The General Director of the Research Institute for Monitoring the Quality of Education, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor Vladimir NAVODNOV answered questions from the magazine “Accreditation in Education”.

Vladimir Grigorievich, what conclusions did you come to when analyzing the results of monitoring the effectiveness of universities in 2017?

The conclusions, as they say, are disappointing.

Firstly, some unflattering statistics emerge. This year the monitoring was carried out for the fifth time. During this time, from 2013 to 2017, Russian system higher education lost about a thousand universities and branches. It turns out, excluding weekends and holidays, on average, Rosobrnadzor closed one educational organization every working day. Such a process has never happened in history. I must say, not only in Russia, but nowhere else at all.

Secondly, “information noise” (huge amount of data), constant changes in the rules of the game and calculation methods do not allow educational organizations to quickly model and predict their performance.

- In this case, does it make sense to make any forecasts?

I still think so. You have to be at least somehow mentally prepared for a not very predictable reality.

Moreover, we have created such software, which allows us to simulate future situations with a certain degree of probability. But first, not about that. Let's look at the technological chain for compiling the rating.

Formation of indicators;

Collection of data on designated indicators;

Data verification;

Three out of four tasks were solved by the relevant ministry. First, the formulation of indicators is very important. In essence, this is setting the vector for the development of the system, the system of views on the development of education in the country. Second, the hardest task is to collect data. This can be done through open sources or through specialized collection. The problem is being solved, but as experience has shown, there are a huge number of inconsistencies. Third, data verification is carried out. And finally, all calculations come down to dividing them into “effective” and “ineffective” universities.

- Quite a rough division.

Very rude. After all, what happens? There are universities that have easily overcome all thresholds, some that have overcome it with great difficulty, some that have almost overcome it, and others that have not overcome it in almost all respects. In connection with this, the task arises - to describe a more subtle tool for dividing into groups or. in other words, leagues, and not lumping everything together.

Based on the results of performance monitoring in 2016, you built a table of seven leagues. Was a similar rating compiled based on the results of 2017?

Yes, we continued this work, improved the methodology, and 7 leagues were not enough, so we did 10.

Let me explain. The publication “Seven Shades of Monitoring”1 aroused great interest, there were many calls and requests. Especially regarding the formation of the last, 7th league, which included all the “ineffective” universities. It turned out to be very large: from those universities that “just fell short of being effective” to those that really look very bad. Therefore, the task arose to expand the number of leagues. I want to emphasize that choosing the number of leagues is a matter for the developers. For now we have stopped at 10. Let's see how this mechanism will work.

- What's new this year compared to last year?

Firstly, the methodology was improved by increasing the number of leagues and introducing additional parameters that are necessary for the calculation. Secondly, calculations were made not only based on new data for 2017. but also “backward calculations” for all five years of monitoring. This allows us to analyze the development of the education system.

Let me remind you that the basis was the state accreditation methodology for determining threshold values." However, when it was created twenty years ago, the lower quartile was proposed as a threshold value, which, for each accreditation indicator, divided universities into 75% of the best and 25% of the worst. In the monitoring The median was taken as a threshold value, dividing universities in half: into 50% of the best and 50% of the worst. For each performance monitoring indicator, the university falls into one of four groups: A - 25% of the best; B - if it is in the 50% of the best. is not included in area A, C - if the indicator value is above the threshold, but is not included in either area A. or area B. and finally, th - if the indicator value is below the threshold. Plus this year we added a score E - the value of the indicator. below the lower quartile and not included in region O.

Each educational organization received a certain set of assessments for monitoring indicators. It is extremely difficult to do this manually, so special software was created.

It's called LiftUp. posted on the website msd-nica.ru, and anyone can use it. And not only for analysis current state and comparisons with previous results, but also to predict and model future performance monitoring results.

- What do the results show? Are they moving? educational organizations by league?

