higher education policy professors

• Job Listings

Public Administration and Policy

Search criteria.

Clear Filters

Refine Results

Create your free job search account.

• Receive new jobs by email
• Post your resume/CV
• Track your applications

Have an account? Sign in

Search NYU Steinhardt

Steinhardt Institute for Higher Education Policy

Professor of Higher Education; Director of The Steinhardt Institute of Higher Education Policy

Teboho Moja

Professor of higher education; department chair: administration, leadership, and technology.

Associate Provost for Institutional Research, Harvard University; Senior Lecturer, Harvard Graduate School of Education

Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University

Patrick M. Callan

President, higher education policy institute, san jose, california.

Luiz Augusto Campos

Professor of sociology and political science, institute of social and political studies of the state university of rio de janeiro; sihep visiting scholar (2021-2022).

William Doyle

Professor of public policy and higher education, vanderbilt peabody college.

Stella M. Flores

Associate professor, department of educational leadership and policy at university of texas at austin.

Richard Freeland

President emeritus and distinguished professor, northeastern university; former commissioner of higher education, massachusetts.

Martha Kanter

Ceo, college promise.

Peter Maassen

Professor of educational research, university of oslo, director, higher education development association.

Matthew Mayhew

William ray and marie adamson flesher professor of educational administration, ohio state university.

Tatiana Melguizo

Professor of education, university of southern california rossier school of education.

Mike Hoa Nguyen

Assistant professor of education.

Barbara Sporn

Professor of higher education, vienna university of economics and business.

Catharine R. Stimpson

University professor and dean emerita, graduate school of arts and science, nyu.

Robert Teranishi

Professor of education, graduate school of education and information studies, morgan and helen chu endowed chair in asian american studies, co-director, institute for immigration, globalization, and education, ucla.

Florencia Torché

Professor of sociology, stanford university.

Liang Zhang

Professor of higher education, new york university, visiting scholars.

Burcu Erdemir

Visiting scholar (2019-2020).

Qiuxiang Wu

Mehmet Ali Yilik

Middle east technical university, ankara-türkiye; sihep visiting scholar (2022-2023).

Chon Sun Ihm

Visiting scholar (2022-2023).

Higher Education Policy

This course will examine major policy issues in higher education in both the United States and abroad. Topics covered will include models of individuals’ educational investment decisions, rationale for government involvement in higher education markets, the effects of higher education on long-term social and economic outcomes, and the behavior of institutions that produce higher education. Students will use economic models and interpret experts’ empirical findings to analyze current issues in higher education policy such as free community college, financial aid and student loans, affirmative action, higher education accountability, and student debt relief.

Recent News

Research professor robert kaestner assesses effects of increased income on infant health.

Natasha Mathur, MSCAPP’19, on the Connection Between the Real World and Data

Harris voices: miguel a. blancarte, jr., cla'21, on growth during trying times, upcoming events, ask admissions: sdg challenge program for high school students, ask admissions: credential programs, harris campus visit.

Keller Center 1307 E 60th St Chicago , IL 60637 United States

You might also be interested in...

UChicago Harris/AP-NORC Poll: The public finds it more important for the federal government to forgive medical debt than student loans

How Digital Tools Enhance Parenting

Alumni Profile: Alex Munro, PWC’23

Student Profile: Evy Lanai, MPP Class of 2025

• How to Apply
• Why Public Policy
• Financial Aid
• Academic Advising
• Disability Resources
• Room Reservations
• Academic Calendar
• Faculty Resources
• Faculty Access
• Human Resources
• News and Events
• Alumni Directory
• Get Involved

You are using an outdated browser. This website is best viewed in IE 9 and above. You may continue using the site in this browser. However, the site may not display properly and some features may not be supported. For a better experience using this site, we recommend upgrading your version of Internet Explorer or using another browser to view this website.

- Download the latest Internet Explorer - No thanks (close this window)

• Penn GSE Environmental Justice Statement
• Philadelphia Impact
• Global Initiatives
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Catalyst @ Penn GSE
• Penn GSE Leadership
• Program Finder
• Academic Divisions & Programs
• Professional Development & Continuing Education
• Teacher Programs & Certifications
• Undergraduates
• Dual and Joint Degrees
• Faculty Directory
• Research Centers, Projects & Initiatives
• Lectures & Colloquia
• Books & Publications
• Academic Journals
• Application Requirements & Deadlines
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Campus Visits & Events
• International Students
• Options for Undergraduates
• Non-Degree Studies
• Contact Admissions / Request Information
• Life at Penn GSE
• Penn GSE Career Paths
• Living in Philadelphia
• DE&I Resources for Students
• Student Organizations
• Career & Professional Development
• News Archive
• Events Calendar
• The Educator's Playbook
• Find an Expert
• Race, Equity & Inclusion
• Counseling & Psychology
• Education Innovation & Entrepreneurship
• Education Policy & Analysis
• Higher Education
• Language, Literacy & Culture
• Teaching & Learning
• Support Penn GSE
• Contact Development & Alumni Relations
• Find a Program
• Request Info
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Staff & Faculty

Search form

Education policy, doctor of philosophy (ph.d.), you are here, an individualized doctoral program and an apprenticeship that prepares you for advanced empirical education policy research..

The goal of the Education Policy doctoral program is to produce the next generation of education policy scholars and researchers by providing students with deep content knowledge, disciplinary grounding, and training in the use of rigorous, cutting-edge methods. We study early childhood education, K-12, and beyond, in the United States and around the world. Our program has a proven record of preparing students for a variety of research careers, such as professors at top tier-universities and policy researchers at premier research firms, non-profit research organizations, and government agencies.

What Sets Us Apart

About the program.

The Education Policy Ph.D. program equips graduates with the knowledge and methodological tools to use, understand, and conduct research on the pressing educational issues of the day.  Your program of study will be matched to your specific interests in education policy on the local, state, national, or international levels. 

Fall: 4 courses; Spring: 4 courses

Research apprenticeship 20 hours per week

Culminating experience Comprehensive examination and doctoral dissertation 

At the heart of the Education Policy Ph.D. program is the research apprenticeship. You will be paired with Education Policy faculty members whose research interests align with your own, and work alongside them in the research process. You will learn to design, conduct, and communicate the results of empirical research, including presenting papers at scholarly conferences and submitting articles to scholarly journals for publication.

In addition to an  individualized program of study,  our students are required to write a significant qualifying paper and complete a dissertation on an issue in education. 

Transfer Courses

Course units of graduate coursework taken prior to matriculation into the Ph.D. degree program, if approved by both your faculty advisor and the Education Policy Chair, may be substituted for one or more of the above required courses. However, students are still required to complete 16 course units while at Penn GSE.

Program Length

Our Ph.D. program is designed to be completed in four years—two years of full-time coursework and two years to complete exams and dissertation. The University’s maximum time limit for completion is ten years after matriculation.

Preliminary Examination/Doctoral Dissertation

At the end of the coursework, students complete a preliminary examination (also known as the qualifying paper or comprehensive examination) covering relevant areas of education policy. Successful passage bestows doctoral candidacy, at which point students appoint a dissertation committee, orally defend their dissertation proposal, and write and defend their dissertation.

Our program offers a balance of flexibility and rigor. We want our students to be able to tailor their courses to their own interests and expertise while ensuring that they develop methodological and content-area expertise. One of the strengths of our program is that students can take courses in nationally ranked departments across the University of Pennsylvania. Many of our students take courses at the Wharton School, the School of Social Policy and Practice, and in departments including Sociology and Political Science. Advisors work closely with students to design their course of study.

For information on courses and requirements, visit the  Education Policy Ph.D. program in the University Catalog .

Our Faculty

The Education Policy faculty study everything from big data in early childhood education to assessment evaluation to the teacher workforce. In addition to the standing faculty in Education Policy, our program is enriched by the scholarship of faculty members from the Literacy, Culture, and International Education, Human Development and Quantitative Methods, and Teaching, Learning, and Leadership divisions. 

Affiliated Faculty

Sigal Ben-Porath MRMJJ Presidential Professor Ph.D., Tel Aviv University

Wendy Chan Assistant Professor Ph.D., Northwestern University

Dennis P. Culhane Professor, Penn Social Policy & Practice Ph.D., Boston College

John MacDonald Professor of Criminology and Sociology, Penn Arts & Sciences Ph.D., University of Maryland

Laura W. Perna Vice Provost for Faculty Ph.D., University of Michigan

Daniel A. Wagner UNESCO Chair in Learning and Literacy Ph.D., University of Michigan

Sharon Wolf Associate Professor Ph.D., New York University

Jonathan Zimmerman Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor in Education Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University

"I went to Penn GSE because I wanted to understand the education research that drove policy changes, and I wanted to make that research applicable to teachers."

Wendy Castillo

Our graduates.

Our graduates are equipped with the knowledge and methodological tools to use, understand, and conduct research on the pressing educational issues of the day. We have a proven record of preparing students for a variety of research careers, such as professors at top-tier universities and policy researchers at premier research firms, nonprofit research organizations, and government agencies. Some alumni have also gone on to lead schools, districts, and other organizations.

Alumni Careers

Recent job placements.

• Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Assistant Professor, St. Louis University
• Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
• Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Pennsylvania
• Postdoctoral Scholar, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Lecturer, Princeton University
• Senior Analyst, Abt Associates
• Research Associate, MDRC
• Analyst, Congressional Research Office

Admissions & Financial Aid

Please visit our Admissions and Financial Aid pages for specific information on the application requirements , as well as information on tuition, fees, financial aid, scholarships, and fellowships.

Contact us if you have any questions about the program.

Graduate School of Education University of Pennsylvania 3700 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-6415 [email protected] [email protected]

Nakia Gard Program Manager (215) 573-8075 [email protected]

Noel Lipki Program Coordinator (215) 746-2923 [email protected]

Please view information from our Admissions and Financial Aid Office for specific information on the cost of this program.

All Ph.D. students are guaranteed a full scholarship for their first four years of study, as well as a stipend and student health insurance. Penn GSE is committed to making your graduate education affordable, and we offer generous scholarships, fellowships, and assistantships.

Related News & Research

Penn GSE’s Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education makes the case for $5.1 billion education funding overhaul in Pennsylvania

Penn gse's center for benefit-cost studies of education releases new policy brief on pennsylvania's basic education funding proposal.

With pandemic stimulus funds sunsetting, Penn GSE expert offers investment ideas

Karen weaver analyzes division iii college closures in “forbes”.

Penn Early Childhood and Family Research Center

The Penn Early Childhood and Family Research Center aims to advance the use of science in a context of public trust to address problems affecting the well-being of young children and families facing systemic injustice and disadvantage.

Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning

The Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL) examines how college- and career-ready standards are implemented, if they improve student learning, and what instructional tools measure and support their implementation.

Consortium For Policy Research In Education

The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) is a joint effort of seven graduate schools of education. Its research focuses on school reform, governance, policy, and finance.

Our Students

Our doctoral students engage in research alongside Education Policy throughout the course of their degree. Learn more about our students and their research.

You May Be Interested In

Related programs.

• Education Policy M.S.Ed. 
• Education, Culture, and Society Ph.D. 
• Higher Education Ph.D. 
• Quantitative Methods M.Phil.Ed.
• Quantitative Methods Ph.D.
• Statistics, Measurement, Assessment, and Research Technology M.S.Ed.

Related Topics

Though more women are on college campuses, climbing the professor ladder remains a challenge

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, bridget turner kelly btk bridget turner kelly associate professor - university of maryland, college of education.

March 29, 2019

Gender inequalities persist in the academy, preventing both white women and women of color faculty from making the scholarly and curricular contributions that only they can make. As smart as we academics are, we have not figured out a way to rid systemic sexism and gender inequities from faculty life. Even more, when sexism intertwines with other marginalized identities like race, we do even worse at rooting out inequities. In addition to the curricular and scholarly contributions women faculty make that are distinct from men faculty, women faculty of color contribute to increasing the participation and retention of students of color , a major focus of higher education missions. Yet, the academy continues to hinder them from achieving their maximum impact.

As we celebrate Women’s Her story Month, I must acknowledge my somber mood, as female tenured associate professors are fewer in number now than when my colleagues and I began looking at the data in 2003. We began the Women in the Academy study to uncover what was behind a then 75-year stagnant number of women faculty. The research literature we reviewed as we commenced this effort was generally discouraging:

• Women made up 31 percent of full-time faculty in U.S. higher education, an increase of a meager 5 percent over the previous 75 years . For context, the number of women enrolling and earning college degrees has tripled during this period.
• According to the American Association of University Women , among tenured faculty at four-year institutions, just 27 percent were women.
• As implied by the narrowing share of women moving up ranks, appointments at the associate professor rank, usually granted with tenure, disproportionately did not go to women .
• Women experienced disproportionately high rates of leaving academia by their second or third semesters .

“Female tenured associate professors are fewer in number now than when my colleagues and I began looking at the data in 2003.”

In summary, the literature on women faculty at the time suggested that the faculty socialization process, rather than being a positive force, “ work[s] to the disadvantage of women in academe [and] continue[s] to exert a strong, if increasingly unheralded impact ” on their tenure and promotion.

With that gloomy backdrop, my colleagues and I wanted to know what caused women faculty to stay or leave the tenure journey, particularly at doctoral-granting universities where the disparities were the greatest . Dana Christman’s synthesis of the literature on women faculty argued that in order to begin the process of transforming the academy to address sexism and gender inequities “the academy must commit to an honest attempt to understand women faculty members’ experiences.” The Women in the Academy study sought to listen, understand and examine specific events that women faculty voiced as critical to their experience.

Women in the Academy was a longitudinal study of 22 women faculty conducted by members of my research team and me from 2003 to 2012. Though we did not talk to hundreds of women as a qualitative study, we probed deeply into each participant’s experiences on the tenure track in order to explore commonalities behind the low retention, promotion, and tenure rates for women faculty. Participants for the study included seven women faculty of color and all women were from one of two public, doctoral-granting, predominantly white universities in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S. The women represented over 10 different disciplines from communication to science.

We followed the women every year on the tenure track until either one year after they earned tenure or until they left the institution without earning tenure. Allow me to share with you some of the primary lessons that we learned after nine years in the field collecting interview data from the women on their most challenging and triumphant experiences on the tenure track

“White women faculty and women faculty of color experience sexism and racism, as well as other forms of intersectional oppression, and  they experience a great deal of joy in faculty life.”

First, all experienced highs and lows. White women faculty and women faculty of color experience sexism and racism, as well as other forms of intersectional oppression,  and  they experience a great deal of joy in faculty life. They strive to make key contributions to academia in their teaching and scholarship and thrive in doing so.

Second, the intersections of different identities matter. Commonly used models of socialization, like the newcomer adjustment model, generally do not account for gender, race, or other aspects of faculty’s intersecting identities. By examining this context, we documented the ways in which gender and race (among other marginalized identities) influenced women faculty’s understanding of what it took to earn tenure, their belief in their ability to earn tenure, and the insiders/outsiders who supported their tenure.

Third, relationships matter to the career satisfaction and institutional fit for women faculty. Current reward structures do not promote or affirm women faculty in research universities. Women faculty were often isolated based on their marginalized identities; those who thrived sought out making meaningful connections with co-researchers, students, faculty, and administrators. Often, they pursued these supportive relationships in spite of discouraging messages they received from department chairs and deans who emphasized independent scholarship. These relationships ended up paying dividends in the tenure evaluation process: Women faculty often utilized multiple external sources of support (from peers, family, and friends) rather than institutional support (from deans, chairs, and tenured faculty), defying established (and very often gendered) norms.

Overall, when we started the Women in the Academy study, much of the literature documented the challenges and hardships women faculty faced. In our study, though there were isms to navigate (e.g., sexism and racism), we documented the gifts of meaning, fulfillment, and inspiration women faculty found along the tenure track journey. When asked why stay in a system that often displayed sexism and racism, among other systemic structures that served to make faculty life inequitable, the women in our study relayed story after story of the work they were privileged to do with students.

Today, some 16 years after we began the Women in the Academy study, the overall number of women full-time faculty increased from 31 percent to 45 percent. Though these numbers seem brilliant at first glance, the patina fades upon realizing that these increases are from more women faculty hired in the roles of instructors, lecturers, and assistant professors—all untenured ranks. The higher on the ladder you look, the fewer tenured women there are, showing the same gendered inequities persist. Case in point: in 2016, women represented 26 percent of all tenured professors, down a notch from the 27 percent mark in 2003. At best, the process of advancing through tenure remains stagnant for women professors, at worst, some could say women ascending the professor ladder is now harder than ever.

If students are to reap the benefits of the curricular and scholarly contributions only women faculty can make, we need to put our brains and hearts to work on making the experience of all women full-time faculty in U.S. higher education one without gender inequities.

Related Content

Cory Koedel

October 5, 2017

Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

July 10, 2018

Randall Akee

January 22, 2020

Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Phillip Levine, Luke Pardue

June 5, 2024

Carly D. Robinson, Katharine Meyer, Susanna Loeb

June 4, 2024

Annelies Goger, Katherine Caves, Hollis Salway

May 16, 2024

Why are professors trying to escape their jobs?

The Facebook group that offers a look inside the crisis in higher education

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

A Facebook group called The Professor Is Out, which has close to 33,000 members, aims to spirit dissatisfied college and university professors in the United States out of the profession and into other pursuits. The scale of the group might come as a surprise to most people, who assume that a combination of competitive salaries and flexible work schedules make academia close to an ideal workplace . Yet many professors are deeply unhappy with their jobs, their compensation and the general direction of higher education policy in the United States, especially in southern states where policymakers are eliminating job protections and imposing new speech restrictions on faculty.  

The Professor Is Out, founded by a former professor of anthropology, Karen Kelsky, in 2010 , is both a support group and a networking opportunity. It has been so successful that Kelsky and several colleagues turned it into a thriving business that offers career coaching and other consulting and advising services. Most of what happens on the Facebook page, though, is individuals posting their horror stories, often anonymously to avoid retribution, and asking for advice and solidarity. Kelsky's group is therefore also a window into the complicated, interrelated crises afflicting virtually the entire industry.

Facing multiple crises

In an increasingly competitive environment this century, many schools made enormous investments in new buildings and facilities to attract students, a move recently dubbed "the amenities arms race" by The Chronicle of Higher Education. But the resulting debt loads have been unsustainable for many institutions. Parents worried about their own finances after the Great Recession began to doubt the basic value proposition of higher education, particularly as tuition continued to rise faster than inflation at public and private colleges. At many institutions, these harsh realities have meant budget cuts, salary freezes and program eliminations. In some rare cases, as with Southern Vermont College in 2019 , it has led to the permanent closure of an institution.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Even at institutions not threatened with doom, many faculty saw an erosion in salary and benefits after the Great Recession. And then along came the one-two punch of Covid-19 and post-pandemic inflation. At many institutions, salaries are still significantly lower than before the pandemic. At the vast majority of colleges and universities, falling student numbers have led to downward pressure on salaries for both full and part-time faculty, and outside of the small circle of elite public and private universities, this has also meant less money for travel and studies for faculty whose career prospects depend on their ability to conduct research and publish. These developments have damaged "the ability of colleges and universities to attract and retain talented faculty members," said the American Association of University Professors in its 2022-2023 annual report on the profession. 

Fewer students, more competition

There's another problem. Undergraduate college enrollments in the United States peaked in 2010, and the number of students has declined significantly since then, a trend exacerbated by the pandemic. But that pales in comparison to the "steep drop in the traditional college-age population" that will affect universities and colleges "in certain parts of the country starting in 2025," said Sara Weissman for Inside Higher Ed. This looming problem is known in education circles as " the demographic cliff " and has created a general atmosphere of gloom and fear inside many colleges and universities, which are reluctant to hire new professors or invest in the ones they already have while the institutions face such an uncertain future. Many analysts believe that another wave of mergers between troubled institutions, or even outright closures, are on the horizon.

That is the bleak landscape facing many university faculty who come to The Professor is Out for help. One recent poster, a tenured professor, asked for input and said that "the monotony, politics, budget woes, blank-eyed students, continual emails and ever-shifting priorities of the university" were leading to a search for opportunities outside the industry. More than two dozen replies offered a mix of advice and commiseration, much of it heartfelt and based on personal experience. No one recommended staying in academia.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

David Faris is an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. He is a frequent contributor to Informed Comment , and his work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times , The Christian Science Monitor , and Indy Week .

Today's Big Question Voters face a stark choice between far-right party and left-wing alliance as centrists lose ground

By Rebecca Messina, The Week UK Published 21 June 24

Today's Newspapers A roundup of the headlines from the US front pages

By The Week Staff Published 21 June 24

Puzzles and Quizzes Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?

In the Spotlight The 'After School Satan Club' has been igniting controversy in recent months

By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published 31 May 24

In the Spotlight The practice is barely tracked or regulated in the US and can easily conceal abuse

By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published 28 May 24

The Explainer Twenty-five years after the shooting, Columbine 'fan clubs' remain prevalent online

By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published 1 May 24

Speed Read Citing safety concerns, the university canceled a pro-Palestinian student's speech

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 17 April 24

speed read The state reached a settlement with challengers of the 2022 "Don't Say Gay" education law

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 12 March 24

Talking Points Educators say the devices disrupt classrooms

By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published 28 February 24

Opinion Bribing the college admissions office no longer makes any sense

By Mark Gimein Published 19 February 24

Under the radar What test-optional college admissions really means

By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published 26 January 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Create a free Diverse: Issues In Higher Education account to continue reading

Impacting Policy and Creating Greater Equity

“Between grades five and nine, I went to a different school every year,” says Reid. “My education was sort of like a journey, so I was always curious about how my unique schooling experience was created by local policies — what dictates our school districts, schools and what kinds of supports they have for students.”

As an undergraduate at the University of Connecticut, Reid was a McNair Scholar. During that time, he did research on income segregation, which motivated him toward his current focus. Going forward, he anticipates leveraging data and research to inform policy-making about schools and support families from marginalized backgrounds.

“Michael wants to ensure that education is not only equitable, but also achievable and that students have access to living up to their potential and achieving their academic and career goals,” says Dr. Erik M. Hines, professor in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University, who was director of ScHOLA²RS House (Scholastic House of Leaders in Support of African American Researchers and Scholars) at University of Connecticut when Reid was an undergraduate. “When he went into his master’s degree [in educational psychology], he said, ‘Dr. Hines, I want to merge this with helping underserved communities, especially in education, closing the opportunity gap and making sure that students will have the opportunity to develop their potential and be academically successful if they have the right support systems in place,’” says Hines.

“A lot of our realities are socially constructed through policy-making,” says Reid, who has co-written peer reviewed journal articles for the Texas Education Review and Journal of College and University Student Housing. He has also participated in peer-reviewed presentations at conferences. Earlier this year, he received the University Graduate Continuing Fellowship.

