standards of research quality, they are extremely important. In this sense, I am not a supporter of any isolationism. I am a proponent of discussion and design general requirements in the interests of academic mobility of both students and teachers.
So, which universities in the USSR were still considered the best, according to the criterion of level of knowledge?
Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov (Moscow State University, founded in 1755) Moscow State University has always been the most prestigious institution of higher education in the country. Here traditionally there were the highest passing scores for applicants. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, programmers, economists, lawyers, philosophers, historians, philologists, journalists, psychologists graduated from the walls of Moscow University... And a diploma from Moscow State University has always been a sign of quality - at least within the USSR. Leningrad State University (Leningrad State University, now St. Petersburg State University, founded in 1724) This is the oldest university in Russia, which has always been one of the centers of national science and culture. From its walls came such luminaries of science as I.P. Pavlov, L.D. Landau,3 G.Ya. Perelman. Today, St. Petersburg State University is the first and only this moment a Russian university that is part of the prestigious Coimbra Group, which unites the most significant European universities.
MGIMO (Moscow State Institute international relations, founded in 1944) MGIMO as an independent educational institution was transformed from the international faculty of Moscow State University. It was always not easy to enter here, because representatives of the most elite professions were trained here - diplomats, attachés, military translators, international journalists. By the way, MGIMO was included in the Guinness Book of Records as the university where the most foreign languages are taught.
MVTU named after. N.E. Bauman (Moscow Higher Technical School, now Moscow State Technical University, founded in 1830) “Baumanka” in Soviet times was considered one of the best technical universities in the country. Here you could study a large number technical specialties, including mechanical engineering, aeromechanics, energy, construction, chemical technology. In 1948, the Faculty of Rocketry was created at the Moscow Higher Technical School, with which the activities of the General4 designer and founder of Soviet cosmonautics S.P. Queen. Nowadays, MSTU is headed by Russian Association technical universities and is the winner of the “European Quality” award for compliance with high international training standards.
MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, founded in 1942) Now it is called the National Research Nuclear University. The Moscow Mechanical Institute of Ammunition (MMIB) was founded for the needs of the front; its initial task was to train military specialists. In the Soviet Union, MEPhI was the most popular university offering physics education. They were very seriously involved in nuclear research, and graduates of this university were subsequently “restricted to travel abroad.” On its basis there were branches, technical colleges and schools in different cities of the country. I would like to emphasize that these universities continue to be among the top five now, in the post-Soviet era, which can serve as an indicator of the objectivity of assessing their high level.
How well were schoolchildren taught during the Soviet era and should we today emulate the Soviet school, an employee of the department of rare books and manuscripts told Lenta.ru Scientific library Moscow State University, historian of Russian education, head of the humanities master's program at Dmitry Pozharsky University Alexey Lyubzhin (known in LiveJournal as philtrius ).“Lenta.ru”: Is it true that Soviet education was the best, like everything in the USSR?
Lyubzhin: I didn't notice that. If the opinion about the superiority of Soviet education were even close to reality, it is logical to assume that Western countries would have to organize educational reform following the example of the USSR. But none of the European states - neither France, nor England, nor Italy - ever thought of borrowing Soviet models. Because they didn't value them highly.What about Finland? They say that at one time she borrowed her techniques from us. At the same time, it is believed that today this country has no equal in terms of school education.
I cannot agree that Finland is beyond competition. This is due to the peculiarities of local education, which is designed not for high results of individuals, but to raise average level education of every citizen. They really succeed. First of all, Finland is a small country. That is, everything is easier to organize there. And secondly, very good people become teachers there. So the Finns manage to attract students through strong teachers, and not at all through a good program. But at the same time, higher education there is seriously sagging.
Many believe that the structure of Soviet education has its roots in the educational system of Tsarist Russia. How much did we take from there?
Exactly the opposite - Soviet education is the complete opposite of imperial education. Before the revolution, there were many types of schools in Russia: classical gymnasium, real school, cadet corps, theological seminary, commercial schools, etc. Almost everyone who strived for it could study. There was “our own” school for all abilities. After 1917, instead of educational diversity, a single type of schools began to be introduced.
Back in 1870, in the book of the Russian historian Afanasy Prokopyevich Shchapov “Social and pedagogical conditions mental development Russian people" the idea was expressed that the school should be the same for everyone and that it should be based on natural sciences. Which is what the Bolsheviks accomplished. General education has begun.
This is bad?
It was the primary school where basic literacy was taught that fit well into the concept of universal education. It was organized at the USSR level. Everything that came next was already fiction. Program high school offered everyone the same set of subjects, regardless of the abilities or interests of the children. For gifted children, the bar was too low, they were not interested, school only interfered with them. And the lagging behind, on the contrary, could not cope with the load. In terms of the quality of training, a graduate of a Soviet secondary school was equal to a graduate of the Imperial Higher Primary School. Before the revolution, there were such schools in Russia. Their training was based on primary school(from 4 to 6 years, depending on the school) and lasted four years. But this was considered a primitive level of education. And a diploma from a higher primary school did not give access to universities.
St. Petersburg, 1911. Students of the 3rd gymnasium in military affairs classes. Photo: RIA Novosti
Was your knowledge level insufficient?
The main skills of a graduate of a pre-revolutionary higher primary school: reading, writing, counting. In addition, the guys could pick up the rudiments of various sciences - physics, geography... There were no foreign languages there, because the compilers of the programs understood that it would be fiction.
The preparation of a graduate of a Soviet school was approximately the same. The Soviet high school student knew writing, counting, and fragmentary information on other subjects. But this knowledge filled his head like an attic. And in principle, a person interested in the subject could independently assimilate this information in a day or two. Foreign languages Although they taught, the graduates practically did not know them. One of the eternal sorrows of the Soviet school is that students did not know how to apply the knowledge acquired within the framework of one discipline to another.