Amazing result: in 2017 only Russian State University oil and gas (national research university) them. And M. Gubkina received all grades “A” and turned out to be the only university in the first league. By the way, he has occupied these leading positions for the third year in a row.

In general, the changes that have occurred can be tracked on the website msd-nica.ru, where full version ranking based on performance monitoring results is presented in the form of a league table.

If we look at the distribution of universities by league, we will see that it is close to normal. That is, there are quite a few universities in the 1-2 and 9-10 leagues. and the bulk is concentrated in the 4th-6th leagues. We made tables that show how the number of universities by league changed over the course of five years. There is no clear comparison here. The following effect is observed: the number of universities for which data is available on the ministry’s website varies. In the first year, 1,874 educational organizations were processed, then the number drops, and this would be quite justified, since the number of universities and their branches is declining. but for some reason, in 2016 there was a surge - the number of processed organizations increased, and in 2017 it fell again. Therefore, apparently, it makes sense to talk here not about a quantitative comparison, but about a percentage.

The bad news is. that there are fewer leaders, but the good news is that the number of laggards has decreased. The number of universities and branches located in the “red zone” has sharply decreased. These are leagues 8-10. There are many reasons for this. One of them. that there are simply fewer of them - weak universities and branches are closed. Secondly, some of the results were not processed. Well, I must say that the system still reacts. Monitoring has been carried out for five years. Universities are adapting to the rules that exist today and improving their performance - a completely natural process. But. Unfortunately. It’s impossible to say that it goes exactly according to the years. Much, of course, depends on the rules of the game; they change from year to year. But at the same time. the rules are the same for everyone, so everyone is in the same conditions.

Main monitoring findings

There are more strong ones: 36% of universities enrolled the majority of excellent students, while only 13% enrolled mostly “C” students.

18 of the 21 universities in the 5-100 group enrolled a majority of honors students.

Every sixth university in Russia has at least one major in which it has attracted the strongest applicants in the country.

The country's leading universities are leaders in the quality of admission to budget places The strongest “payers” were also included. The reputation effect worked.

The average score of students at leading technical universities has increased at a record level.
Agricultural universities have seen the first positive changes.

The leading regions in terms of reception quality by a large margin from the rest are Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tomsk.

The population is willing to pay for quality: an increase in tuition prices by an average of 16% did not affect either the demand for paid education or the quality of paid students.

Applicants began to more rationally assess their prospects in the labor market: paid admission to “Healthcare” and “Informatics and computer technology”, decreased by “Economy” and “Management”.

Distribution of universities by quality of admission

The general conclusion of the study is that positive changes in the quality of work and reputation are being consolidated in 2017 Russian universities. The number of universities that enrolled more than half of the “excellent” applicants with Unified State Examination scores above 70 for the first year of state-funded places reached 151, an increase of 16 universities. Today this is 36.2% of Russian universities, compared to 31.7% a year ago. The following famous people joined the “green” group: technical universities like Moscow aviation institute(national research university) enrolled 2648 people on the budget. with an average score of 72.8, National Research University "Moscow Energy Institute" (1461 people, GPA 71.9), Moscow University of Technology(2388 people, average score 71.5), Kazan National Research Technical University them. A.N. Tupolev (1012 people, average score 71.4). At the same time, the number of universities that enrolled first-year C students with scores below 56 decreased by 12. Now there are only 13.4% of such universities.

Budget reception	Share of universities, %		Total universities, units
	2017	2016	2017	2016
universities with scores >80	8,6%	7,5%	36	32
universities with scores from 70 to 80	27,6%	24,2%	115	103
universities with scores from 56 to 70	50,4%	52,2%	210	222
universities with points<56	13,4%	16,0%	56	68
total universities	100,0%	100,0%	417	425

Paid reception	Share of universities, %		Total universities, units
	2017	2016	2017	2016
universities with scores >80	1,2%	0,7%	5	3
universities with scores from 70 to 80	4,5%	5,1%	18	21
universities with scores from 56 to 70	58,1%	54,7%	234	223
universities with points<56	36,2%	39,5%	146	161
total universities	100,0%	100,0%	403	408

It is worth noting the universities that showed a record increase in the average score of enrolled students. Among the leading universities, this is St. Petersburg ITMO University, which raised its score by 3.4 points and moved from 8th to 5th place in the ranking. The most significant is the success of MAI, which raised its average score by 6.4 and entered, as already noted, into the group of “excellent students.” This is an all the more remarkable achievement given that MAI has one of the largest budgets in the country.

