We find daily articles and different opinions on the state of education in Romania and (possibly) fraud in universities. More or less well-informed analyzers without concessions radiographically capture the state of things, which every day becomes a record in the process of trivialization. The concept of “functional illiteracy” is used greedily, and if we are careful, it is used maliciously by the very people to whom (with a little effort) we could quite justly apply it (I would stick it under a sign in the hall). door and which the personal secretary sacrilegiously deletes at least once a week.) I’m not the best person to talk about this – firstly, because I don’t have the relevant statistics, and secondly, because I do (next door, of course) ) relatively polished board.

Since many things have been said on this subject – and I myself have sometimes felt that such a thing would be necessary – it now seems to me that some elementary things have not yet been said, which might make clear the reason for the steady decline recorded in the national system of education – and this notwithstanding to the attempts (often laudable and theoretically based) of some ministers, the extent of which we have no reason to doubt. I am so firm because some have been great teachers and others I have talked to privately when I have the opportunity. I do not make a detailed assessment of the measures taken here, perhaps I did not always agree with what was legislated, but I am convinced that, judging in conclusion, the competence or intellectual prestige of the persons in question can be challenged only in the case – individually . As I offer this premise, let’s dwell a bit on the reasons why national education seems stuck in a never-ending process of reform. No need to repeat the state of affairs here – it’s done and done – I think an analysis of the context that made them possible will shed some light on the decision pool. (I will have to disclaim ahead of time – I am not claiming that what seems to me to be a solution can be immediately applied to the current political situation.)

First, the effect of “many degrees, little knowledge” has a formal cause (see Aristotle) ​​in the classical way society functions: education systems formally develop knowledge and information that decision-making elites consider ideologically useful. Not knowledge, but competence (as specialized as possible) is politically fruitful, so with the humanities – “to lose weight”, we don’t need theories. The Law on Education – it obsessively repeats its goal – student orientation (as if it could be a starling center) and skill development. A political authority never funds knowledge communities that challenge it or threaten its authority. Creditors of the University legitimize a institution the political, and the political provides and legalizes the procedural frameworks that perpetuate loyal circles of intellectual influence. Loyalty of these circles of academic power has its first consequence of implementation in Laws of education a set of normative legal acts, in relation to which the relevant ministry sometimes makes uncomfortable discursive arguments. We should have no illusions – this politicization is not a Dambowitz trick, the only original thing is the lack of commitment at the level of decision-makers. Perhaps the solutions are weak, but a critical reorientation of thinking in the University can give hope: if engineers can ask themselves (Kantian) “what is the use” of this applied research? – it will not harm anyone and may even bring great benefit. So, as risky as it may seem, Let’s go back to Kant. More precisely, the mission of the university is to teach the student to think, not to make practical decisions.

Secondly, efficiency, financial return and other linear considerations only accelerate the decline of academic education, the goal of which is not and cannot be massification. (I say this at the risk of contradicting community statistics on the number of students per thousand inhabitants). The emergence of distance education (online platforms) and the progress of AI (GPT chat) make the futility of the informational form of education more and more obvious. The university has no role in offering electronic support courses and mandatory bibliographies. The era of amphitheatres with hundreds of students drinking the wisdom of the department is an absurd scenario. Students don’t need teachers doxa (doxographers organize knowledge, not produce knowledge) that answer elementary questions and provide algorithms. At the University, you are not looking for the acquisition of specific professional skills – whoever wants to, goes to the master’s school. (2 years of study at the university out of nine Law on education they can be – something like this) The university should restore its Humboldtian dimension – and if (at least for some majors) it involves groups of 10 students – then it should be possible. The natural solution is for us all to recognize that the same money can be better spent on 10 students who come to university because they can and want to than on 100 who sometimes can’t and often don’t even really want to want (I think Proust said somewhere – “what a trouble that mediocre people always want to work, and those who could do not…”)

Last but not least, we must recognize that the university is a reflection of the culture towards which the whole community is moving. A vulnerable and unrecognized teacher cannot recover from lagging behind prestigious European schools due to a presidential decree. I once saw a tax register where, in the interwar period, a teacher (from a village in Bihor – Valea de Jos) had a monthly salary equivalent to the price of 2 oxen (huge compared to the income of a common man), an income that allowed him to stay in the government house and spend summer vacation in Paris.-Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro