The need for reform of the postgraduate school is caused by the totality of the changes that have occurred since the main foundations of this institution were consolidated in the 1930s. First, Russian society has changed both economically, and in terms of social stratification, and culturally. We no longer live in an industrial-agrarian country. Despite the unprecedented crisis of the 1990s, Russia remains an urban civilization with an economy based on skilled expertise and a heterogeneous and contradictory cultural environment. There is still a significant stratum of people with higher education. The number of universities not only did not decrease, but also increased significantly due to the paid sector of Russian education. The demand for specialists in the areas of politics, finance, recruitment, media, mass spectacles, contemporary art, etc. has grown (or even arose), including university professors and scientists. A modern market of relevant scientific and educational literature is being formed. Under such conditions, social science, invariably closely connected with socio-political life - as an institution that produces information, "technologies" and a conceptual apparatus both for the sake of "big politics" and for the sake of self-reproduction - is gaining in scale and importance. The reverse side of this process is the progressive standardization of labor even in this highly individualized - in comparison with natural science - sphere. If we consider these changes in an international context - and, therefore, in the context of international competition - it is reasonable to assume that the transformation of information, including scientific and humanitarian information, into a full-fledged commodity, and its production into an “industry”, is unlikely to remain a local phenomenon.

Secondly, like other countries, in Russia the university has become a kind of factory for the production of practitioners. On the one hand, there was a deindividualization of education. Modern technologies of university education are similar to teaching schoolchildren, because they are extremely formalized (regardless of whether these forms are institutionalized): a university teacher, even a teacher of the highest qualification, has less and less time for individual work with students. At the same time, the character naturally changed and the average level of scientific student requirements. And although there is a practice of accepting university graduates for research positions in various institutions immediately after graduating from universities, in most cases such graduates are not yet capable of independent scientific work and need additional training either in correspondence postgraduate studies or in joint work with highly qualified specialists. .

Thus, under the conditions of standardization of the work of a scientist in the humanities, higher education plays the role of a “factory of practitioners” rather than a “factory of scientists”. The Soviet and post-Soviet graduate school also does not fulfill this function, being a "workshop for individual tailoring." A priori, it is assumed that a graduate student, through independent work under the supervision of a supervisor, will educate a scientist in himself. At the same time, the technology of selection for postgraduate study (a paper, entrance exams), approaching the standards of admission to a higher educational institution, is in blatant contradiction with this "soft" pedagogy of self-development. From among the applicants, the most satisfying to a certain set of formal criteria is selected, but then it is required from him not at all banal qualities that cannot be established with the help of a formal examination. The contradiction lies at the heart of the model itself.

Meanwhile, modern social science is by no means "simplified" compared to the first half of the century or even the 1970s. The number of paradigms has increased significantly, and the conceptual apparatus has become much "thinner". The mathematization of scientific knowledge and the related concern for a high logical culture (including where mathematization is either impossible or meaningless) orients towards unconditional clarity and consistency both in constructing a theory and in constructing an object of empirical research. The latter has become less intuitive and more theoretically loaded. Knowledge and skills here, as in other areas, are acquired through constant and well-organized reading, face-to-face communication with colleagues, and systematic training of analytical skills. Our graduate school does not provide such organization and training. Moreover, it can be said that it is not "theoretical".

Ideological restrictions in the field of social and human sciences have sunk into the past. Now the teacher and the student can independently choose their theoretical guidelines. Modern science is distinguished by a multiplicity of paradigms that enter into real or imaginary contradictions with each other. To what extent does a modern Russian graduate student possess conceptual knowledge of this essential pluralistic theories? At best, he is not too deeply versed in one or two theoretical approaches and is not focused on mastering the work of opponents (or even "neighbors in theory"). Moreover, he cannot present competing paradigms in interconnection. The universality of theoretical training has been lost - all the more blatant against the background of the expansion of the information space due to the Internet, new international services of our leading libraries, an increase in the number of translated publications, the emergence of cultural and educational representations of foreign countries (in St. Petersburg, for example, the British Council, Institut Frantçais and etc.), etc.

Modern social science involves a wide range of research methods and techniques. Some of them require special statistical training, others require special knowledge in a particular area. The complexity of social analysis implies the ability to work in a group and, accordingly, the possession of modern techniques of communication and scientific management. This, first of all, practical knowledge also remains outside the brackets of domestic postgraduate “training”.

We have already spoken about the close connection between the social sciences and the humanities and social and political practice. Whatever one thinks about the expertise of socio-political decisions (does it really have to do with science?), today it has become a fact of everyday existence. In addition, scientists are not unsuccessfully trying to play an independent political role, using the results of their research for this. Are our graduate students taught to be politically responsible for what they say and write? Are we generally encouraged to reflect on the socio-political context of the work of the social scientist and, accordingly, are concerns about the “disinterestedness” of the scientific view cultivated?

Finally, the domestic social and humanitarian community is increasingly integrating into the international market of scientific labor with its centers of strength and weakness. Meanwhile, the Russian system of training scientific personnel continues to reproduce a weak scientific culture, both in terms of fluency in the conceptual apparatus of modern social theory and research methods, and in insufficient knowledge of foreign languages ​​and inability to formalize scientific publications, in a low culture of discussions, manifested in inability and unwillingness to speak the language of the opponent, and finally, in the blurring of ethical criteria for scientific work.

II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REFORM

The main goal of the proposed reform should be such a postgraduate course that would allow the production of modern, that is, social and humanitarian science that is competitive on the world market of scientific labor. An ideal scientist, regardless of whether we are talking about a theoretician or an empiricist, should be fluent in the conceptual apparatus of the leading scientific paradigms, being able to demonstrate an understanding of their internal logic in independent reasoning. At the same time, he should be instilled with the values ​​of an anti-dogmatic search for truth, freedom (the freedom of a professional) in handling the works of his predecessors and contemporaries. He must competently apply modern research methods and techniques, focusing on pluralism of approaches and creativity. Finally, he needs political responsibility both for science and for possible ways of using it in "big politics" (ie, the purposeful formation of a citizen). In our opinion, the values ​​of enlightened criticism of the current socio-political practice (both in science as a social institution and beyond) are the most natural for a scientist of this type. Given the international nature of modern social knowledge and welcoming its further internationalization, we believe that a modern Russian scientist should be a cosmopolitan in the best sense of the word, that is, be aware of his responsibility for "big politics" not only in his own country, but also in the world as a whole. .

Focusing on this ideal, it is possible to formulate the main objectives of the reform. First, taking into account the scale and significance of modern social and humanitarian knowledge, we have to raise the question of standardizing the training of a scientist. Modern graduate school necessarily involves standard teaching of theory and methods in seminaries and workshops. The theory training program should be universal in terms of familiarization with the leading scientific paradigms, conceptual in terms of their interconnected presentation, is development-oriented independent analytical thinking at graduate students. It is necessary to teach even the future empiricist to think theoretically. Methods must be learned practically both in terms of individual and collective resolution of research problems. Any graduate student - whether "practitioner" or "theorist" - must be well versed in the basic methods of his own and related disciplines. Secondly, the future scientist, regardless of specialization, must free speak English (including being able to write scientific texts in it) and be able to read and professionally explain in a second foreign language. In the same vein of the internationalization of graduate school, it is necessary to encourage the participation of graduate students in foreign scientific journals, international conferences, and expand the number of trainees abroad. Domestic conceptual and methodological innovations should be studied in the context of world science and, where necessary, philosophy. Thirdly, graduate school should provide education politically responsible scientist. Therefore, separate seminars should be introduced on the history and sociology of social and humanitarian knowledge as a political institution. Graduate students should know how certain scientific theories and even concrete studies were used politically in the past - both inside the scientific institution (for disciplined scientists) and outside it (for disciplining rulers/citizens); and how they may be used today. On the other hand, they should know how the philosophical and political preferences of the researcher and the socio-political conjuncture affected scientific practice.

III. FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

Let's look at how postgraduate studies are organized in countries traditionally leading in the field of training scientists (Germany, Great Britain, France, USA). At the same time, we rely on the monograph of the largest specialist in the field of education, Barton Clark, “Places of Scientific Research”.

With regard to the consistent formalization of postgraduate training, the experience USA seems to us the most promising. When entering graduate school, there is a strict selection by departments. In the first two years of study, a graduate student must mainly attend the so-called. classes and take exams in each of them. The results of the examinations affect the receipt of scholarships or the right to work in the department by the graduate student. The organization of many classes makes it possible to provide a large number of teachers with a teaching load. After listening to a certain number of these classes, the graduate student takes the so-called. "exhaustive exam" (a comprehensive exam). It covers several areas of study of science. The student who successfully passes the exam is entitled to move on to his own research project, which should turn into a doctoral dissertation. As a rule, all examinations are written, although some departments allow the "exhaustive examination" to be taken orally. (True, American graduate students have no experience in taking oral exams and are afraid of this.) The topic of a future dissertation is approved by a special council of the department. The completed dissertation is offered for reading to members of the Dissertation Council. The defense procedure is public.

A significant proportion of graduate students enrolled in doctoral programs leave the university before defending their dissertations. In the United States as a whole, about 50% of the number of graduate students enrolled in doctoral programs successfully complete their dissertation defenses. This proportion varies greatly by university and department. For example, in the mid-1990s, at the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, 70% of all doctoral students successfully defended their thesis. The standardization of postgraduate training, the universality of requirements, and the anonymity of control, provided that the class program is carefully thought out, allow American graduate students to fill the gaps in their secondary and university education and acquire the necessary skills of modern scientific work.

At the same time, in Germany and France, the organization of postgraduate studies still remains very similar to the Russian one - albeit at an external, inevitably superficial view. The main emphasis here is on independent work on the dissertation. The risks that are inevitable in this case can be corrected by: in Germany, very high requirements for postgraduate students in exams and when defending a dissertation; in France - the system of compulsory and optional seminars and theses of the first year of preparation of a doctoral dissertation (the so-called "degrees of advanced training", evaluated on a four-point scale) and the informal nature of the defense of the dissertation itself.

AT Germany the decisive role in determining the directions of research belongs to tenured professors, who select from among the distinguished students those who are most capable of research work - to continue their education at a higher level. In the structure of German universities there are institutions as independent research institutions with their own budget. In fact, institutes are the same departments. Several institutions can form department. Doctors are trained by the institute, not by the department. The university's control over the latter is extremely limited. Students seeking a doctoral degree (Doktoranden) must find a teaching or research job either at the university itself or at some research institution outside the university. Thus, Doktorand is actually in the status of a junior researcher. There is competition for such jobs. The duration of postgraduate study is three to five years. The number of seminars that must be attended without fail is insignificant. Most Doktoranden, specializing in the social sciences and humanities, conduct their scientific work outside the walls of the institute or department, having only nominal contacts with their academic supervisors. During the term of graduate school, they must prove themselves as full members of the scientific community, which is confirmed by successfully passed exams and a dissertation.