This year, for the first time, there has been an improvement in admissions results in a number of agricultural universities. Ural Agrarian University, Yakut State Agricultural Academy, Michurinsk State Agrarian University, Velikoluksk State Agricultural Academy showed an increase from 5.5 to 7.7 points.

University	Average Unified State Exam score of those enrolled in budget places 2017	Growth compared to 2016
Grozny State Petroleum Technical University	50,7	8,6	717
Yakut State Agricultural Academy	60,3	7,6	312
Michurinsk State Agrarian University	56,7	6,9	367
Moscow Aviation Institute (national research university)	72,8	6,4	2648
Velikoluksk State Agricultural Academy	53,2	6,2	113
Ural State Agrarian University, Ekaterinburg	61,4	5,5	336
Gorsky State Agrarian University, Vladikavkaz	50,4	5,1	351
Voronezh State Forestry University named after. G.F. Morozova	64,2	4,9	350
North Caucasus State Humanitarian and Technological Academy	64,3	4,9	321
St. Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation	70,4	4,8	1126
Ural State Law University, Ekaterinburg	80,3	4,8	400
Dagestan State Pedagogical University, Makhachkala	56,1	4,6	726
Perm State Humanitarian and Pedagogical University	72,6	4,4	325
Russian State University named after. A.N. Kosygina, Moscow	67	4	1120
Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University, Ekaterinburg	71,2	3,7	332
Chechen State Pedagogical Institute, Grozny	60,2	3,7	706
Perm National Research Polytechnic University	69	3,6	1300
Russian State University of Oil and Gas named after. THEM. Gubkina, Moscow	79,9	3,5	891
National Research University "Moscow Energy Institute"	71,9	3,5	1461
Tyumen Industrial University	68,9	3,5	1589
South Ural State Agrarian University, Troitsk	56,1	3,4	409
	90,3	3,4	1229
Moscow State University of Geodesy and Cartography	69,1	3,4	443
National Research Tomsk State University	76,1	3,3	1499
Kazan National Research Technological University	65,3	3,3	1485
St. Petersburg State Marine Technical University	61,4	3,3	799
Bashkir State Agrarian University, Ufa	57,3	3,3	501
	85,8	3,2	730
Lipetsk State Pedagogical University	65	3,1	526
Moscow Technical University of Communications and Informatics	69,8	3,1	566
Moscow Polytechnic University	73,8	3	1224
Kostroma State Agricultural Academy	55,2	3	330

Leaders 2017

The composition of the top 10 universities in terms of the quality of budget admissions has not changed since last year, but there have been changes in the placement of places in it.

The “five” leaders in the quality of budget admissions in 2017 (among universities with a budget enrollment of over 300 people) included MGIMO (95.6), MIPT (94.1), National Research University Higher School of Economics - Moscow (93.9), St. Petersburg State University ( 90.7), ITMO University (90.3), pushing aside Moscow State University. Lomonosov. This year, all top 5 universities showed results of 90+; last year there were only 3 such universities.

The top 10 also included the National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg), Moscow State University. Lomonosov, MEPhI, Moscow Linguistic University and RANEPA (Moscow).

Top 10 universities in the country in terms of the quality of budget admissions (with more than 300 people enrolled for budget places)

	University	Average Unified State Examination score of those enrolled in budget-funded places, 2017	Change in average score compared to 2016	Enrolled in government-funded places in 2017, people.
1	Moscow State Institute of International Relations	95,6	0,2	454
2	Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology	94,1	0,3	860
3		93,9	1,7	1948
4	St. Petersburg State University	90,7	0,7	1927
5	ITMO University, St. Petersburg	90,3	3,4	1229
6	National Research University Higher School of Economics, branch, St. Petersburg	88,8	1,7	475
7	Moscow State University named after. M.V. Lomonosov	88,5	0,7	3727
8	National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI", Moscow	88,4	0,6	513
9	Moscow State Linguistic University	87,0	2,3	547
10		86,9	1,1	600

Another aspect of leadership is better results in areas of training. In general, approximately every sixth university has at least one direction in which - among all universities offering education in this direction in the Russian Federation - it attracted the strongest applicants and thereby ranked 1-3rd in the average score of those enrolled in this direction place. Such universities, which are leaders at the national level in at least one of their areas of training, are located in 21 regions: 24 universities in Moscow, 15 in St. Petersburg, 3 universities in Kazan, 2 universities each in Tomsk, Nizhny Novgorod and Novosibirsk. One university with at least one strong field of study in the following regions: Belgorod region, Voronezh region, Irkutsk region, Kaliningrad region, Krasnodar region, Murmansk region, Orenburg region, Penza region, Primorsky region, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Dagestan, Sverdlovsk region, Tambov region, Tula region, Ulyanovsk region.

Of course, there are universities that have attracted the strongest applicants in the country to several areas of study at once - or to all of their areas. Based on the results of admissions in 2017, such 100% leadership is demonstrated by three universities: MGIMO, MIPT and the National Research University Higher School of Economics-Moscow - in absolutely all areas of training for which they recruited, according to the average score of those enrolled on the budget, they took 1-3 places among all universities offering training in these areas. At ITMO University there are 80% of such directions, at St. Petersburg State University - 76%, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov - 55% (for more details, see the table in the appendix).

Paid reception

This year, prices for paid training have increased significantly - by an average of 16%. At the same time, the number of students enrolled in paid places has not decreased, and the quality also remains at the same level. This indicates that the population has significant potential for effective demand for higher education. The fact that the average paid admission score at 22 Russian universities exceeds 70, and in another 46 ranges from 65 to 70, demonstrates that the majority of applicants consciously choose paid education at a priority university and in their priority field in order to enroll in budget place at another university.

Paid admission to medical universities has also increased significantly in the fields of “Jurisprudence” and “Informatics and Computer Science”. Reduced to the areas of “Economics” and “Management”. Paid admission to the country's leading pedagogical university, Moscow State Pedagogical University, has almost doubled. This shows that the population has begun to more rationally assess the prospects of different professions in the labor market.

The composition of universities with the best paid admission, as last year, completely coincides with the composition of universities with the best budget admission:

• Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (83.6 points, 133 people)
• Moscow State Institute of International Relations (82.1 points, 752 people)
• National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow (80.6 points, 3795 people)
• St. Petersburg State University (79.6 points, 1114 people)
• National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg (78 points, 805 people)
• ITMO University (76 points, 420 people)

There is a group of universities with a very large paid admission. Approximately every second university in this group experienced a significant increase in such enrollment. Among the 10 largest providers of paid education, which enrolled more than 2 thousand people at the parent university, only the leader, the National Research University Higher School of Economics-Moscow, has a high quality of admission of 80+. Among the other universities in the group, there is not a single one with a quality of 70+. The second result - 68.6 points - is obtained by the Russian Economic University. G.V. Plekhanov, Moscow. The third is St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University named after. Peter the Great, who enrolled 1,730 people. with an average score of 68.1.

University	Average Unified State Exam score, 2017			Enrolled in paid places, pers.
	budget	paid	Growth/decline 2016-2017	2017	2016
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow	93,9	80,6	−0,3	3795	3085
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University	77,3	66,5	0,4	3335	3357
Tyumen State University	74,3	59,8	0,3	3159	1887
Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow	86,9	65,2	−0,1	2475	2343
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Moscow	78,8	62,3	−0,4	2437	2385
Ural Federal University named after. B.N. Yeltsin	73,0	63,6	−0,7	2234	1903
Moscow Technological University	71,5	56,1	0,6	2140	1735
Russian Economic University named after. G.V. Plekhanov, Moscow	85,8	68,6	1,7	2028	1920
Moscow State Transport University	60,6	55,0	−1,3	1876	1976
St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University	78,3	68,1	2,1	1730	1344

It should be noted that two Moscow universities have the lowest quality of admission in this group. These are the recently created Moscow Technological University (56.1) and the Moscow State University of Transport, which enrolled 1,876 students with an average score of 55.

Areas of training

The highest quality of budget admission is traditionally found in 9 social and humanitarian areas of training, where the average score of those enrolled in the first year exceeded 80. Among them, the largest are “Jurisprudence” and “Economics” with budget admission from 5 to 6 thousand people. Another 20 areas have an average score from 70 to 80, that is, the vast majority of students are excellent students. Among them are such large ones as “Healthcare” (more than 25 thousand enrolled) and “Mathematics” (10 thousand), as well as “Physics” and “Information Security”. Literally on the threshold of the “group of excellent students” stopped “Informatics and Computer Science” (19.5 thousand) and “Pedagogical Education” (21 thousand)

The quality of admission to “Agriculture and Fisheries” (15.5 thousand budget places, average score 55), “Forestry” (3.3 thousand, 56) and “Transport vehicles” (11.5 thousand) remains unsatisfactory. , 58 points).

The most noticeable increase in the quality of reception is observed in the group “Light Industry Technologies” (+3.6 points) and “Aviation and Rocket and Space Technology” (+3 points). There was a significant decrease only in two groups of areas: “Libraries and archives” (-1.7 points) and “Geography” (-1.6 points).

Quality of admission by groups of training areas (recruitment of more than 5 thousand people for budget and / or paid places)

Group of directions	Average USE score (budget) 2017	Change in average Unified State Exam score (budget) compared to 2016.	Enrolled in budget places, pers. 2017	Average Unified State Exam score (paid) 2017	Enrolled in paid places, pers. 2017
	82,6	0,8	2 956	69,0	7 150
Jurisprudence	82,3	1,8	5 264	61,7	21 252
Economy	80,2	0,3	5 467	61,0	25 086
Management	75,7	1,3	4 365	60,2	10 908
Healthcare	74,6	−0,1	25 363	62,2	19 156
Mathematics	73,3	1,5	10 028	63,3	1 495
Physics	72,4	0,3	5 014	67,8	335
Informatics and Computer Science	69,6	1,0	19 566	59,8	4 832
Teacher Education	68,3	1,1	21 092	61,0	9 393
Chemical and biotechnology	67,6	0,9	6 931	56,4	602
Automation and control	67,5	1,1	5 318	54,6	900
Electronic engineering, radio engineering and communications	65,3	0,8	8 691	53,1	828
Energy and power engineering	64,6	0,2	9 920	51,5	1 123
Construction	64,4	−0,1	11 744	51,9	2 544
Geology	62,8	0,8	5 106	52,9	438
Technological machines and equipment	60,9	0,6	5 887	51,9	434
Ecology	60,6	1,0	7 783	50,9	797
Vehicles	57,7	0,5	11 472	47,9	1 328
Agriculture and fisheries	55,3	1,0	15 629	52,2	1 037

In quantitative terms, an increase in both budget and paid enrollment compared to 2016 occurred in the areas of “Healthcare” and “Informatics and Computer Science”. A noticeable reduction in enrollment is for “Economics” (for budget places minus 748 people, a total of 5,467 people are enrolled; for paid places – minus 2 thousand people, a total of 25,086 people are enrolled) and “Management” (for budget places minus 628 people, a total of 4,365 people were enrolled, minus 1 thousand people for paid places, a total of 10,908 people were enrolled). In terms of budget places, enrollment reductions occurred in the “Energy and Power Engineering” group (minus 1,060 people, a total of 9,920 people were enrolled).