Reid is already meeting with politicians in Texas about educational policy. In addition to being a graduate research assistant at Texas, he was part of the Graduate Archer Fellowship Program in Washington, D.C., which provided him exposure to policy networking with individuals in the federal government. He currently is also a graduate research assistant with the Center for Community College Student Engagement. Reid’s doctoral coursework is completed, and he is currently focusing on his dissertation. His master’s thesis was “District Achievement in Florida: Examining the Relationship Between Within-District Income Segregation, District Wealth and Income-Achievement Gaps.” While his dissertation is still in development, it will examine what segregation means through an interdisciplinary lens. He will look at the history of segregation, how it developed and what it has meant. “For so many Black, Latinx, and Hispanic children across the country…schools and districts are spatially concentrated with inequality, poor education, teacher turnover, and things like that, which is really hampering their educational experiences, their educational mobility and then their social mobility and what their long-term life outcomes are,” Reid says. “I’m focusing on Black families who have been in segregated urban communities,” he adds. “I was curious about…how the effects of living in a segregated, impoverished neighborhood over time has affected them. … Currently, I’m focused on their educational resilience. How did they create unique family capital and how that capital then transmits across generations within a family.”

He will carry a sense of storytelling into policy work because he sees power and impact in these stories. Upon completion of his doctorate, Reid says he hopes to work in policy research and advocacy either with a nonprofit organization or in government. The goal is to influence decision-makers and impact lives. “Wherever he decides to go, he will make a tremendous impact,” says Hines. “His goal, his purpose is to create change in a positive way for the students who need it the most.”

A Scholar Who is ‘Extending the Hand as He Climbs’

Focus on Athletes and Concussions

Leading With Vision

Developing Leaders

Assistant Director

Clinical assistant/associate professor of financial planning, human resources clerk (confidential), coordinator, bas software development, network administrator ii, dean of the college of education and human development.

Higher Education in Tajikistan: Institutional Landscape and Key Policy Developments

• Open Access
• First Online: 25 April 2018

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Alan J. DeYoung 8 ,
• Zumrad Kataeva 9 &
• Dilrabo Jonbekova 10  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education ((PSGHE))

10k Accesses

32 Citations

Higher education in Tajikistan has undergone substantial changes over the past 25 years as a result of both its internal crises and those social and economic transition challenges seen throughout the Newly Independent States (NIS). HEIs in the country have also shown eagerness to change and grow as they move toward world education space. In this chapter, we examine the evolution of the Tajik system of higher education from the Soviet time through independence (1991–2015) in terms of growth, emerging landscape and diversification, and key policy developments and issues. We analyze these changes in the context of relevant economic, social and political factors, and rely on a comparative analysis in understanding the commonalities and differences in higher educational landscapes between Tajikistan and others in the NIS. Institutional diversity has occurred in the country along several dimensions. Among these is a geometric expansion of the number of HEIs: Those transformed from preexisting Soviet institutes as well as the establishment of many new ones. This has been fueled partly by the mass creation of new programs that reflect the needs of an emerging knowledge-based economy but also the result of parental craving for higher education for their children—regardless of market demands. Specific features of the massification of higher education in Tajikistan are further explained by internationalization according to the Bologna Process and other globalization agendas; the establishment of international HEIs under bilateral government agreements (with Russia), and significantly increasing HEI programs and enrolments in far-flung regions of the country—especially in programs related to industry and technology. Our analyses are based on a variety of official statistical sources; educational laws, institutional documents and reports published by international organizations; accounts from the English-language press; and open-ended interviews conducted by the authors in Tajikistan between 2011 and 2014.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

The Political Economy of Internationalization and Privatization of Higher Education in the Sultanate of Oman

Neoliberal Trends of Higher Education Reforms in China, Japan, and Korea: Catch-Up and Self-Reorientation

Neoliberal reforms in higher education: trends, manifestations and implications.

Higher education in Tajikistan has undergone substantial changes over the past 25 years. After an educational degradation in the early 1990s, a long period of educational reforms began aiming at dismantling the Soviet model and creating a new system of education based on national values, traditions and culture—while simultaneously responding to the challenges of globalization and transitioning toward world education space. The process of internationalization, however, was slower in Tajikistan compared to most of the Newly Independent States (NIS).

In this chapter, we examine progression of the Tajik system of higher education from the Soviet time throughout independence (1991–2015) in terms of its growth, the emerging institutional landscape and diversification, and key policy developments and issues. We analyze the impact of changes in the relevant economic, social and political spheres which is particularly important in the case of Tajikistan. The system of higher education is highly centralized, yet greatly affected by a complex mixture of cultural, religious, demographic and regional factors. Political decisions made under certain political circumstances influence it significantly. The landscape of higher education in Tajikistan has commonalities but also differences with others among the NIS. This writing is based on a variety of sources—statistics, educational laws, institutional documents, reports published by international organizations; English-language press accounts; and ethnographic interviews conducted by the authors in Tajikistan between 2011 and 2014.

The Soviet Legacy and a System of Higher Education at the Time of Independence

Soviet education, with all its shortcomings, has been widely praised as a success in the USSR, including Tajikistan. Although lagging behind in most major educational outcomes compared with other Soviet republics, by the time of its independence in 1991, Tajikistan was a country with almost 100% literacy and 10 years of compulsory secondary education. An especially important (early) Soviet education legacy was bringing girls to school, under the auspices of a wider movement known as “The liberation of a woman of the East.” Before 1917, there were no formal higher education institutions in Tajikistan. Schooling took place in religious schools ( madrasas ), where students learned the Quran and other religious books and read masterworks written in Persian and Arabic. Students were also able to learn geography, geometry, algebra and other sciences. Graduates of these religious schools such as Avicenna made significant contributions to modern science. After the socialist revolution, the Soviet government closed all madrasas due to their religious connections and created a system of new public and postsecondary schools. Over the decades, various sorts of post-secondary education opportunities were also created for high-achieving secondary school graduates to become skilled workers and professionals.

The first higher education institutions in Tajikistan were these pedagogical institutes. The first established were in Dushanbe (then Stalinabad), the republican capital (1931) and Khujand (1932), a more than 2000-year-old cultural center of the country, renamed Leninabad during the Soviet era. Also in the 1930s, an agrarian institute was separated from an institute in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) and placed in Khujand. Later (1939), a medical institute was founded in Dushanbe (Tajik State Medical University www.tajmedun.tj ). Further developments were slowed due to World War II, but were resumed in the late 1940s and 1950s. Evacuated from the European part of the USSR during the war (1941–1945) and also exiled by the Stalin regime, many professors and academicians came to work in Tajik HEIs, helping to lay the foundation for a high-quality system of education.

The first and only university in Soviet Tajikistan—Tajik State University—was created in 1947 in Dushanbe (Tajik National University www.tnu.tj ). The agrarian institute was relocated to the capital (1944)(Tajik Agrarian University www.tajagroun.tj ), and a polytechnic institute was established there in 1956. In the 1960s and 1970s, two regional pedagogical institutes in Khatlon were founded—Kulob Pedagogical Institute (1962) and Dushanbe Branch of the Pedagogical Institute in Kurghon-Teppa (1978), bringing the total number of pedagogical institutes in the country to four. In Dushanbe, meanwhile, the Institute of Physical Culture (1971), the Institute of Arts (1973) and the Tajik Pedagogical Institute of Russian Language and Literature (1980) were added to the system.

The last wave of transformation happened during perestroika and immediately before independence. In 1987, the Institute of Russian Language and Literature was reorganized into the Tajik State Institute of Languages. Around the time of announcing independence, some institutional upgrades happened quickly. For example, the now prestigious Technological University of Tajikistan (TUT) traces its history back to 1990 when the Tajik High Technological College was founded, renamed later (1991) as Tajik Institute of Food and Light Industry and eventually as the Technological University of Tajikistan in 1993.

There were ten HEIs in Tajikistan by the end of the 1980s. Higher education was free, and students received stipends. As graduates, they were then assigned by the government to work for 2 or 3 years in schools and HEIs. There were also quotas which advantaged rural students who may not have had high-quality preparation in secondary schools to enter HEIs. Apart from teachers, engineers, doctors and agricultural specialists—requiring higher education diplomas—other specialists for the economy were prepared at lower educational levels—secondary specialized education ( technicums and uchilischa ) and vocational training schools (uchilischa ).

Using Teichler’s ( 1988 ) framework of horizontal and vertical system differentiation and organizational interrelationships, the most prominent bifurcation in Tajikistan was the “university” versus the “institute.” However, the university was not exactly commensurate with those of the West, as it was more tightly controlled by the government and primarily focused upon teaching at the expense of independent research. Tajik State University, however, did have better funding and more freedom and enjoyed much greater prestige than did the institutes. The other primary axis of differentiation occurs at the level of region. Initially, the higher education system started as “dual-centered”—with HEIs operating in Dushanbe and Khujand; but the educational dominance of the capital eventually gained momentum. Meanwhile, the fact that a pedagogical institute in Khujand is one of the first Soviet era institutes greatly impacted the regional landscape. Throughout Soviet history and today, “in its scientific and pedagogical potential and the number of students, it is considered second only to the Tajik (National) University” (websites, KhSU).

Sectoral expansion of the system was specifically tied to the needs of the socialist economy. There was one institute per sector in agrarian, medical and polytechnic fields (except, as we have seen, for the last year before independence). The rest of the system was overwhelmingly pedagogical: Not only were there four pedagogical institutes and one branch of Dushanbe in Kurghon-Teppa, but the graduates of the Physical Culture Institute and (most) graduates of the State University were assigned to work as secondary school teachers. And as a Soviet state, no private HEIs were allowed. Table 14.1 represents the classification of HEIs by the time of independence (1989/1990).

In sum, the Tajikistan higher education system during Soviet period was maintained as a response to the direct need of the planned economy with well-developed technical, engineering, medical and pedagogical education. However, the high centralization of the Soviet educational system was not responsive to changes in the labor market. A number of other characteristics contributed to the weaknesses of higher education such as restrictions on faculties and student enrollments in fields like history, linguistics, genetics and sociology; poor management of financial and human resources; and narrow and rigid vocational and professional curricula (Johnson 2008 ; Anderson et al. 2004 ). This would all change with independence.

Changes in the Higher Education Landscape: Rise of the Universities

After the events of 1991, the higher education landscape significantly changed in Tajikistan. Its growth and diversification were challenging during the time of the Civil War (1992–1997), considered another major factor in the history of independent Tajikistan. During the war tens of thousands of people were killed, and hundreds of thousands more displaced. It also destroyed the economy and much of the educational infrastructure; and subsequently led hundreds of thousands of (mostly) men to out-migrate to Russia, where they have been seasonal and unskilled workers remitting wages home. These remittances continue to be substantial, comprising almost half (42%) of Tajikistan’s GDP, and making the country vitally dependent on Russia (Eurasia Net 2014 ). The narcotics trade has also flourished (Olcott 2005 ). In terms of financial provisions, funding allocated for the educational sector in the state budget declined from 11.6% (1989) to 2.3% (2000) and rose again to 4.0% in 2014 (World Bank 2005, 2014). It is below the OECD average of 4.8%, but just about the average of countries with similar economic development status and demographic compositions of the former Soviet Union (Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan) (World Bank 2014). The government intends to increase educational spending up to 6% of GDP by 2015 and not less than 7% of GDP by 2020 (NSED). The higher education enrollment rate of 13% is lower than most Europe and Central Asian countries, but much higher than many countries at a similar level of economic development.

The transition from the planned to the market economy has led to a number of key policy decisions, which also has led in the Tajik case to a quadrupling of the number of higher education institutions since 1990. The graphs below illustrate this “massification” of higher education in Tajikistan since independence; however, it also shows that while the number of HEIs grew rapidly in the 1990s, enrollments did not—until more recently. By the academic year 2014/2015, there were 38 institutions enrolling 167,660 students, with 10,675 faculty members (Figs. 14.1 and 14.2 ). Of the 167,660 students, 69% were enrolled in full-time programs and 31% in part-time correspondence programs; 62% of 2013/2014 full-time graduates of HEIs received a specialist diploma (master’s degree equivalent) and 38% a bachelor’s degree.