When France it is difficult to draw clear distinctions between pre-graduate and postgraduate programs. In the 1980s, a five-level system of university education was introduced: (1) after two years of study at the university, a DEUG (diplôme d'études universitaires généraies) degree is awarded; (2) after three years - degree of licence; (3) after four years, the degree of maitrise; (4) after five years - for those who want to do science - a DEA degree (diplôme d'études approfondies - diploma of advanced training); (5) the next degree - doctorat - requires another 3–5 years of study. Thus, we can say that postgraduate training in France begins after four years of study at a university with admission to a special program for obtaining a DEA. Since 1990, there has been another special program for especially gifted students focused on scientific research - for the Magistère degree. This program is entered after three years of study at the university.

As in Germany, preparing for a doctorat does not require attending formal classes. But at the DEA level, participation in seminars is a must. In addition to the thesis, you need to make one or two reports at the seminar of the supervisor. The diploma project is evaluated differently: "excellent", "good", "satisfactory", "unsatisfactory". This stimulates competition between future scientists. When, after receiving a DEA degree, a student decides to enroll in a doctoral program, he needs to search for sources of funding on a competitive basis (with the help of a professor) and find a free job in laboratories (the latter condition is more relevant for natural scientists) or research centers. Grants for graduate students do not go directly to them, but to laboratories (centers) and their directors. Laboratories compete for forfeits, and after receiving them, the competition for a source of funding between graduate students begins. Encouragement of ambition and competitiveness distinguishes French education at all levels, but becomes especially pronounced in graduate school. Also a characteristic feature of the preparation of doctoral students in the most prestigious educational institutions in France is the cultivation of openness of the social sciences and the humanities to politics. This is also evident in the exceptional importance of epistemology for the training of the modern French humanist. As part of the relevant seminars, the philosophical foundations and consequences of scientific theories and their possible political applications are studied. Largely due to this, even purely empirical works are theoretically loaded in France.

AT Great Britain doctorate is a three-year program during which the PhD student focuses on their research project. He is much freer than an American graduate student, bound by graduate school admission rules, class credits, exams, and a dissertation. Doctoral training under such conditions is highly dependent on the relationship between the graduate student and his supervisor. This is central to British doctoral programs, a tradition that goes back to the 'tutor system' at Oxford and Cambridge in the Middle Ages. The doctoral student must pass one exam on the topic of the dissertation, which is taken by two professors - from the university of the doctoral student (but not the supervisor) and from another university. Work on a dissertation involves regular meetings between a professor and a graduate student, at which the latter receives advice on the work plan, the theoretical model underlying the study, bibliography and archives, and reviews of finished fragments of the dissertation text. Such “compatibility” allows “transferring” from a senior scientist to a junior one the fundamental ethical attitudes that distinguish a person of science, and achieving a high quality of dissertations, the procedure for defending which is public.

Summing up our brief overview, we highlight the benefits of an American graduate school for mass production of scientists, German and French models - for education independent thinking, ambitious and politically responsible scientist, British - to ensure high quality dissertation text and the formation of a scientist's moral. These priorities are realized thanks to the system of classes or seminars (USA, France), the high level of requirements for examinations and assessment of dissertation texts (USA, Germany, France), competitions for postgraduate grants (France), the regularity of contacts between the supervisor and the postgraduate student (Great Britain). ).

IV. WAYS TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORM

The reform of the postgraduate system should be comprehensive and carried out along with the reform of the entire higher education system. However, this, in our opinion, does not mean that the reform should be instantaneous and simultaneously affect all aspects of higher education and the training of scientific personnel. Only in the experimental centers of the reform (which will be discussed below) does such an instantaneous approach appear to be an imperative. Of course, it is necessary to review such elements of the organization of postgraduate studies as selection for postgraduate studies, the program and duration of study, qualifying examinations, requirements for dissertation work, and funding for training. We will touch on these issues with varying degrees of detail and from different points of view.

SELECTION OF FUTURE POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS.

Several grounds for admission to graduate school may coexist. Any holder of a higher education diploma should be eligible to be admitted to it if they pass the entrance examinations at a sufficiently high level and submit an essay (in manuscript or published as an article) demonstrating their scientific skills. Each applicant submits essay in the profile discipline (two or three author's sheets). Reviewers evaluate manuscripts (articles) according to the following criteria: the significance and prospects of the problem posed, conceptuality, logical culture, mastery of modern research methods, general scientific erudition. Only the winners of the essay competition are allowed to take the entrance exams.

Entry exams may still include a foreign language, philosophy and specialty. However, the form and content of these examinations must change.

Philosophy. It is advisable to include two questions in the ticket - on the history of philosophy and on the philosophical aspects of the main subject for the examinee. On the first question, it is necessary to write - within three to four hours - an essay demonstrating mastery of the conceptual apparatus of a given philosopher (or philosophical direction) and understanding of the internal logic of his method. When working on an essay, the examinee is allowed to use the works of the commented author: the philosophy test should not be reduced to a simple memory test. The second question is given orally (after a thirty-forty-minute preparation): the applicant identifies the possible philosophical foundations of the theoretical paradigms existing in his discipline, their connection with known philosophical systems and attitudes, and reveals the possession of methods of philosophical criticism and deconstruction of these "empirical" philosophies.