Group of directions	Enrolled in 2017, people.		Change in numbers		Average Unified State Examination 2017 score		Change in GPA
	Budget	Paid	Budget	Paid	Budget	Paid	Budget	Paid
Computer science and computing technique	19 566	4 832	671	888	59,8	69,6	1	1,1
Healthcare	25 363	19 156	543	1508	62,2	74,6	−0,1	0
Management	4 365	10 908	−628	−1049	60,2	75,7	1,3	1,2
Economy	5 467	25 086	−748	−2028	61	80,2	0,3	0,2

And in the paid enrollment there was a noticeable increase in the areas of “Jurisprudence” (+ 3 thousand people, the total number of people admitted to paid places in 2017 was 21.2 thousand people), “Healthcare” (+ 1.5 thousand. people, a total of 19 thousand people were enrolled), “Linguistics and foreign languages” (+ 865 people, a total of 7,150 people were enrolled), “International Relations” (+ 708 people, a total of 4,092 people were enrolled).

Group of directions	Enrolled for paid places, pers.			Average Unified State Examination score on paid places
	2017	2016	Growth	2017	Change
Jurisprudence	21 252	18 082	3170	61,7	−0,1
Linguistics and foreign languages	7150	6285	865	69	0,1
International relationships	4092	3384	708	67,9	−0,7
Advertising and Public Relations	4434	3893	541	65,6	0

Please note that in the results of Performance Monitoring 2019, the indicator “Teaching staff salaries” is not assessed and data on the indicator “Employment of graduates” is not published.

The rating is based on 5 target indicators.

Universities are sorted in the following order: by league, J index and university name in alphabetical order.

For each of the many values ​​of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of universities (taking into account the specifics), with the exception of the indicator “Teaching staff salaries” and “Employment of graduates”, ranking is carried out in descending order of the indicator values

• There are 5 areas (A, B, C, D, E). Each area is assigned a weight:
• Area A - the indicator value is higher than the value of the 1st quartile. Weight +5
• Area B - the indicator value is above the threshold and above the median, but is not included in area A. Weight +3
• Area C - the indicator value is above the threshold, but is not included in area A and B. Weight +1
• Area D - the indicator value is below the threshold, but above the 3rd quartile. Weight 0

Based on the occurrence of indicator values ​​in the region, the J index is calculated as the sum of the weights of belonging to the regions.

If the value of the indicator is higher than the threshold, then it is indicated by the icon, otherwise by the icon

If a university has fulfilled 3 or more indicators, then it is indicated by the icon, otherwise by the icon

There are 10 leagues in total:

• League 1: universities with J = 25 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 2: universities with 22 ≤ J ≤ 24 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 3: universities with 19 ≤ J ≤ 21 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 4: universities with 15 ≤ J ≤ 18 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 5: universities with 11 ≤ J ≤ 14 "Teaching staff salaries and number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 6: universities with 7 ≤ J ≤ 10 "Teaching staff salaries and the number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 7: universities with 1 ≤ J ≤ 6 "Teaching staff salaries and number of indicators completed ≥ 3
• League 8: universities with 3 ≤ J ≤ 9 and the number of indicators achieved
• League 9: universities with 0 ≤ J ≤ 2 and the number of indicators achieved
• League 10: universities with J ≤ -1 and the number of indicators achieved

For reference:
The median is the midpoint of the distribution, with half the observations above it and the other half below it (the median of 3, 4, 5, 6 and 102 is 5).
When there are an even number of observations, the median is the midpoint between the two middle observations.
The median can be divided into quarters, or, as they are also called, quartiles. The first quartile consists of the bottom 25% of observations; the second of the next 25% of observations, etc.