HEIs in Tajikistan, 1991–2013

Student enrolments in Tajikistan (in thousands): 1991–2013

The rapid emergence of universities (13 by the mid-1990s) significantly changed the Tajik higher education landscape. A list of the previous Soviet institutes has quickly become a list of the universities, as all the institutes commonly known as ped , med , politech and selkhoz (originated in student slang from the beginning of institutes’ types) have been transformed (see Table 14.2 ). Four pedagogical institutes have been reorganized into state universities (three regional and one “pedagogical” in Dushanbe) and have become the largest HEIs, enrolling currently from 8000 to 15,000 students—Khujand State University (Khujand State University www.hgu.tj ), Tajik State Pedagogical University, Qurghonteppa State University and Kulob State University. The medical institute has become the Tajik State Medical University. The rest of the transformed—the Tajik Technical University, the Tajik Agrarian University, the Tajik State University of Commerce and the Technological University of Tajikistan—are also among the now largest universities, enrolling from 5,000 to 9,000 students.

Three new universities were born in the mid-1990s: the Russian-Tajik Slavonic University (RTSU), The Tajik State University of Law, Business and Politics (TSULBP) in Khujand and the Khorog State University. Established by a bilateral agreement between the two governments and now one of the most prestigious, RTSU offers instruction in Russian (arguably understood to be of better quality just because of that) and has technology better than most; and its degrees are recognized in both countries (Russian Tajik Slavonic University www.rtsu.tj ). Its “founding” rector A. Sattarov, reported the history of its founding. While working for the Ministry of Education, parents often complained to him that Russian language groups in HEIs were being closed. So he came up with the idea of creating an HEI, where Russian was the only language of instruction. Then in 1992, the Russian minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Kozyrev, visited Tajikistan: and with his support and the support of the government of the RT, the RTSU was founded (Asia-Plus 2011 ). “Slavonic” has symbolized a trend—still less common in Tajikistan compared to the NIS and or its Central Asian neighbors—the establishment of international universities.

The creation of TSULBP was the result of a merger of the branches of the two higher education institutions in Khujand. It represents yet another trend—capitalizing on the popularity of law and business degrees that would attract “contract” or fee-paying students (in this case, in a regional setting). Continuing the institutional expansion into the regions, the establishment of Khorog State University (where Tajik is the language of instruction) has provided historic opportunity for Pamirian people in the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO) to receive higher education for the first time without going to the capital.

The latest (2013) addition to the system—the Danghara State University (2,000 students)—started as a branch of the Agrarian University with 200 students in 2005. It represents a recent trend (seen also with institutes and branches) to go beyond the large regional centers (Kulob, Qurghonteppa and Khujand) to reach smaller towns. There are currently 14 universities—8 in Dushanbe and 6 in the regions. Ten of them existed as HEIs before the 1990s. All of them are “state” universities, meaning that they belong to the state system of education of Tajikistan. Some universities also have “state” in the title—reflecting a vertical hierarchy among them. Importantly, there will be one more university soon in Dushanbe. Tajik Islamic Institute (2000 students) is expected to be transformed into a university. It prepares specialists in Islamic studies: Quran study, History of Islam and Arabic language study.

Some of the newly born universities were small, with only several hundred students. They were modest attempts (sometimes private) to start from scratch that did not survive. One of the latest private universities (2003–2009) was originally known as the University of International Relations. It kept changing titles under the pressure of the Ministry of Education, but was widely known by an unofficial name—“American” University. It was founded by a Tajik-born US citizen and funded primarily from Western sources. It also was the home of several prominent opposition leaders who were on the faculty, proclaimed to be transparent in a national sea of corruption and provided higher quality and more affordable education than the others. Its founder, S. Akramov, insisted the reasons it was closed were all political, but he lost his court battle against the Ministry of Education (Najibullah 2009 ). In neighboring Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz-American University had a different experience. Ironically—or not—the Moscow State University appeared on the Tajik map at approximately the same time as the “American” university was being closed.

“Branching-In,” “Branching-Out” and the Growth of Institutes in a Changing Landscape

Established in 2009 under the initiative and by the Decree of the President Emomali Rahmon, who personally attended the opening ceremony, the Dushanbe Branch of the Moscow State University (now one of the most prestigious HEIs in Tajikistan) provides a “fundamental, classical university education,” based on the latest Moscow educational standards. Highly qualified instructors are from Tajikistan (30%) and the Russian Federation (70%) who work in changing rotation. Students (600) have digital access to the Moscow State University (MSU) library and cutting-edge technology. And it seems that they have already acquired an elitist mindset: Those in International Relations, for example, see their future careers as working no less than for the UN, European Council, government and the largest analytical think tanks (websites, MSU, Gazeta 2014). Recently, the Dushanbe MSU has been given a new status—a “regional branch.” (Branch of the Moscow State University in Dushanbe www.msu.tj ) As the President Emomali Rahmon has envisioned, it has been developing into a regionally significant HEI for neighboring Asian countries. With this move, another attempt of creating an international HEI can be seen. Although there will soon (2018) be a functioning international university in Tajikistan, the University of Central Asia, this university is being subsidized by the Aga Khan Foundation and will be in distant Khorog. International student enrollments (for 2014–2015) in Tajikistan remain small: Around 900 students—mostly from Afghanistan, Iran and India.

“Branching-in” and “branching-out” has been a prominent feature on the Tajik education landscape. “Branching-in” is the Moscow HEIs: In addition to the first comer (Dushanbe Moscow State University (MSU)), two more branches have settled in the Tajik capital—the Branch of the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloy and the Branch of the Moscow Energy Institute. “Branching-out,” on the other hand, is the Tajik universities—from Dushanbe into the regions. There are two branches of the Technological University—in Kulob and in Isfara (Sughd); The Tajik State University of Commerce and the Tajik Technical University have their branches in Khujand. With regard to student enrollment, Dushanbe universities expanded overwhelmingly into Khujand. Notably, as well, moving to the regions were the branches of other than “pedagogical” institutions; and no branches crossed the mountains to reach GBAO.

Sixteen institutes operate in the country, including institutes remaining from the Soviet times. Established in the 2000s the Pedagogical institute in Rasht and the Penjikent Pedagogical Institute in Sughd demonstrate a trend of reaching to the smaller towns. They also symbolize a (modest) attempt “to revive” pedagogical education in the regions, that is, “to correct” at the regional level a largely unfavorable development in teacher training, when all the former regional pedagogical institutes have become universities. Yet “university” graduates in pedagogical specializations are often in no hurry to actually teach—given the economic situation. Teachers have little salary or prestige to work in the education sector. Teacher shortage, especially in rural places, has become a serious problem. The Penjikent Pedagogical Institute occupies a unique place in the higher education system of Tajikistan. It is a “non-state” institution. It does not proclaim it is “private” in its charter ( ustav ); but still, it is the only “non-state” institute out of 38 HEIs.

The Tax-Law Institute in Dushanbe, with more than 13,000 students in 2003–2004, was an exception among the institutes with regard to enrolment. “Tax” and “law” programs have become magic words in Tajikistan. Meanwhile, we heard during an interview with a respected and skeptical senior higher education administrator that even the MoE was having trouble obtaining exact numbers of students enrolled there. It was a puzzle to figure out how so many thousands of students could physically sit at the desks in the available building space (interview, Dushanbe 2011). Clearly an educational “bubble” previously, it was eventually reorganized into the Tajik Institute of Economy and Finance. We summarize the current higher education landscape in Table 14.2 .

Looking at the regional distribution of HEIs, it must be noted that the expansion into the regions, although important, has not solved the historically established center-periphery gap in Tajikistan, as almost 60% of students enrolled in higher education institutions located in the capital of Dushanbe.

Moreover, instructors with advanced degrees and best qualifications are clustered in the six largest universities in Dushanbe. In 2014–2015, 10,675 faculty members were employed in HEIs. Only 25% of them hold candidate of science or doctor of science degrees; and most of those with degrees are approaching retirement age (Mirzoev 2014 ; Kataeva 2014 ). The ministerial affiliations affirm the increased horizontal differentiation of the HEIs. It can be seen, in particular, by the fact that the number of the institutions under the auspice of the Ministry of Industry and New Technologies has increased; and that RTSU and Russian branches brought with them an oversight of the Russian Minister of Education (MoE)—in addition to the MoE of RT. The number of the programs offered by universities and institutes has also increased. The most significant enrolment growth (by almost 30%) has occurred in “economics and law” programmes: from 1% in these specializations in 1991 to 29% in 2011 (see Fig. 14.3 ).

Number of enrolled students by specialization, 1991 and 2010 (Source: The Ministry of Education and Science)

However, the existing market cannot absorb graduates from these programmes. “Who needs so many lawyers and economists?” has been a rhetorical question among educators for two decades now. Furthermore, a disconnect between the production of graduates by specialty and the actual job market has brought about new discussions centering not only on the lawyers and economists, but upon higher education specialists in general. The current discourse about interrelationships between higher education and market now finds many asking the question, “who needs so many higher education graduates at all?” There are also quality concerns. Employers are often dissatisfied with the skills of new graduates, especially in terms of subject areas (see Jonbekova 2015 ).

Among the social and cultural factors affecting higher education has been the role of women in society. Since independence, a more traditional definition of the role of women in Muslim society has been reintroduced as a part of national identity building (Johnson 2004 ; Whitsel 2009 ; DeYoung 2012 ). These include strong cultural traditions and values where extended multi-generation and patriarchal families are the norm, and expectations and opportunities for young women outside the household limit their involvement in secondary and higher education. Arranged marriages are typical, and young women are now marrying at younger and younger ages, affecting women’s enrolment in the HEIs. Therefore, in 2006 the Presidential Quota was introduced into the higher education system to provide free places for girls and boys from disadvantaged families and those residing in remote mountain areas to provide them with the opportunity to obtain higher education. Though it is still very small, the number of Presidential quotas since 2008/2009 has been increasing and in 2014/2015, 3.4% of students in HEIs of Tajikistan were awarded scholarships under this quota. The chart below (Fig. 14.4 ) shows that 21 HEIs out of 38 receive places funded from the state budget for quotas. Most of quota seats are distributed among medical, pedagogical and two regional universities (KhSU and KTSU); a bit lower number for national and technical universities to cover the labor market needs with physicians, teachers and engineers.

Higher education institutions by presidential quota, 2014/2015

University Status and University Autonomy: The Case of Tajik National University

The rise of the universities has brought an end to a higher educational landscape overwhelmingly populated with institutes. The vertical “university”-“institute” differentiation has become more profound and nuanced—regionally, as well as nationally. Importantly, all the universities have come into existence by the decree of the Tajik government. Back in Soviet times, HEIs were founded and regulated by the government, and this modus vivendi continues now. State university relationships, although under international pressures to introduce serious changes, are still managed and operated as they were during Soviet times.

Meanwhile, higher education system expansion has not changed the leading position of the university that used to be the only university in the country—Tajik State University. Currently enrolling over 21,000 students, it offers the largest number (188) of programmes (22 bachelor’s, 68 specialist and 28 master’s) and continues to be the republican HEI flagship. To distinguish this (only) pre-independence university in Tajikistan from all those which appeared later—and to re-enforce its higher status—the Tajik State University was first renamed (in 1997) “Tajik State National University” (TSNU); and then, in 2008, “Tajik National University” (TNU). Both decisions were made by a Decree of the President of Tajikistan; and the university’s charter, or Ustav (2008), was approved by the government (Ustav TNU, 2008).

TNU was the first and for some time the only university that was given university autonomy. The 1997 Decree of the President of RT “ On the Status of the Tajik State University” has declared TNU as an “autonomous, self-governing higher education institution.” A new status has brought more funding and—importantly— directly from the republican budget. Notably, the Decree came at a time when the national system of higher education was operating on the legal base of the “Law on Education,” adopted in 1993 (Tajikistan, 1993 ). University autonomy was not specified there, but was included later into the Law on Higher and Professional Education (Tajikistan, 2003 ).

The definition of university autonomy in the Law on Higher Education differs profoundly from what is generally understood in Western higher education (DeYoung and Valyayeva 2013 ). In Tajikistan, “university autonomy is the highest form of the learning process and academic activities, determining the state responsibility of the institutions of higher professional education before their founder” (Law on Higher Education, definitions; we used the amended 2009 version). Unless a HEI is private—which does not apply in Tajikistan—“the founder” is always “the government.” As part of university autonomy, students and instructors are given “academic freedoms” defined in Tajikistan as “freedom of delivering the content of learning in one’s own way – within the learning programmes” and “a freedom of those who study [students] to acquire knowledge in accordance with their own inclinations – within the learning programmes” (Law on Higher Education: Definitions; Article 5).

There is very minimal academic freedom or university autonomy in Tajikistan. If we apply the European University Association (EUA 2009 ) university autonomy framework—which employs indicators of financial, staffing, organizational and academic autonomy—most observations in the Tajik case would yield scores of “none” to “low.” In reality, it is only rectors who now have some autonomy. Universities are governed by rectors’ orders; and in most of the interviews with faculty and administrators, it became clear that few members of the academic community in the country can speak or comprehend the language of university autonomy. Yet, the concepts of university autonomy and academic freedom are now in the Tajik Law on Higher education and in the TNU Ustav .

Being the most powerful within the university governance structures, rectors at the same time are vulnerable to political changes. They are appointed to and dismissed from their positions by the government (President) of the country. The events of 2012 provide an illustration of the extent the higher education system has been politicized, and the vertical power hierarchy within universities. In January, A. Rahmonov was “relieved from his position” as a Minister of Education—and later appointed to be the rector of the Tajik State Pedagogical University. Following this, TNU rector N. Saidov was elevated to become the education minister. At that time he had been TNU rector for approximately 3 years and, prior to that, the Tajik State Pedagogical University rector for less than a year. In August, H. Odinaev, who was then the TNU rector was “relieved from his position” to “be transferred to another job.” The vacant chair of the rector of the main HEI was given to M. Imomov, former rector of Slavonic University. The rector of the Tajik State Kulob University, in turn, became the rector of Slavonic (Asia-Plus 2012 ). During these domino effect changes, all rector appointments, as required by the law, were made by decrees signed by the President.

Key Education Policy Issues and Challenges

Being the poorest among the NIS, Tajikistan is a country with relatively young and fast growing population. Approximately 44% of its eight million people are under the age of 18. The estimated 2.2 million labor force is divided mostly between agriculture and services, with only about 11% in industry. Industry is dominated by a small number of state-owned enterprises, and consists basically of an aluminum plant (one of the ten largest aluminum smelters in the world), several large hydropower plants and small factories in food processing and light industry. Tajikistan’s exports are primarily cotton and aluminum.

Although the Civil War delayed the beginning of the reforms and transition to market economy, even during the war, a Law on Education (1993) was adopted. The adoption of the new Law was a part of the series of legislation reforms in Tajikistan, which were initiated by the parliament. Just 1 year before the adoption of this Law, the presidential system of governance was abolished. Then President Nabiev had resigned, and parliamentary power was established and lasted until the first after-war presidential elections in 1996. The turning point in educational policy decision-making was the process of signing the Peace Agreement with the United Tajik Opposition in 1997, which officially ended the Civil War, and the development of new educational policies then commenced.

The Law on Education of 1993 allowed a number of changes in education (Tajikistan, 1993 ; ERSU, 2006 ). Private education institutions were legally allowed and some were established; but those in higher education eventually closed in 2000s. As throughout the NIS, “contract places” for students who paid tuition has become a key higher education development (DeYoung 2011 ). By the 2000s, the formation of the new government was completed, and the Ministry of Education started adopting several policy documents, under the influence of key supra-national agencies such as the World Bank, UNICEF and OSI. The Ministry’s efforts were driven by the rhetoric of including Tajikistan’s education system into the “world educational space.” Although the reasons for these policy decisions were made in an effort to democratize the system, equalize and diversify access to quality education, the educational system still remains under the tight control of the government. For instance, decentralization of the system of education and its management is widely perceived as incomplete. The National Strategy for Educational Development of Tajikistan (Ministry of Education, 2005 , 2012 ) acknowledges that “today the system of public management of education is a legacy of a highly centralized and planned system of the former Soviet Union and to a considerable extent remains unreformed. … The dominant position in education belongs to the Government and participation of non – governmental and private sector is minimal” (p. 11). International agencies are also concerned that the country has “a centralized” and “non- participatory governance structure” which is “one of the main obstacles to effective educational change” that “policy key stakeholders, including NGOs, teachers, parents and students are rarely involved, and they have only very limited influence on key decisions at the national level” (OSI 2002 ).

Language of instruction issues were and remain contentious. Adopted during Gorbachev’s perestroika , the Law on Languages (1989) declared Tajik the “state” language and Russian a “language of international communication.” The current ethnic breakdown of Tajikistan is 84.3% Tajiks and 13.8% Uzbeks. The rest include Russians, Kyrgyz, Tatars and others. It also includes Pamiris, a small ethnic group primarily living in GBAO. Dozens of local language dialects are spoken there—Shugni being the most popular (see Niyosov 2002 ).

Over a quarter of century into independence, working knowledge of Russian among the Tajiks has almost been eliminated. While many from an older generation still speak Russian fluently (especially in Dushanbe), and while Russian is still used in business and government transactions, the younger generation as a group—especially in rural places—has limited Russian language skills. This process was also facilitated by a mass exodus of Russians during the Civil War. Following the process of a national identity building and cultural de- russification , secondary schools with Tajik as the language of instruction effectively replaced Russian language schools, and Tajik eventually also became predominant in HEIs. In 2014/15, approximately 82% of the students studied in Tajik and 17% in Russian. Meanwhile, replacing Russian as the language of instruction with Tajik has become an important challenge, especially for Medical and Technical Universities(ERSU, 2006 ). Now some subjects are being taught in Russian, although “officially” Tajik is required.

Today, an instructional language policy has re-emerged as a divisive political issue throughout all education levels. In Dushanbe, many ethnic Tajik parents now pay bribes to enroll their kids into Russian language schools, resisting the Ministry of Education’s “suggestions” that only ethnically Russian are eligible. This parents’ movement is driven by a quest for education quality and concerns about Tajification of the country (Parshin 2014 ). Elites and the upper classes in the country often still believe that Russian fluency is a prerequisite to upward social mobility.

Russian fluency is also essential now at the other end of the scale. Annually, almost a million Tajiks (mostly men) go to Russia as seasonal workers; about half of the labor age males. The Russian Federation has adopted a new law (in 2015) requiring a Russian government Certificate of Knowledge of Russian for those who apply for a working visa. This makes Russian fluency important even for those not going to HEIs. Seizing upon the opportunity, the Dushanbe Branch of Moscow State University has already opened a testing center, issuing such a certificate and offering Russian language classes (websites; MSU branch).

Along with the National Strategy for Education Development of the Republic of Tajikistan (2006–2015) and the National Strategy for Education Development of the Republic of Tajikistan until 2020 , there is also the National Concept of Up-bringing of the Republic of Tajikistan, adopted in 2006. Accordingly, HEIs constitute stage four in the process of the up-bringing of youth; the preceding stages accomplished by the family, pre-school and secondary education. Therefore, vospitatelnaya rabota (the system of up-bringing) is an essential responsibility of each university and institute; and they should organize activities to contribute to the moral, national, patriotic, ideological and physical upbringing of students. HEI websites in Tajikistan invariably contain a separate rubric—“ vospitatelnaya rabota. ” The MoE, in its turn, is responsible for continuously reviewing the programs “to strengthen” this component. Symptomatic of these developments is the imposition of a dress code for students, mandating conservative attire for both boys and girls, and a controversial decision prohibiting the hijab on campus.

The latest education policy initiative is the creation of the Unified Entrance Exam (UEE) for HEI admission. Developed by The National Testing Center founded in 2008 by the Tajik government and funded mostly by grants from the Russian Federation, World Bank and the Open Society Foundation, it was administered nationwide for the first time in 2014—replacing the previous Soviet practice. The rational for this center and UEE relates to the rampant corruption in higher education widely understood in the country (Transparency International 2013 ). Other considerations have been the improvement of quality and equity throughout the entire system of education. The National Testing Center is considered to be the first step in establishing national education assessments.

While other countries, like Russia (2003) and Kazakhstan (2010), have already joined the Bologna Process, Tajikistan is currently a “non-Bologna signatory.” The Bologna Process is “being implemented by ad hoc groups under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.” (TEMPUS 2012 ) The level of implementation of the Bologna cycle structure is judged “extensive but gradual,” according to TEMPUS ( 2012 ). Introduced Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees widely coexist with the previous (Soviet) degrees of Specialist , Candidate of Science and Doctor of Science. Ironically, graduates with Western PhDs sometimes report difficulty in having these degrees formally recognized in Tajikistan. Credit hours (European System of Transferred Credits, ESTC) are also being gradually adopted. In an inherited Soviet system curriculum, however, not all the classes are created equal, and to recalculate hours from the exiting learning plans into the required credit hours without revamping the curriculum has been difficult. For that matter, researchers find the borrowing of higher education policies and strategies in Central Asia poorly understood and applied (Merrill 2011 ). Adapting Bologna structures, like many other changes, often conflicts with the existing educational cultures and internal administration. Tajikistan is building Bologna structures basically within the MoE, instead of creating independent monitoring and implementation agencies. The “2020 National Strategy” envisions Tajikistan joining Bologna after this strategy has been implemented—thus by 2020. In official speeches, joining Bologna is cast as achieving “world standards” in higher education. In reality though, no Tajik HEIs has made it to the “Emerging Europe and Central Asia” (EECA) 150 top universities in 2015 rankings (QS 2015 ).

Higher education in Tajikistan has undergone substantial changes over the past 25 years as a result of both its internal crises and those social and economic transition challenges seen throughout the NIS. Transforming major Soviet institutes into universities and establishing new ones has significantly changed the higher education landscape. Now universities—not institutes—dominate this landscape, enrolling most of the students. The only university from Soviet Tajikistan, TNU, retains its leading position. The number of HEIs and student enrollments have significantly increased. This has been fueled partly by the mass creation of new programmes that reflect the needs of an emerging knowledge-based economy but also the result of parental craving for higher education for their children—regardless of market demands. Specific features of the massification of higher education in Tajikistan are further explained by internationalization according to the Bologna Process and other globalization agendas, the establishment of international HEIs under bilateral government agreements (with Russia) and significantly increasing the number of HEI programs and enrollments in far-flung regions of the country—especially those programs related to industry and technology. A deeper look at the higher education landscape reveals, however, that the major changes have occurred mostly within the preexisting Soviet structures and frameworks. Relationships between the HEIs and the state have not changed much, although nominally university autonomy was given to them. The system remains highly centralized; and MoE governance generally follows the old Soviet pattern. Tajikistan does not have private HEIs; and most important landmarks of the current educational landscape are the former Soviet institutions.