Foreign language. The level of language proficiency at the time of admission to graduate school should provide the opportunity to improve to such an extent that by the time the candidate's exam is passed, the level of knowledge of the language meets the criteria necessary for admission to the graduate school of an average foreign university.

We believe that a foreign language exam should be as formalized as possible. Accordingly, it would be reasonable to take as a sample Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The minimum score for admission would then be 450-500 (with 550 required for admission to graduate school in an average American university).

Exam on specialty may consist of three parts: a question on the theory of the subject being passed, a question on methods (in many cases it can be formulated as an empirical problem) and, finally, an analysis of a specific case (for an ethnologist or anthropologist, this may be, for example, a description of a particular people, region, or what - either a traditional institution, for a historian - an analysis of some historical event). Even answering the last question, the examinee must demonstrate mastery of the categories of the humanities and social sciences.

Authors of articles in recognized scientific journals that practice peer review of published works can be enrolled in graduate school if they receive lower examination grades than those who enter on a general basis. This benefit also applies to winners of international and all-Russian olympiads and competitions, as well as university professors and employees of research organizations with at least two to three years of work experience. Applicants for graduate school should not submit any recommendations.

EDUCATIONAL PROCESS.

First of all, it is necessary to develop modular programs for postgraduate training. Responding to the formalization requirements of postgraduate education, the principle of the module will allow replacing or withdrawing certain blocks of the program depending on the level of available training of postgraduate students and, thereby, preserve the individual beginning in training. In any case, such a module should include a network of seminars on theory and epistemology (philosophy, history and sociology of science), a number of practical exercises on methods and workshops within the framework of collective research projects. Similarly, the module includes classes in English and a second foreign language.

Each graduate student must attend a certain number of seminars and practical classes, which can take the form of lectures, traditional seminars, laboratory work, trainings, etc. The program of these classes covers the first two years of study. Speciality should include seminars on the theory of the discipline, on sub-disciplines and a workshop on methods. There are seminars/workshops that are obligatory and attended at the choice of a graduate student.

Seminars on philosophy/epistemology. Graduate students do not study either the history of philosophy or modern philosophical thought "in its purest form." The seminar program should be focused on the analysis of the philosophical and socio-political foundations of social and humanitarian knowledge and "empirical" philosophies characteristic of the profile discipline. A number of classes are devoted to the philosophical analysis of the categories "science", "social science/social knowledge", "philosophy", "ordinary (conscious) knowledge" and their correlations. Postgraduate students should focus on the analysis of the relevance of categories developed on the basis of the logicoformal sciences and natural sciences for studying the phenomena and practice of social and humanitarian knowledge. Equally, it is important for them to understand what the differences between "philosophy" and "social science" can (or should) be, and how they have been related historically. The other side of the same problem is the possible relationship between “social science” and “ordinary (consciousness). In a philosophical perspective, the “real” socio-political status of “social and humanitarian knowledge” in the 18th–20th centuries is considered. Particular attention is paid to the philosophical justifications of one or another scientific paradigm and philosophical disputes and conflicts in the social sciences and humanities.Possible connections between the philosophical attitudes of the scientist and his scientific credo are explicated.The seminar examines the actual philosophical context of these preferences, thanks to which they are “purified” (through criticism of contradictions and inconsistencies) and, radicalizing , take on the outlines of a philosophical model or approach. Graduate students are invited to build alternative philosophical justifications for the scientific paradigm being analyzed, while at the same time deconstructing the dominant interpretation. The socio-historical and directly philosophical contexts of paradigmatic disputes are analyzed. and conflicts in science and outlines ways to resolve or remove them (from a philosophical point of view). As part of the socio-historical consideration, special attention is paid to the "political" functions of worldview justifications in science, that is, the existing regimes of scientific practice management and their possible alternatives (in this case, philosophical analysis is linked with sociology and the history of science). As in other seminars, graduate students regularly write essays and make presentations. At the final test or exam (in writing), the test subjects must demonstrate a good knowledge of modern philosophy of the social sciences, the ability to independently raise philosophical questions on the material of their core discipline and critically comment on philosophical discussions relevant to their field of knowledge.

Seminars on history and sociology of the profile discipline. The program of the seminar should be built, focusing on the course of the philosophy of social sciences. Several seminars are dedicated to the most influential paradigms in contemporary history and sociology of science with a focus on the history and sociology of social sciences. Graduate students then get acquainted with the conceptual history of the institutionalization and autonomization of their discipline, study its modern sociology and anthropology. A number of seminars are dedicated to the analysis of the studied science as a socio-political practice of modern society. This shortest course, if possible, is evaluated by the total points received by students for essays and reports.

We proceed from the assumption that in the near future, in the field of most social and human sciences, a researcher will be able to work successfully only if he/she possesses at least two foreign languages. And one the language - English as modern Latin - must be mastered at a sufficiently high level, as we discussed above. Classes in this language should be modeled after classes in English Academic Writing, the purpose of which is to teach the graduate student the culture of scientific writing in English. In addition, it is necessary to improve the conversational skills of graduate students. This may take the form of their presentation of small messages and discussion of these messages in a foreign language. Training should also include various forms of communication with native speakers of a foreign language.

Concerning second foreign language, it seems sufficient to teach graduate students to read texts of medium complexity in it and to communicate on simple everyday topics. This can be done over two semesters with a teaching load of four hours a week. Further improvement in this language can be carried out independently by the postgraduate student.