League	University/branch	Completed more than 3 indicators	Educational activities	Scientific research activities	International activities /Referred contingent	Financial and economic activities	Teaching staff salary	Additional indicator
1	State Institute of Russian Language named after. A.S. Pushkin	Yes J=25	89.45 A	466.63 A	28.25 A	8221.51 A	184.24	11.32 A
1	Moscow Polytechnic University	Yes J=25	69.51 A	412.42 A	17.74 A	3834.79 A	204.82	4.53 A
1	Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (national research university)	Yes J=25	94.56 A	4061.84 A	11.00 A	8767.60 A	244.94	6.70 A
1	National Research Tomsk State University	Yes J=25	76.23 A	1694.19 A	20.74 A	5485.34 A	239.66	5.02 A
1	National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University	Yes J=25	77.58 A	1434.51 A	27.92 A	3969.73 A	218.50	7.36 A
1	National Research Technological University "MISiS"	Yes J=25	73.76 A	2463.22 A	26.14 A	11304.18 A	211.19	5.25 A
1	National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI"	Yes J=25	89.40 A	3187.97 A	21.83 A	9751.86 A	282.76	7.72 A
1	First St. Petersburg State Medical University named after academician I.P. Pavlova	Yes J=25	79.44 A	271.30 A	12.99 A	7334.07 A	201.28	70.26 A
1	Privolzhsky Research Medical University	Yes J=25	70.98 A	311.93 A	15.77 A	5453.38 A	199.19	69.13 A
1	Peoples' Friendship University of Russia	Yes J=25	68.72 A	302.66 A	28.49 A	6835.70 A	225.23	5.03 A
1	St. Petersburg State University	Yes J=25	86.91 A	603.40 A	13.87 A	4236.28 A	194.32	15.21 A
1	Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University	Yes J=25	75.89 A	1480.98 A	15.38 A	5668.39 A	244.76	4.53 A
1	Branch of the Russian Customs Academy in Vladivostok	Yes J=25	67.87 A	304.62 A	658.10 A	4194.62 A	309.04	5.10 A
2	State University of Land Management	Yes J=23	70.04 A	393.80 A	6.72 B	3914.61 A	204.77	5.25 A
2	Far Eastern Federal University	Yes J=23	68.98 A	447.90 A	9.52 B	6341.82 A	202.54	4.58 A
2	Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University	Yes J=23	71.81 A	615.50 A	15.71 A	3298.97 B	223.91	5.01 A
2	Kazan National Research Technical University named after. A.N. Tupolev–KAI	Yes J=23	70.49 A	1030.71 A	6.01 B	4068.06 A	231.82	4.67 A
2	Moscow State Academy of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnology - MBA named after K.I. Scriabin	Yes J=23	71.06 A	285.18 A	5.52 B	4052.62 A	225.57	89.97 A
2	Moscow Aviation Institute (national research university)	Yes J=23	72.25 A	1141.22 A	5.76 B	4516.10 A	206.13	5.51 A
2	Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation	Yes J=23	88.48 A	164.51 B	13.18 A	3937.38 A	205.68	7.52 A

The Ministry of Education has issued recommendations on the organization of distance learning in schools and colleges. Officially, holidays have been announced from March 23 to April 12, but in the face of a difficult epidemiological situation, schools are preparing to switch to online learning. What problems do they face in doing so? Directors and teachers tell.

People spend a lot of time on the Internet and over the years manage to “inherit” a fair amount of information on the Internet. Now, when searching for employees, reputable organizations carefully study not only the documents of the applicant, but also the contents of his accounts. What do the heads of Russian schools and universities think about this? Do they view the pages of their students, students, employees? Vadim Meleshko conducted a survey.