Anderson, K.H., R. Pomfret, and N. Usseinova. 2004. Education in Central Asia During the Transition to a Market Economy. In Challenge of Education in Central Asia , ed. S. Heyneman and A. DeYoung, 131–153. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Asia-Plus. 2011. Hokim, M. RTSU – 15 Years. Retrieved from: http://www.news.tj/ru/news/rtsu-15-let

———. 2012. Mannonov, A. Rokirovka rektorov. Kto vozglavlyaet vuzy Tajikistana [ Rectors’ “Musical Chair”: Who Are the Heads of the HEIs in Tajikistan]. Retrieved from: http://news.tj/ru/news/rokirovka-rektorov-kto-vozglavlyaet-vuzy-tadzhikistana

DeYoung, A. 2011. Lost in Transition: Redefining Students and Universities in the Contemporary Kyrgyz Republic . Charlotte: Information Age.

———. 2012. Gender and the Pedagogical Mission in Higher Education in Tajikistan: From Leninabad Pedagogical Institute into Khujand State University. European Education: Issues and Studies 44 (2): 44–64.

Article   Google Scholar  

DeYoung, A., and G. Valyayeva. 2013. University Autonomy and Academic Freedom: Are They Included in Transforming Universities in Tajikistan? AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy. 4: 4–25.

Education Reform Support Unit (ERSU). 2006. Baseline Study of Higher Education in Tajikistan . Dushanbe: Irfon.

Eurasia Net. 2014. Tajikistan: Migrant Remittances Now Exceed Half of GDP (by D. Trilling). Retrieved from: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68272

European University Association (EUA): University Autonomy in Europe 1 . 2009. Exploratory Study by Estermann, T. and Nokkala, T. Retrieved from: http://www.rkrs.si/gradiva/dokumenti/EUA_Autonomy_Report_Final.pdf

Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. The National Concept of Up-Brining. 2006. Reprieved from: http://tajmedun.tj/

Johnson, M. 2004. The Legacy of Russian and Soviet Education and Shaping of Ethnic, Religious, and National Identities in Central Asia. In Challenges for Education in Central Asia , ed. S. Heyneman and A. DeYoung, 21–37. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

———. 2008. Historical Legacies of Soviet Higher Education and the Transformation of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia. In The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education , ed. D. Baker and A. Wiseman, vol. 9, 159–176. International Perspectives on Education and Society. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Jonbekova, D. 2015. University Graduates’ Skills Mismatches in Central Asia: Employers’ Perspectives from Post-Soviet Tajikistan. European Education 47 (2): 169–184.

Kataeva, Z. 2014. PhD Dissertation. The Changed Status of the Academic Profession and Quality of Faculty Life in the Contemporary Republic of Tajikistan.

Merrill, M. 2011. Internationalizing Higher Education in Central Asia: Definitions, Rational, Scope and Choices. In Globalization on the Margins: Education and Post-Socialist Transformations in Central Asia , ed. I. Silova, 145–173. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Ministry of Education of the RT. 2005. National Strategy for Education Development of the Republic of Tajikistan (2006–2015). Retrieved from: http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Tajikistan/Tajikistan%20Education%20Plan%202006-2015.pdf

———. 2012. National Strategy of Education Development of the Republic of Tajikistan till 2020 : Retrieved from: http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Tajikistan/Tajikistan_ED_Sector_Plan_2012-2020.pdf

Mirzoev, S. 2014. The Joint Education Sector Review. UNICEF and the Ministry of Education and Science. Dushanbe, Tajikistan. 

Najibullah, F. 2009. Tajikistan’s Lone Private University Defies Order, Opens For New School Year. Retrieved from RFE: http://www.rferl.org/content/Tajikistans_Lone_Private_University_Defies_Order/1812474.html

Niyozov, S. 2002. Understanding Teaching in Post-Soviet, Rural, Mountainous Tajikistan: Case Studies of Teachers’ Life and Work (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: www.proquest/pqdtft/docview/304767630/E949EF668C17498EPQ/-

Olcott, M. 2005. Central Asian’s Second Chance . Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Open Society Institute (OSI). 2002. Education Development in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan: Challenges and Ways Forward Prepared by Open Society Institute – Education Support Program Retrieved from: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/education_development.pdf

Parshin, K. 2014. Tired of Tajikistan’s Deplorable Schools, Parents Want Russian. http://www.eurasianet.org/node/70211 (29 Sept 2014).

QS Top Universities. 2015. QS University Rankings: EECA 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/eeca-rankings/2015

Teichler, U. 1988. Changing Patterns of the Higher Education System . London: Jessica Kingsley.

Tempus. 2012. State of Play of the Bologna Process in the Tempus Partner Countries . Retrieved from: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus . DOI 10.2797/90379

Transparency International. 2013. Overview of Corruption and Anti-corruption in Tajikistan . Retrieved from: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/answer/overview_of_corruption_in_tajikistan

Ustav TNU. 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.tnu.tj/index.php/ru/2012-02-15-12-41-27?layout=edit&id=31

Whitsel, C.M. 2009. Growing Inequality: Post-Soviet Transition and Educational Participation in Tajikistan (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uky.edu/pqdtft/docview/304898863/85A526F

Websites (2015) of the Universities

Branch of the Moscow State University, Dushanbe http://www.msu.tj/ru ; http://msu.tj/sites/default/files/newspapers/gazeta_001.pdf ; http://www.msu.tj/ru/msu/istoriya-sozdaniya-filiala-v-gorode-dushanbe

Khujand State University. http://www.hgu.tj/en.html

Russian-Tajik Slavonic University. http://www.rtsu.tj/

Tajik Agrarian University. http://www.tajagroun.tj/en/

Tajik National University. http://www.tnu.tj/index.php/ru/

Tajik State Medical University. http://tajmedun.tj/

Tajikistan 1993. Law on Education 1993. Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

Tajikistan 2003. Law on Higher and Professional Education. 2003. (amended in 2009). Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Alan J. DeYoung

Institute of Education, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Zumrad Kataeva

Graduate School of Education, Nazarbaev University, Astana, Akmola, Kazakhstan

Dilrabo Jonbekova

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

Jeroen Huisman

National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Anna Smolentseva

Isak Froumin

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

DeYoung, A.J., Kataeva, Z., Jonbekova, D. (2018). Higher Education in Tajikistan: Institutional Landscape and Key Policy Developments. In: Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., Froumin, I. (eds) 25 Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries. Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_14

Published : 25 April 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-52979-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-52980-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Don't miss tomorrow's Higher Education industry news

Let Higher Ed Dive's free newsletter keep you informed, straight from your inbox.

Inside the dueling visions for the future of Pennsylvania’s higher education

The Democratic governor has offered up a plan to revamp the state’s higher education, but Senate Republicans have answered with their own proposals.

Pennsylvania spent less per capita on higher education than almost any other state in fiscal 2024, according to preliminary data from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.  

It’s a statistic that’s come up often in Pennsylvania recently, as the governor and state lawmakers try to invest in — and potentially revamp — the commonwealth's higher education landscape. 

Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a proposal in the commonwealth’s Senate and House last week intended to carry out Gov. Josh Shapiro’s new vision for higher education, including plans meant to make higher education more affordable for students. 

The bills would also create a new statewide higher education board. However, the bills do not have language mentioning one of Shapiro’s earlier proposals — unveiled in January — to unite the state’s public university system and community colleges. 

Meanwhile, state Senate Republicans, who control the chamber, have answered with a bill package of their own. Because the state’s Legislature is divided, Republicans and Democrats will likely have to compromise to pass any actual legislation. 

“ We put forth a blueprint. We listened to the people across Pennsylvania,” the governor said at a press conference Tuesday. “We listened to Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. They've now put some ideas forward and there's some good stuff in there.”

What does the governor want? 

The twin bills from the Democratic lawmakers have three primary objectives. 

The hallmark of the plan is to create a statewide higher education board to improve coordination among Pennsylvania’s colleges, including by recommending academic programs, tuition and fees, and student financial aid policies. 

The commonwealth has no overarching higher education system, with 15 community colleges each operating independently and outside of the state’s university system, called Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, or PASSHE. The system enrolls over 82,000 students across 10 universities. 

That’s not to mention what are called the state-related institutions — Lincoln University, Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, and University of Pittsburgh — public institutions that operate largely independently but receive some state money. 

The legislation would transfer some of the powers of the State Board of Education and the Council of Higher Education to the new 15-member board.  

Through a last-dollar grant program, the state would also cap tuition at $1,000 at PASSHE institutions and community colleges for students whose families earn up to around $70,000 annually . And it would distribute state appropriations to colleges by an outcomes-based funding formula. 

Opposition against Shapiro’s initial pitch

The governor’s original proposal — which specifically called for uniting the state’s university system and community colleges under one system — drew detractors. 

Blake Eisenhart , a trustee of Bucks County Community College, argued in a March op-ed for the Reading Eagle that the plan would have created a “cumbersome statewide bureaucracy that could well stifle innovation, preclude agility, and hinder progress.”

“Pennsylvania only has 15 community colleges. They are locally sponsored and controlled, and most overachieve in their communities because they are singularly focused on local market needs,” Eisenhart wrote at the time. “Systemization will erode these local achievements and capabilities.”

Some state Republicans had also questioned the wisdom of the consolidation plan, saying it would create further bureaucracy and doesn’t address enrollment challenges. 

“The governor's proposal is not ready for prime time,” said Sen. Joe Pittman, the chamber’s majority leader, at a press conference on April 10 . “He wanted to take one entity that was losing 37% enrollment, another that lost 30% enrollment, bring them together without any apparent decisions on right-sizing them or making them more efficient.”

Indeed, enrollment declined around 30% at PASSHE from fall 2010 to fall 2023. Enrollment at the state’s community colleges dropped 25% from fall 2017 to fall 2021, declining to about 89,000 students .

The Shapiro administration held more than 200 meetings with stakeholders and legislators since January to design its final plan: a state board of education that would allow more coordination, but some local control.

What do Senate Republicans want?

The plan Republicans introduced in April, a package of bills entitled Grow PA, is mostly aimed at boosting enrollment at the state institutions, especially in high-demand fields. 

One proposed scholarship program in the Republican plan would offer grants of up to $5,000 for Pennsylvania residents who study an in-demand field in the state — such as teaching, healthcare or law enforcement — and agree to live in the state after graduation. 

For each year they receive the grant, students would need to live in Pennsylvania for 15 months post-graduation, meaning five years total for four years of college. Another bill would extend similar grants to eligible out-of-state students. In both cases, the grants would become loans for students who move out of the state before the required time. 

Pennsylvania’s Senate this week passed both of those bills with bipartisan support. 

“We’re not going to be able to help every college student in every discipline,” Sen. Dave Argall, the Republican chair of the chamber’s education committee, said in an interview in May . “What we’re trying to do is focus like a laser beam on where we need to encourage students to study.” 

Other bills in the Republican package would expand existing scholarship programs, add performance-based funding metrics to the state-related institutions, and make completion of the federal financial aid application a high school graduation requirement. These were also approved by the Senate.

Wil Del Pilar , who served as Pennsylvania deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education from 2015 to 2017, said parts of the Republican plan sound like good ideas, such as the federal financial aid application requirement and investments in dual enrollment. But he has concerns about other provisions, including the residency requirement for scholarships. 

“If you want an equitable plan, don’t do this,” said Del Pilar, who now works at The Education Trust . “If there isn’t employment where the student is living then the graduate should go where there is employment.” And when these types of grants do become loans, they can be difficult for states to collect on. 

Shapiro , meanwhile, is encouraged that Senate Republicans are looking to take action to change the higher education system, he said.