Related disciplines may include such compulsory classes as the methodology of teaching the discipline of postgraduate specialization, social statistics (most Russian social scientists and humanitarians are extremely weak in this area), a workshop on teaching the culture of writing scientific papers, as well as a number of other social and humanitarian disciplines chosen for study by oneself a graduate student (for example, linguistics or economics for sociologists, etc.).

In addition, we consider it necessary to introduce a workshop in the same block, in which graduate students would learn how to find funding for scientific research and write applications for grants, as well as planning and organizing the work of small research teams (departments, sectors, laboratories, research groups). Probably, it would be useful not only for graduate students, but also for workers who already have a scientific degree.

In such large cities as Moscow and St. Petersburg, there may be a division of labor between institutions for the teaching of certain postgraduate classes. For example, a graduate student of the St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in addition to his own institution, can attend some classes at the Oriental Faculty of St. Petersburg State University, at the European University and at the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

From our program of postgraduate training inevitably follows the elimination of such a specifically Russian form of training scientific personnel as a job seeker. Perhaps one of the consequences of the liquidation of this institute will be a noticeable reduction in the number of purchased dissertations. Indeed, it is quite difficult to sit in parliament or lead a ministry and attend postgraduate classes at the same time. At the same time, it seems inappropriate to limit postgraduate training to only full-time. Part-time postgraduate study is also possible, when a postgraduate student has a different form of activity as his main occupation. In this case, the terms of his training will be stretched in time. It is also necessary to provide for the possibility of visiting postgraduate seminars/workshops by specialists who simply want to improve their skills (for a fee). Such a student can receive a certificate of the prescribed form after passing an exam in the subject he attended. If in the future this student enters graduate school, the certificates obtained will allow him to be exempted from re-attending the courses he has completed.

We consider it important to pay attention to the ratio of different levels of postgraduate education. In English-speaking countries, there is a practice where a person with a bachelor's degree in one discipline continues his education in graduate school in another discipline. Probably, this practice will be widely spread in Russia as well. However, a serious problem in this case is the problem of compatibility of different levels of education. Under our conditions, with such transitions, the graduate student will clearly experience a lack of knowledge in the discipline of specialization. Perhaps this should be compensated by the obligatory defense of a graduation project (master's thesis) in the same science in which the defense of a candidate's dissertation is expected. In general, we believe that it is necessary to welcome those cases when the pre-graduate and post-graduate studies of the dissertation took place in different disciplines, since such a situation will contribute to the interdisciplinary integration of the social sciences and the humanities.

In Russia, it is customary to grade candidates' exams. Such an assessment has no meaning for a graduate student (of course, if it is not “unsatisfactory”). Postgraduate performance should be assessed either through undifferentiated credit or on some higher level scale. In the latter case, this assessment should somehow influence the financial support of the graduate student and his career prospects.

In order to increase the competitiveness of education, it is advisable to regularly organize essay contests in specialized disciplines. These competitions should be given a national scale. Their laureates would be automatically exempted from attending the corresponding seminar and would be awarded with a special scholarship and foreign internship at public expense. The winning essays would be published with the support of the national Ministry of Education. Winners of several competitions after defending their thesis would receive the most prestigious places in the capital's universities and institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The third year of study should be brought closer to the German and French models in terms of the beginning of independence in choosing priorities in the work on the dissertation. It is advisable to borrow from the British model the practice of regular meetings of a graduate student with a supervisor to discuss fragments of a dissertation or articles on dissertation topics, as well as relevant books and articles published recently. Graduate students who systematically ignore such meetings and show no progress in their work are expelled regardless of their previous success. Third-year students should be encouraged to participate in teaching first- and second-year graduate students by inviting them to report at specialized seminars or instructing them to organize and conduct optional seminars and workshops. They should also be involved in participation in collective scientific projects implemented at a given university or academic research institutes, depending on the topic of the dissertation being prepared, or for the sake of practice in modern scientific methods.

FINANCING TRAINING.

During the Soviet period, payment for graduate students was made either directly by the teaching institution, or, in

Soon, postgraduate studies may leave the education system and return to their usual field of science, and the defense of a thesis at the end of the postgraduate term will again become mandatory. This was announced at a joint meeting of the Council of the Russian Union of Rectors (RCR) and the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) last week, Olga Vasilyeva, head of the Ministry of Education and Science.

Almost everyone knows today that the situation with domestic postgraduate studies is more than unfavorable. Only every fourth or even fifth graduate student defends his dissertation on time, while about half do not defend at all.

However, according to the new law, this is not obligatory: postgraduate study has become a stage of education, and a postgraduate student is not a scientific researcher, as before, but a student. And the latter’s business, as Lenin wrote, is “to study, study and study.” And now, training courses, tests, exams, lectures, seminars poured into graduate school ... Where can I write dissertations - today's graduate students simply do not have time for this. And then there are the beggarly scholarships that force the vast majority of graduate students to get a job. There is no other way, because many graduate students already have families...

The impasse in which the system of training domestic highly qualified personnel has found itself requires its immediate reform, no doubts, acting. President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valery Kozlov: "We need to make a serious decision!", - under the approving rumble of rectors and academicians, he said.

The Ministry of Education and Science, as it turned out, is ready for the reform of postgraduate studies. “Already this year, we propose, firstly, to cancel accreditation for postgraduate programs (it was the need for accreditation that caused a sharp, at times, reduction in enrollment in postgraduate studies of academic institutions that, unlike universities, are not familiar with this practice - ROSVUZ). Secondly, to return priority to conducting scientific research in graduate school. Thirdly, to return the obligation to defend dissertations, - said the Minister of Education and Science Olga Vasilyeva. - In addition, we propose to extend the period of scientific research to 5 years. And after 2018, try to carry out a general reform, for the preparation of which a working group should be created right now.”

Rectors of universities and members of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, having heard the minister's statement, breathed a sigh of relief: "Postgraduate studies should return to their previous state," Kozlov expressed the general opinion.

However, the graduate students themselves were delighted with the upcoming changes. Moreover, the return of mandatory protection does not frighten them at all, co-chairman of the AAA public association or the Autonomous Association of Graduate Students Denis Fomin assured the ROSVUZ:

“Those of us who went to graduate school to do scientific work, and not hide from the army, the vast majority! But just now there is practically no science in graduate school: continuous classes and exams. Yes, we went through all this in the magistracy! And now I want not theory, but practical scientific work, I want to learn the practical skills of a researcher. Unfortunately, there is none of this, and many of us, even those who got into the best universities, are terribly disappointed. Well, why was it necessary to break the good that we had? The old system must be returned. And if the period allotted for research actually increases to 5 years, it will be very good. It is easier for graduate students in the humanities: if they push it, they can keep within 3-4 years with the preparation of dissertations. And for techies, the experimental base always slows down. This process is very long: it is precisely because of the experiments that many of us do not have time to defend ourselves on time, ”he explained to ROSVUZ.

Last week, the Russian Academy of Sciences held hearings on the development of postgraduate studies in Russia, which were attended by the President of the Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev and his colleagues, as well as representatives of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and Rosobrnadzor. Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences made a report on proposals for the development of scientific postgraduate studies in Russia Yuri Kovalev [ , ].

— On November 1, public hearings on postgraduate studies were held at the Academy of Sciences. What is the main outcome of the discussion, in your opinion?

“It seems to me that a consensus has been reached: we categorically cannot allow another painful and difficult reform of postgraduate studies to take place. At the same time, scientific graduate school should be organized in such a way that it is convenient for scientific and educational organizations, graduate students, together with their supervisors, can engage in science, and Russian diplomas of candidates of science are recognized in the world.

— The idea proposed by the Council for Science that there should be both scientific and scientific-pedagogical graduate schools was rejected by many colleagues. The majority voted only for scientific graduate schools ...

— A year or a year and a half ago, when we started to deal with this issue in the Science Council of the former Ministry of Education and Science, I also said that only scientific postgraduate studies are needed. However, the discussion of this issue with officials of the Ministry of Education and Science led to the understanding that in addition to a significant number of organizations with a serious scientific component, there is an equally significant number of educational organizations that need postgraduate studies to complete their masters' education to the level required to work as a teacher in universities. For them, it is extremely important to have the opportunity, within the framework of postgraduate studies, to give graduates of master's programs the additional knowledge necessary for working as a teacher. Within the framework of modern federal state educational standards (FSES), such graduate schools work well, but graduate students striving for scientific work and their supervisors are uncomfortable in this system. Therefore, we propose an option that is aimed at variability and the existence of two ways of developing postgraduate studies.

First - scientific and pedagogical postgraduate studies. If the level of training of masters is insufficient and the organization needs to finish teaching a person, then it can follow the path of scientific and pedagogical postgraduate studies. Then a large number of training hours that are planned within the framework of the Federal State Educational Standards will be organizations to help. Maybe the organization wants even more hours of lectures and seminars. It is logical if, after completing such training, people will receive postgraduate diplomas and with these diplomas they will be able to teach. Then there will be no need to try to "sculpt" weak candidates of science, if young colleagues do not have a goal to work in science.

The second way is scientific graduate school. At the hearings in the Russian Academy of Sciences, it was just discussed what hinders scientific postgraduate study today. Commitment to the “sticks” of a large number of study hours leads to the fact that our graduate students sit in classes that they do not really need. Within the framework of scientific graduate school, there should be a minimum number of training courses - only that which is necessary for passing the candidate minimums. And it's all! The rest of the time, our graduate students should be engaged in scientific work: study and carry out research work.

We believe that postgraduate studies should end with the defense of a dissertation. Accordingly, within its framework, we must train candidates of science. I want to note that the desire to complete a scientific postgraduate study with the defense of a dissertation should not lead to the requirement of 100% defenses upon completion of postgraduate studies. Otherwise, in this case, not all dissertations will be at the required high level.

The variability that we propose can be implemented within the framework of the existing law on education by changing the Federal State Educational Standards. This is exactly what will allow universities and scientific organizations to choose which path they want to take within the framework of graduate school. Note that there are other ways to solve this problem. They were discussed by us and colleagues at public hearings.

— Are your ideas accepted by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education?

— Yes, our working group has a mutual understanding with the ministry on how to implement ideas related to scientific postgraduate studies. But the next step should now be taken by the Academy of Sciences based on the results of the public hearings held. As it was said during the closing speech of RAS President A.M. Sergeev and RAS Vice-President A.R. Khokhlov, the resulting document will be prepared, which should reflect the consensus opinion formed during this discussion. And this document will be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

Now the question is what document the Academy of Sciences will prepare and how the ministry will react to it. I have positive expectations. It seems to me that at the hearings we all, despite the existing difference in details, were talking about the same thing. Together with officials, we need to make a decision on how to implement the solution of the problems discussed above in the most optimal way from the point of view of the law and most effectively and painlessly for scientific and educational organizations, graduate students and their supervisors.