How many cooks does it take to feed an entire school? What pies do schoolchildren love most? How much does one student's lunch cost? How do parents influence their children's taste preferences? Tatyana Maslikova visited the holy of holies - the canteen - of school No. 2 in the small town of Povorino in the Voronezh region and learned about the secrets of the local cuisine.

Kira Proshutinskaya’s professional biography included everything from the position of presenter of children’s programs to the work of the head of a television company. Before her eyes, Tina Kandelaki, Dmitry Bykov and Leonid Parfenov became stars. She was not afraid to change genres, experiment and develop in her business. Read about censorship on TV, the TEFI award, school years and much more in our exclusive interview with a famous journalist.

We invite you to familiarize yourself with the results of the latest monitoring of the effectiveness of Russian universities, which was carried out by the Ministry of Education and Science on the basis of data provided by educational organizations.

Monitoring the education system– a universal means of control, systematization and development of a constructive line of development in one of the most important sectors of the development of society and the state.

In addition, the research results allow future students to judge the quality of education at a particular university, its prestige and the opportunity to obtain the best knowledge that will actually become useful in their professional activities.

We invite you to familiarize yourself with the results of the latest monitoring of the effectiveness of Russian universities, which was carried out by the Ministry of Education and Science on the basis of data provided by educational organizations.

Why is monitoring needed?

Development and improvement, raising education to a new, higher level is the main goal of regular monitoring the effectiveness of universities.

Monitoring studies show:

• the quality of work of the teaching staff, as well as the degree to which students have mastered the program material;
• consistency, goals and objectives of training, methods of presenting material. The use of technical means of teaching and monitoring knowledge significantly simplifies the educational process and helps to rationally spend the time of the student and teacher allocated for study;
• structure and forms that make it possible to obtain knowledge in optimal conditions. Monitoring statistics reflect the number of specialized universities in each region, full-time and part-time forms of education, as well as the material conditions created for independent educational and scientific activities;
• the effectiveness of the educational process, which is reflected in data on the employment of graduates in their specialty.

Monitoring includes a number of other assessment items related to control and educational process management. Regulation of budget funds allocated to improve the quality of higher education is also based on research results.

It should be noted that compared to last year’s research results, the number of universities that improved their results in four or more indicators increased by 2.5 times. That is, monitoring proves its effectiveness and positive impact on improving the quality of education.

Key performance indicators of universities

The 2017 study involved 769 universities and 692 branches of educational organizations of various forms of ownership (state, municipal and private).

Efficiency of activities of universities was assessed based on indicators characterizing:

• Educational activities – average Unified State Examination score;
• Research activities – the volume of research and development work per employee;
• International activity - the percentage of foreign students to the total number of students;
• Financial and economic activity – income of an educational organization per employee;
• Faculty salaries are the percentage of employee salaries to the average salary in the region;
• Employment – ​​the percentage of graduates who were employed in the year following graduation to the total number of graduates;
• Additional indicators are the proportion of student-athletes, the proportion of employees who have state awards, the proportion of students enrolled in advanced training and professional retraining programs, etc.

Key monitoring indicators by district

The latest monitoring involved universities in all industry areas, located in eight federal districts and almost all regional centers of the Russian Federation.

Central district

438 higher education organizations (including 156 branches) took part in the monitoring. 49 universities were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators, including:

Northwestern District

152 higher education organizations (including 60 branches) took part in the monitoring. 20 universities were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators, including:

Privolzhsky district

273 higher education organizations (including 155 branches) took part in the monitoring. 40 universities were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators, including:

Southern District

151 higher education organizations (including 92 branches) took part in the monitoring. 16 universities were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators, including:

North Caucasus District

95 higher education organizations (including 50 branches) took part in the monitoring. Only 2 universities were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators, namely:

• Vladikavkaz branch of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.

Ural district

112 higher education organizations (including 59 branches) took part in the monitoring. 12 universities, including, were able to achieve the required values ​​for all 7 indicators.