“ People in both chambers, in both parties acknowledge the fact that we've got to do something meaningful on higher ed and so I appreciate the Senate's movement on that,” the governor said Tuesday. “We're going to continue to work together to make progress on higher ed."

Higher Ed Dive news delivered to your inbox

Get the free daily newsletter read by industry experts

• Select user consent: By signing up to receive our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . You can unsubscribe at anytime.

Editors' picks

Jury orders Jefferson University to pay $15M after investigation allegedly ran afoul of Title IX

The plaintiff said he encountered gender bias during the investigation "as a male accused of sexual assault."

U of Oklahoma said it’s being forced to eliminate its DEI offices. The ACLU disagrees.

An executive order mandated that public colleges review DEI roles and potentially eliminate those unnecessary for compliance and accreditation.

Keep up with the story. Subscribe to the Higher Ed Dive free daily newsletter

Company Announcements

• University of Arizona narrows its budget gap to $52M By Ben Unglesbee
• Arizona public universities face multimillion dollar cuts under new state budget By Ben Unglesbee
• Title IX rule blocked in 6 more states By Naaz Modan
• U of Michigan, CUNY mishandled shared ancestry complaints, Education Department finds By Natalie Schwartz

• Student Aid Policy

College Board President Will Oversee FAFSA Launch

Jeremy Singer, a familiar face in higher-ed circles, will lead the department’s strategy on the 2025–26 aid application.

By  Katherine Knott

You have / 5 articles left. Sign up for a free account or log in.

College Board

The Education Department has tapped College Board president Jeremy Singer to serve in a new role overseeing the rollout of next year’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

The news, provided first to Inside Higher Ed, comes as higher education groups have grown increasingly concerned that the agency won’t launch a working FAFSA on time—by Oct. 1—after this year’s application faced a number of delays and technical glitches. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has repeatedly assured Congress, colleges and families that the form will be ready—and that the application will be better.

Bringing on Singer, a technology solutions expert who oversaw the development and launch of the new digital SAT, is the clearest signal yet that the department is shaking up its FAFSA approach as part of other “transformational changes” at the Office for Federal Student Aid (FSA). The form is key to unlocking billions in federal, state and institutional aid for millions of students.

“I’m honored to join a team whose work is vital to families across the country,” Singer said in a statement Friday. “It is impossible to overstate the importance of FAFSA in making college possible for millions of students. I’m eager to listen to students, families and educators who rely on FAFSA. We will do everything we can to deliver an improved experience to better serve students.”

Singer, who has been president of the College Board since 2013, is a familiar face for colleges and universities, some of whom have grown skeptical of the Education Department over its handling of the FAFSA. Singer will be taking temporary leave from the College Board to be the FAFSA executive adviser. In that role, he’ll lead FSA’s strategy on the 2025–26 FAFSA as well as work with the department “to strengthen internal systems and processes, bolster technical capabilities, and drive innovation to help ensure optimal performance” of the application’s launch.

“Jeremy brings deep experience having successfully led the development and introduction of major technology innovations in education, which will be integral to improving the FAFSA experience and ensuring millions of students and families can easily access the federal financial aid they are entitled to,” Cardona said in a statement.

In interviews Friday, College Board trustees praised Singer and his leadership style, expressing confidence in his ability to right the FAFSA ship. Derek Kindle, who’s vice provost for enrollment management at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said that Singer will bring candor and a solutions-oriented approach to Federal Student Aid as well as experience with complex technological systems and issues.

“I think it’s a smart and savvy move to choose Jeremy because of his skillset,” he said. “I know Jeremy is the type of person who can get in a room, get people together and get them on the same page towards the mission.”

Gail Holt, dean of financial aid at Amherst College and a College Board trustee, said that Singer is well-versed in what families and institutions need and understands the financial aid timeline.

“So I’m excited about it,” she said. “It gives me hope and promise at a period that for a financial aid community has really been dwindling these many months.”

Following the various FAFSA delays and challenges, Holt said that her team at Amherst is “managing and pivoting as well as could be expected.” They’re about halfway through getting returning students their aid information.

Having Singer at the helm gives her more trust in the process for next year. “I can’t stress enough, if he’s got the right people with him, which I believe he will, he can set a course that will get us back on track,” she said. “... The College Board as a whole is very well familiar with how tools and resources can create a bridge for students to get from secondary school to higher ed to their future.”

Editors’ Picks

• Questions Linger After Penn State Buyouts
• More Downsizing at Beleaguered ETS

UNC Fires Professor They Secretly Recorded

Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said in a statement that the department needs to ensure the FAFSA mistakes are not repeated in the upcoming cycle.

"It’s encouraging to see the department is committing additional resources and manpower to course correct for next year, and reassuring to hear they remain committed to an October 1 launch," Draeger said. "It's imperative that the entire system, from application submission to processing, is operative on October 1, and that the Department clearly articulates that functionality to all stakeholders along the way."

In addition to hiring Singer, the department announced a series of listening sessions over the coming weeks to inform how the agency can better support students, families, colleges, states and other partners during the 2025–26 FAFSA cycle. Additionally, the department said Friday that the application for 2025–26 will “remain consistent” with this year’s form in order to minimize disruptions.

At the direction of Congress, the department overhauled the form for the 2024–25 academic year in order to make it simpler to use. Congress also dictated a number of changes to the underlying methodology that determines how much financial aid a student is eligible for, which opened up the Pell Grant to thousands of more students. The changes took longer than the department initially planned, and proved more challenging. The department’s news release said that the agency has made “significant progress” in addressing and resolving “major known issues” with the 2024–25 application.

Still, officials acknowledged the toll of the rocky rollout.

“The expansive scope and timeline of the changes for 24–25 has been challenging for students, families, institutions, states, and organizations that support them,” officials said in the release.

The department has received and processed more than 11.1 million aid applications. The pace of applications has concerned colleges who worried that the FAFSA issues would deter some students from pursuing postsecondary education. In March, the department had received 40 percent fewer applications than usual, though that gap has since closed to 8 percent, according to Friday’s news release.

To further close that gap, the department announced a $50 million FAFSA Student Support Strategy to fund efforts to boost FAFSA completion rates. So far, more than $30 million has been awarded to more than 180 organizations.

This article has been updated.

The university recorded Larry Chavis’s class without his consent for a professional review.

Share This Article

More from student aid policy.

Penn. Lawmakers Propose Dueling Plans to Overhaul Higher Ed

Both parties have introduced separate bills outlining their own vision on how best to carry out the higher education

A Potential Path Forward for Pell Grant Expansion

Proponents of controversial legislation to expand the Pell Grant to short-term workforce training programs want

Colorado to Cover Two Years’ Tuition at Any Public College

The tax-credit–based aid program provides a last-dollar reimbursement to cover up to 65 credits for any student with

• Become a Member
• Sign up for Newsletters
• Learning & Assessment
• Diversity & Equity
• Career Development
• Labor & Unionization
• Shared Governance
• Academic Freedom
• Books & Publishing
• Financial Aid
• Residential Life
• Free Speech
• Physical & Mental Health
• Race & Ethnicity
• Sex & Gender
• Socioeconomics
• Traditional-Age
• Adult & Post-Traditional
• Teaching & Learning
• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Publishing
• Data Analytics
• Administrative Tech
• Alternative Credentials
• Financial Health
• Cost-Cutting
• Revenue Strategies
• Academic Programs
• Physical Campuses
• Mergers & Collaboration
• Fundraising
• Research Universities
• Regional Public Universities
• Community Colleges
• Private Nonprofit Colleges
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• Religious Colleges
• Women's Colleges
• Specialized Colleges
• For-Profit Colleges
• Executive Leadership
• Trustees & Regents
• State Oversight
• Accreditation
• Politics & Elections
• Supreme Court
• Science & Research Policy
• State Policy
• Colleges & Localities
• Employee Satisfaction
• Remote & Flexible Work
• Staff Issues
• Study Abroad
• International Students in U.S.
• U.S. Colleges in the World
• Intellectual Affairs
• Seeking a Faculty Job
• Advancing in the Faculty
• Seeking an Administrative Job
• Advancing as an Administrator
• Beyond Transfer
• Call to Action
• Confessions of a Community College Dean
• Higher Ed Gamma
• Higher Ed Policy
• Just Explain It to Me!
• Just Visiting
• Law, Policy—and IT?
• Leadership & StratEDgy
• Leadership in Higher Education
• Learning Innovation
• Online: Trending Now
• Resident Scholar
• University of Venus
• Student Voice
• Academic Life
• Health & Wellness
• The College Experience
• Life After College
• Academic Minute
• Weekly Wisdom
• Reports & Data
• Quick Takes
• Advertising & Marketing
• Consulting Services
• Data & Insights
• Hiring & Jobs
• Event Partnerships

4 /5 Articles remaining this month.

Sign up for a free account or log in.

• Create Free Account

Faculty Directory

Other directories.

• Staff Directory
• Office Directory
• Ed.L.D. Student Directory
• Ph.D. Student Directory

With 80 core faculty members and a roster of professionals who bring real-world expertise to teach select courses, HGSE has the highest proportion of female (51%) and under-represented tenured faculty (31%) of any school at Harvard. Our vision is to make a global impact on education by reaching far beyond our own boundaries. Today, HGSE faculty conduct research and facilitate programs in more than 30 different countries worldwide. 

Filter Results

Danielle s. allen, uche b amaechi, bianca j. baldridge, frank d. barnes, whitney benns, peter q. blair, joseph blatt, candice bocala, elizabeth bonawitz.

(On Leave Spring 2024)

Kathryn Parker Boudett

Karen brennan, ebony n. bridwell-mitchell, gretchen brion-meisels, philip catanzano, jennifer perry cheatham, rosette cirillo, elizabeth city, carrie conaway, candice crawford-zakian, christopher dede, david j. deming, david dockterman, sarah dryden-peterson, elizabeth dawes duraisingh.

Project Zero

Susan Dynarski

Hadas eidelman, aaliyah el-amin, catherine elgin, alonzo emery, liya escalera, sarah edith fiarman, nadine gaab, shawn ginwright, jarvis r. givens, debbie heller goldstein, tina grotzer, houman harouni, paul l. harris, noah heller, deborah helsing, monica c. higgins.

(On Leave 2024-2025)

Heather C. Hill

Nancy e. hill, alex r hodges.

Gutman Library

James P. Honan

Raquel lynne jimenez, stephanie m. jones, thomas kane, james s. kim, josephine m. kim, lisa laskow lahey, jaein josefina lee, nonie k. lesaux, meira levinson, irene anastasia liefshitz, bridget terry long, huan-tang lu, zid niel mancenido, ann marie mantil, karen l. mapp, pamela a. mason, timothy patrick mccarthy, dana charles mccoy, joseph mcintyre.

Professor of Education

(On Sabbatical 2023-2024)

Richard Melvoin

Matthew l. miller, luke w. miratrix, sebastian munoz-najar galvez, charles nelson, iii.

(On Leave 2023-2024)

Mary Grassa O'Neill

Gabrielle oliveira, louisa penfold, victor pereira, jr., ebony perouse-harvey, francesca purcell, alexis redding, fernando reimers, julie a. reuben, paul reville, john richards, meredith l. rowe, mandy savitz-romer, laura a. schifter, bertrand schneider, irvin leon scott, jack p. shonkoff, m.d., beth a. simpson, judith d. singer, catherine snow.

(On Leave Fall 2024)

Eric Soto-Shed

Lecturer on Education

Jon R. Star

Samuel straus, carola suarez-orozco, eric taylor, gillien sarah todd, paola uccelli, adriana janette umana-taylor, emiliana vegas, christina "v" villarreal, richard weissbourd, martin west.