How did it happen then that the “attic” Soviet people invented space rocket, carried out developments in the nuclear industry?
All developments that glorified the Soviet Union belonged to scientists with that pre-revolutionary education. Neither Kurchatov nor Korolev ever studied in a Soviet school. And their peers also never studied in a Soviet school or studied under professors who received a pre-revolutionary education. When the inertia weakened, the safety margin was exhausted, and everything fell apart. There were no own resources in our education system then, and there are none today.
You said that the main achievement of the Soviet school was the beginning. But many say that mathematical education was decently organized in the USSR. This is wrong?
This is true. Mathematics was the only subject in schools in the Soviet Union that met the requirements of the Imperial Secondary School.
Why her?
The state had a need to make weapons. Besides, mathematics was like an outlet. It was carried out by people who were opposed to other scientific fields because of ideology. Only mathematics and physics could hide from Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, it turned out that the country’s intellectual potential gradually artificially shifted towards technical sciences. The humanities were not valued at all in Soviet times. As a result, the Soviet Union collapsed due to the inability to work with humanitarian technologies, explain something to the population, and negotiate. We can still see how monstrously low the level of humanitarian discussion is in the country.
1954 At the chemistry exam in the 10th grade of secondary school No. 312 in Moscow.
Photo: Mikhail Ozersky / RIA Novosti
Can we say that imperial pre-revolutionary education complied with international standards?
We have been integrated into the global education system. Graduates of the Sophia Fischer gymnasium (the founder of a private women's classical gymnasium) were accepted into any German university without exams. We had a lot of students who studied in Switzerland and Germany. At the same time, they were far from the wealthiest, sometimes on the contrary. This is also a factor of national wealth. If we take the lower strata of the population, the standard of living in Imperial Russia was slightly superior to English, slightly inferior to American and was on par with European ones. Average salaries are lower, but life here was cheaper.
Today?
In terms of education and knowledge, Russians are uncompetitive in the world. But there was also a “lag” during the USSR. Historian Sergei Vladimirovich Volkov notes that, unlike other countries, the Soviet elite had the worst education among the intelligentsia. She was inferior not only to academic circles, but also to any where higher education was needed. Unlike the West, where countries were run by graduates best universities. And after the collapse of the USSR, the model of Soviet universal education ceased to make sense. If a student is not interested because the subjects were taught superficially and for show, some kind of social pressure is needed so that the children still learn. In early Soviet times, the very situation in the country forced a person to become a loyal member of society. And then the pressure eased. The scale of demands crept down. In order not to deal with repeat students, teachers had to do pure drawing of grades, and the children could quite easily not learn anything. That is, education does not guarantee a career. In other countries this is practically not the case.
I, as the mother of a fourth grader, have the feeling that today, compared to Soviet period They don't teach it at school at all. The child comes home after school and the “second shift” begins. Not easy homework we do, but study the material that we are supposed to learn in class. Friends have the same picture. Has the program really become that complicated?
The school simply switched from normal education to controlled education. In the 1990s, this was a forced step on the part of the teaching community. Then the teachers were left in complete poverty. And the “don’t teach, but ask” method became the only way for them to guarantee income. For tutoring services, their student was sent to a colleague. And he accordingly did the same. But when teaching salaries in Moscow increased, teachers were no longer able and did not want to get rid of this technique. Apparently, it will no longer be possible to return them to the previous principles of education.
From my nephew’s experience, I see that they don’t teach him anything at school and they didn’t teach him anything, but they carefully ask him about everything. Tutoring is common in schools from the fifth grade, which was not the case in Soviet schools. Therefore, when they check a school and say: the results are good, you can’t really believe it. In our country, in principle, it is no longer possible to separate school and tutoring work.
Late 1990s. Students of a Moscow school Photo: Valery Shustov / RIA Novosti
Since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has undergone reforms to improve education almost every year. Have there really been no positive changes?
Spears were breaking all around important issues, but of the second order. The knowledge testing system is very important. But much more important is the program and set of subjects to study. And now we are thinking about how tougher exams can improve learning. No way. As a result, the complex Unified State Exam has only two options: either we must lower the bar so that almost everyone can get a certificate. Or the exam will simply turn into a sham. That is, we are again returning to the concept of universal education - so that exclusively everyone can receive a secondary education. Is it really necessary for everyone? Approximately 40 percent of the population can complete secondary education in full. The reference point for me is the imperial school. If we want to cover everyone with “knowledge,” the level of learning will naturally be low.
Why then in the world is the need for universal secondary education not only not questioned, but even a new trend has appeared - universal higher education for everyone?
This is already the cost of democracy. If we call simple things higher education, why not? You can call a janitor a cleaning manager, or make him an operator of a super-complex broom on wheels. But most likely it won’t make a difference whether he studies for about five years or immediately starts learning to operate the broom’s remote control on the spot. Formally, the Institute of Asian and African Countries and the Uryupinsk Steel University give the same rights. Both provide certificates of higher education. But in reality, some jobs will hire one graduate, but not another.
What should parents do if they want to educate their child normally? Where to go, what school to look for?
You need to understand that now there is no segregation of schools by program. Segregation exists based on whether the school has a swimming pool or a horse. We have 100 best schools, which are always in first place in educational rankings. Today they are replacing the missing secondary education system, as they are proving their superiority at the Olympiads. But you need to understand that studying there is not easy. They just don’t take everyone there. I don’t think that anything can be done with the current educational system in Russia. Today Russian education- This is a patient who needs a very difficult operation. But in fact, his condition is so fatal that he simply cannot tolerate any intervention.