What do I think about the reform of the Russian graduate school announced by the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev. Indeed, it is necessary to reduce the number of non-core lectures and classes. In most cases, these hours are given to someone who has the most lobbying power in a particular university. They usually have nothing to do with the scientific activities of graduate students. But the introduction of compulsory writing of a scientific paper on the basis of the results of training raises questions. Previously, the Minister of Education Olga Vasilyeva even spoke about the mandatory protection of these works (it is quite possible that in the end it is this, tougher option that will win). In other words, what is the meaning of such obligation? After all, before the defense did not come out, for the most part, only those who either did not have time (often did not want to, being distracted by more significant matters) to do anything, or they themselves estimated the quality of their dissertation extremely low. Why force graduate students and their supervisors to imitate scientific activity, take time from experts, torment the dissertation council, etc.? It would be much easier to evaluate those whose postgraduate students successfully defended their thesis by the quality of their work, because measuring the success of scientists and universities by the number of defenses has already led to sad consequences for the scientific community, which even the indefatigable Dissernet cannot cope with.

It is also not entirely clear how graduate students will be forced to turn in their papers? They cannot be fired from anywhere, they cannot be threatened with expulsion from graduate school either, because, refusing to defend themselves, they themselves sign that their choice in favor of graduate school was unsuccessful. A postgraduate diploma in modern conditions does not matter. So what - will they put a censure in the work book? Will they post photos of the guilty on the "wall of shame" on the university's website? Will they be blacklisted by the Ministry of Education? Will they issue a fine? Forced to compensate for the money spent on them by the state? Or will all sanctions affect only academic leaders? But this is a kind of shifting responsibility from one to another. Graduate students are not little children to coerce their leaders through the policy of the whip to help their charges in writing papers more than formal rules and common sense require.

Increasing the time of study in graduate school from 3 to 6 years also seems to me a harmful, archaic proposal. Now, when life has accelerated significantly, spending an extra 3 years writing a dissertation is a luxury that no one needs. And the dissertations themselves, in my opinion, have long become archaic. Perhaps it is necessary to award academic degrees based on the totality of scientific works and the contribution of a particular person to science. Abolish the division into candidates and doctors of sciences, and, instead, simply recognize that a person is a qualified scientist in a particular field of knowledge. And then his reputation will depend on how his work will be evaluated by various scientific communities and organizations. We have a myriad of hierarchical systems and all sorts of fennecs. Complex, branched hierarchies are present in every university, academy, institute, public organization. But all these titles, orders and honorary awards, as a rule, have nothing to do with science.

Why we should expect the quality of PhD dissertations to drop soon, how PhD students are changing their philosophical understanding of the world, how PhD studies are like the death penalty and Cuban vintage cars, the site was told by scientists and teachers who learned that the defense of dissertations at the end of PhD studies will become mandatory.

The other day, Minister of Education and Science Olga Vasilyeva said that now any postgraduate study will necessarily end with the defense of a dissertation. The corresponding provision, according to the minister, will be published in the near future for discussion on the portal of legal information.

“I am convinced that postgraduate study ends with a dissertation, if you can’t defend yourself, then you won’t be a scientist,” the minister said at a meeting with young researchers at the Far Eastern Federal University.

After the new law on education was passed in 2013, postgraduate study began to be seen as the third stage of education, and not as the beginning of scientific work. Both scientists and ministerial officials are sure that Vasilyeva's predecessors hurried up with the reform, and postgraduate studies need to be returned to their scientific status. They discussed this issue in detail at a joint meeting of the Council of the Russian Union of Rectors and the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences at Moscow State University at the end of June. Then Valery Kozlov, Acting President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, accurately called the reform of postgraduate studies hasty and suggested returning precisely to scientific postgraduate studies. Minister Vasilyeva supported this idea and promised to do it, among other things.

It is still unknown when the defense of a dissertation will become mandatory for graduate students, Deputy Minister of Education and Science Grigory Trubnikov told the website. “We want to definitely discuss this at the Science Council under the Ministry, with the Russian Academy of Sciences, with the Association of Rectors and with the Union of Rectors. This is a complex issue, and there is no goal to reform this matter as soon as possible. We will calmly discuss everything and in an evolutionary way we will come to a research postgraduate study. When this takes place depends primarily not on the ministry, but on the university and on the scientific, academic community,” Trubnikov stressed.

Is protection really necessary?

The introduction of mandatory defense is unlikely to improve the quality of dissertations, says Konstantin Severinov, head of the Skoltech PhD program in Life Sciences.

This initiative is harmful and stupid. It will lead to a deterioration in the level of dissertations, since both the supervisors of graduate students and the graduate students themselves will be forced to drive trash in order to fulfill the requirements for mandatory defense at the end of graduate school.

Konstantin Severinov

Professor at Skoltech and Rutgers University

“The leadership of the ministry should be concerned about the development of measures to improve the quality of education and science in our country, and not dogmatism and the desire to achieve meaningless indicators that will make it possible to report on success “on paper”, worsening the situation in practice,” Severinov believes.

Postgraduate studies should be aimed at defending dissertations, but at the same time, it is necessary to make the terms of defense more flexible, notes Alexei Khokhlov, projector of Moscow State University. “It is impossible to require an organization to defend a dissertation just in time for completing a postgraduate course, as this will lead to a further drop in the quality of defended dissertations. Therefore, such an approach is wrong when it is necessary to defend a dissertation on time, otherwise the organization will be punished,” Khokhlov said.

Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leading Researcher of the State Astronomical Institute named after P.K. Sternberg Sergey Popov compared the introduction of mandatory protections with vintage cars in Havana. “In many ways, the system of science in Russia in general, and graduate school in particular, reminds me of these machines. And the minister's attempts to reform something are the repair of such machines. You can discuss what color to paint them in, you can rearrange the steering wheel from the right side to the left, you can change the upholstery on one seat, then on the other (depending on the current concept). But all this has nothing to do with the normal car industry or the ability of citizens to buy a modern car,” Popov commented.

There will be neither harm nor benefit from the initiative of the ministry, noted the philosopher and sociologist Grigory Yudin (Higher School of Economics). “This is a useless and harmless initiative, like most of Vasilyeva's initiatives. It is still impossible to force anyone to defend themselves, even if they threaten the death penalty,” the expert emphasized.

What needs to be changed in the preparation of graduate students

Compulsory defense is not the only innovation in graduate school. Changes may also affect postgraduate training programs. How to change them, the Ministry of Education and Science plans to discuss with scientists and university professors. “All the best, of course, will remain. Everything that works, everything that provides effective training of qualified personnel, of course, all these practices will remain," promised Grigory Trubnikov.

Now many questions are raised by entrance and candidate examinations, compulsory courses and teaching practice. The list of mandatory entrance examinations at many universities includes "Philosophy". Postgraduate students of the first year of study attend a course on the "History and Philosophy of Science" and pass the candidate's minimum on it. However, the quality of the philosophical training of graduate students leaves much to be desired. “This examination has always been a mockery of philosophy, it was impossible to prepare intelligently for it, and the only thing it reliably taught was an aversion to philosophy. Fortunately, some universities, such as the Higher School of Economics, have begun to cancel it as a mandatory exam, and so far no one complains that the level of philosophical understanding of the world among graduate students has decreased,” said Grigory Yudin.

It is also possible to introduce subjects that are more relevant for graduate students into the program of compulsory courses, says a professor at the University of North Carolina and Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Chemical Sciences Alexander Kabanov. “Philosophy, depending on the specialty, may be needed, but not for everyone. For chemists, biotechnologists, pharmacists (fields that I represent well), instead of philosophy, I would introduce some other courses that are modern and more useful for the specialty, which university graduates lack. It can be statistical methods, which, according to my old ideas, are not taught very well, or computer science, or a course focused on the relationship of various disciplines in order to prepare specialists for interdisciplinary, "convergent" research in the future, ”says Kabanov.

Kabanov added that instead of philosophy, attention in the preparation of graduate students should be given to a foreign language. “Success in philosophy, of course, does not reflect the ability of applicants for creative scientific work. Much more important is the ability to speak well and coherently express one's thoughts, including in English,” he said. The same opinion is shared by Konstantin Severinov.

The level of English proficiency of the vast majority of graduates of Russian graduate schools, to put it mildly, is not high, and those who know the language did not learn it through official postgraduate studies.

Konstantin Severinov

Professor at Skoltech and Rutgers University

In addition to the philosophy and quality of teaching English, there are also questions about what graduate students are required to teach. “Pedagogical practice is not obligatory, but possible,” Alexander Kabanov believes. - For money and voluntarily. That willing graduate students be paid for a limited number of teaching hours.”

According to Konstantin Severinov, pedagogical practice, on the contrary, should become an important element in the preparation of candidates of sciences. “Another question is that it is difficult to organize pedagogical practice correctly, because it should not be about washing test tubes or switching slides for a professor. A person with a Ph.D. degree should in principle be able to professionally deliver a lecture at the university level in their area of ​​specialization. It would be great if the preparation and delivery of several lectures were part of the graduate school. Just like the guidance of graduate students. The best way to understand something yourself is to explain it to another,” the scientist believes.

Philosophy and pedagogical practice, according to Sergei Popov, can hardly be considered a problem for Russian graduate school. He believes that people who do not plan to build an academic career and engage in scientific research often go to graduate school (mainly in the humanities). Moreover, in Russia there is no “normal system for organizing science” and there is no request for graduate students. “This can already be seen from the absence, say, of any noticeable number of Chinese-Indian postdocs in Russia. This is a good indicator,” Popov explains.

It is unlikely that the reform of postgraduate studies in the scientific direction will change anything, the expert believes. “In the short term, this will lead to the fact that nothing will change. Leaders will be scolded for not providing enough protections, but leaders are used to being scolded for failing to comply with some impossible demands, like the so-called "May presidential decrees." Or there will be a stream of very weak defenses,” Popov complains.

Konstantin Severinov also agrees with him. "Baked" according to the new rules, "candidates" in the future will occupy various leadership positions in the system of higher education and in science, so the damage from the proposed measures, if taken, will be long-term and outlive the current minister," agreed Konstantin Severinov.

Reform of postgraduate studies (as well as the system of awarding academic degrees) may give higher autonomy to higher education institutions. “In general, the latest reform of the system of attestation of scientific personnel shows that we are gradually coming to the conclusion that each university can have its own ideas about how it wants to train graduate students, what to ask of them and what exams to take,” comments Grigory Yudin.

According to Aleksey Khokhlov, it is necessary to keep track of how effective postgraduate studies are in a particular organization. “If you see that from year to year, graduate students, after studying for three or four years, leave without any protection, have no publications and go to work in a place not related to science, this is bad. If they are published regularly throughout the entire period of graduate school, they defend themselves, not necessarily on time, but within one, maximum two years after graduation, and after that they use their knowledge, work in their specialty, this is good,” Khokhlov sums up.