Dean's Office

Daniel Wilson

Jacqueline zeller.

How One University Rector Forever Changed Russian Education

Kuzminov allowed maximal academic freedom, but it was this that tore apart his power and he was forced into compromises and obedience..

The extent to which all significant projects in Russia — from theaters to newspapers and universities — are tied to specific personalities has become clear following the retirement of Yaroslav Kuzminov, founder and rector of the Higher School of Economics (HSE). 

Responses to this retirement and speculation about its consequences, which bear a striking resemblance to a funeral oration for forward-thinking Russian education, reveal the true scope of the model ‘new’ Russian university, HSE, and one of its founding fathers. 

The departure of HSE’s rector is difficult to compare to that of any particular minister, including those with related profiles — education, science, public outreach.

Kuzminov’s retirement is an important event, and his influence during certain periods of post-Soviet development was significantly greater than that of various agency heads. Although there was a time when Kuzminov was considered a candidate for Minister of Science or Education, such an appointment would have been pointless: his influence as rector and author of various reforms was much greater.

Kuzminov has been succeeded by Nikita Anisimov, the former director of Far Eastern Federal University, who made his career in the administration of MGU. 

His marked neutrality to Kuzminov’s legacy — in the sense that we know nothing about Anisimov’s views — can be read as either negative or relatively positive, so far as the latter is even possible. 

The Idea of a University

The Unified State Exam (EГЭ or USE), conceived both as a means of fighting corruption and a way to identify talented students from the provinces, was Kuzminov’s brainchild. Even before the USE’s introduction, HSE had operated on comparable principles. It was the first institute of higher education with an anti-plagiarism scheme. 

The Bologna Process, which brought Russian education into sync with European systems and opened a window to the world for Russian youth — that was also Kuzminov. Plans for strategic reform aimed at authoritarian modernization (none, however, ultimately realized), were created with the involvement of his team. He also consulted for the government with the hope of implementing some small schemes. But none of that was as important as what he achieved in changing the content of education. Russian education was completely transformed, thanks largely to HSE. 

Kuzminov began with “teaching the teachers”. 

Taking a leaf from Peter the Great, the future professors of HSE — distinguished, middle-aged Soviet economists with years of experience — were sent abroad to further their education in Paris and the Hague. In Moscow, they listened to lectures on economic theory by Revold Entov. Grigory Kantorovich (not to be confused with the Nobel laureate of the same last name) taught them mathematics and econometrics. The young Kuzminov introduced these new pedagogical methods to the economics faculty at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; subsequently, many physicists requalified as economists. 

Money was raised; sources ranged from the European Commission’s development assistance program for the post-Soviet sphere, TACIS, to George Soros (who stood behind almost every meaningful initiative in culture or education and, speaking bluntly, saved Russian science). Connections were cultivated, too.

The first classrooms at HSE were located in the machine hall of the former Gosplan Main Computing Center; the first offices of the rector and vice-rectors were located at the Gaidar Institute. Gaidar, as Prime Minister, signed documents creating a ‘factory’ of free-market economists. As one of the first HSE professors put it, “We owe our existence to the European Union and the government.”

From compromises to suppression

All large enterprises (or, in the case of the media, all enterprises with large audiences) sooner or later began to fall under strict government control. The masses were not to be indoctrinated with unnecessarily diverse knowledge or exposed to a broad range of perspectives. 

The idea of the free university and free media, at this stage of development of Russian authoritarianism, demanded serious correction.

Universities like HSE were to some degree protected by the authority of their rectors, but, as the Marxist maxim goes, “to live in a society and be free from that society is impossible.” In today’s circumstances, instead of ‘society’ we ought to say ‘government’. HSE and its rector fell into a trap. Kuzminov had built the university with a new culture and maximal academic and student freedoms, yet was himself obliged to curtail those freedoms in order to save HSE from the barrage of criticism from above.

It began with a compromise in the form of embedding himself in power — personal membership in the All-Russia People’s Front (ONF) and candidacy for the Moscow City Duma with the ruling party’s support. And it ended with the direct suppression of student freedoms (for example, the shuttering of the student journal DOXA and other discussion forums), dissolution of uncooperative laboratories, dismissal of teachers, many of whom now form the backbone of the Free University, bringing with them the academic culture of the early HSE or even “proto-HSE” of the early nineties. 

When graduate student Grigory Yudin was arrested during the first wave of protests in 2011, HSE defended him. When undergraduate Egor Zhukov was targeted by political repression, HSE did almost nothing. Vice-rector Valeria Kasamara’s candidacy for Moscow City Duma in 2019 was stigmatized by the university administration (most unfairly, not least to Valeria) as unenlightened and retrogressive. 

“Kuzminov’s trap” is strangely reminiscent of the phenomenon known in the 1980s as “Gorbachev’s Dilemma”: Mikhail Sergeevich permitted glasnost, which tore apart his power.

Kuzminov allowed maximal academic freedom, and it was this that tore apart his power as high-ranking members of the administration demanded more and more compromises and obedience. This was not merely calls from the Kremlin with demands to do away with this or that teacher. It was systematic attempts to destroy the house that Yasin and Kuzminov built. 

HSE’s motto was the Latin “Non scholae, sed vitae discimus” — “We study not for school, but for life.” There are already a great many graduates of HSE in Russia, including at the highest levels of government. But to change the life of the country — the task these graduates prepared for — their numbers and intellectual mass are insufficient. Success would require not one HSE, but many. 

However, the task now at hand is much smaller — to save even just the one HSE, to keep her as she was in the days of her founding fathers. The HSE that gave us a model for high-quality, globally competitive education for the entire country. 

Andrei Kolesnikov

… we have a small favor to ask. As you may have heard, The Moscow Times, an independent news source for over 30 years, has been unjustly branded as a "foreign agent" by the Russian government. This blatant attempt to silence our voice is a direct assault on the integrity of journalism and the values we hold dear.

We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. Our commitment to providing accurate and unbiased reporting on Russia remains unshaken. But we need your help to continue our critical mission.

Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $ 2. It's quick to set up, and you can be confident that you're making a significant impact every month by supporting open, independent journalism. Thank you.

Remind me next month

Russian University Administrator Steps Down After Trick Pro-Putin Flashmob

Moscow Schools to Partially Return to Classes to Contain Virus – Mayor

Siberian School Fined for ‘Hostage-Taking Lesson’

Teaching Is a Calling; It Should Not Mean Poverty

• Visit the AAUP Foundation
• Visit the AFT

Secondary menu

Search form.

Member Login Join/Rejoin Renew Membership

• Constitution
• Elected Leaders
• Find a Chapter
• State Conferences
• AAUP/AFT Affiliation
• Biennial Meeting
• Academic Freedom
• Shared Governance
• Chapter Organizing
• Collective Bargaining
• Summer Institute
• Legal Program
• Government Relations
• New Deal for Higher Ed
• For AFT Higher Ed Members
• Political Interference in Higher Ed
• Racial Justice
• Diversity in Higher Ed
• Responding to Financial Crisis
• Privatization and OPMs
• COVID-19 Pandemic
• Contingent Faculty Positions
• Workplace Issues
• Gender and Sexuality in Higher Ed
• Targeted Harassment
• Intellectual Property & Copyright
• Free Speech on Campus
• AAUP Policies & Reports
• Faculty Compensation Survey
• Bulletin of the AAUP
• The Redbook
• Journal of Academic Freedom
• Academe Blog
• AAUP in the News
• AAUP Updates
• Join Our Email List
• Join/Rejoin
• Renew Membership
• Member Benefits
• Cancel Membership
• Start a Chapter
• Support Your Union
• AAUP Shirts and Gear
• Brochures and More
• Resources For All Chapters
• For Union Chapters
• For Advocacy Chapters
• Forming a Union Chapter
• Chapter Responsibilities
• Chapter Profiles
• AAUP At-Large Chapter
• AAUP Local 6741 of the AFT

You are here

What is academic tenure?

A tenured appointment is an indefinite appointment that can be terminated only for cause or under extraordinary circumstances such as financial exigency and program discontinuation.

Since its founding in 1915, the AAUP has assumed responsibility for developing standards to guide higher education in service of the common good. The modern conception of tenure in US higher education originated with the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure . Jointly formulated and endorsed by the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the 1940 Statement has gained the endorsement of more than 250 scholarly and higher education organizations. It is widely adopted into faculty handbooks and collective bargaining agreements at institutions of higher education throughout the United States.

Why is tenure important? What purpose does it serve?

The principal purpose of tenure is to safeguard academic freedom, which is necessary for all who teach and conduct research in higher education.  When faculty members can lose their positions because of their speech, publications, or research findings, they cannot properly fulfill their core responsibilities to advance and transmit knowledge.

Tenure provides the conditions for faculty to pursue research and innovation and draw evidence-based conclusions free from corporate or political pressure.

How does tenure serve the public interest?

Education and research benefit society, but society does not benefit when teachers and researchers are controlled by corporations, religious groups, special interest groups, or the government. Free inquiry, free expression, and open dissent are critical for student learning and the advancement of knowledge. Therefore, it is important to have systems in place to protect academic freedom. Tenure serves that purpose.

How does tenure benefit colleges and universities?

Tenure promotes stability. Faculty members who are committed to the institution can develop ties with the local community, pursue ongoing research projects, and mentor students and beginning scholars over the long term.

Does tenure only benefit individual professors?

Although tenure does protect individual faculty members, it actually serves society and the common good by protecting the quality of teaching and research and thus the integrity of institutions of higher education. If faculty members can lose their positions for what they say in the classroom or for what they write in an article, they are unlikely to risk addressing controversial issues. The common good is not served when business, political, or other entities can threaten the livelihood of researchers and instructors, and thereby suppress the results of their work or modify their judgements. For a list of ways that tenure benefits students and society, see Lois Cox and Katherine Tachau's " Top Ten Ways Tenure Benefits Students and All Iowans ."

Do all professors have tenure?

The number of tenured faculty within the academic labor force has declined to about 21 percent. Thus, the number of teachers and researchers who are protected when speaking in the classroom or publishing research on controversial topics is declining. Institutions commonly evaluate faculty members during and at the end of a probationary period.

Should all professors be eligible for tenure?

The AAUP holds that all full-time faculty members, regardless of rank, are to be considered eligible for tenure. The AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure insist that, “with the exception of special appointments clearly limited to a brief association with the institution, . . . all full-time faculty appointments are of two kinds: (1) probationary appointments; (2) appointments with continuous tenure.”

The AAUP also supports tenure for part-time faculty members. The AAUP’s report on Tenure and Teaching-Intensive Appointments recommends “fractional positions, including fully proportional pay, that are eligible for tenure and benefits, with proportional expectations for service and professional development.”

What is an example of a professor who needs academic freedom and tenure to do their work?

In 2003, Marc Edwards, a professor of civil engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University discovered that high levels of lead were present in the Washington, DC, water supply. He spent years proving that misconduct at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency worsened the DC water crisis and endangered children's’ health. In 2015, he found higher levels of lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, and, despite reassurances by state and local authorities, his findings were again confirmed. Edwards set up a website, to share his findings with the public and hold the government accountable. “I didn’t get in this field to stand by and let science be used to poison little kids,” he told the Washington Post , “I can’t live in a world where that happens. I won’t live in that world.” Academic freedom and tenure protects professors like Edwards from being disciplined, dismissed or silenced when their work risks offending powerful interests, including business or government interests.

See more resources on tenure .

• Resources on Tenure

American Association of University Professors 555 New Jersey Ave NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-737-5900

[email protected], privacy policy & terms of use.