The current crisis experienced by higher education institutions is the result of a wider global transformation. Almost all fields in the world today are being increasingly forced to submit to economic logic.
By
Budi Widianarko
·7 minutes read
That the autonomy of lecturers has been eroded was one of the issues that were raised at a discussion of the Association of Catholic Universities of Indonesia (Aptik) themed "Merdeka Belajar Kampus Merdeka (MBKM): Dari Filosofis hingga Praktis” (Independent learning, independent campus: From Philosophy to practice", held on 7 May 2021 at Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta (7/5/2021).
Lecturers are no longer the only determinants in producing learning materials or implementing quality and curriculums at higher education institutions (PT). They have to relinquish some of their duties to other higher education stakeholders, especially parties that control the world of work, namely the government, the world of business and industry (DUDI) and other community groups.
The MBKM approach appears to have acted as shock therapy to restore autonomy to universities and free them from the rigidity of a higher education regime based on many rules. Granting students the right to take courses outside their study program for three semesters, for example, can be seen as an initiative to break down the barriers and walls of higher education institutions. The assumption is that because the previous higher education regime was so rigid and inflexible, all main actors are now challenged to be flexible or adaptive if they do not want to be thrown out of the system. In other words, universities must be ready to let go of their academic hegemony.
Despite its pragmatic and simple nature, such as denying access to diverse resources among the archipelago’s universities and DUDI, which is more concentrated in Java, it is very clear that the MBKM policy has adopted the collaborative university model. Under this concept, universities will survive and remain relevant only if they open their doors to the involvement of external stakeholders in the academic process.
Regardless of which model is chosen, it must be ensured that the soul of the Latin "universitas" is not torn apart, because this soul is the essence of higher education institutions.
Two models
Charles Heckscher and Carlos Martin-Rios (2013) suggested that the operational model of universities, which had been practiced for more than a thousand years, required change. For too long, the main actors at higher education institutions (read: lecturers) relied on the assumption that they were professionals who worked in a complex and mysterious world, one not understood by outsiders, so they could be judged only by their peers.
More strongly, Piotr Zamojski (2020) said that only two kinds of higher education institutions existed at present: dead or critical. It is called “critical” because higher education institutions are currently under pressure and losing their value and relevance. Higher education institutions can only survive with all their fragility.
The current crisis experienced by higher education institutions is the result of a wider global transformation. Almost all fields in the world today are being increasingly forced to submit to economic logic. Higher education institutions were gradually scaled down to being mere educational service providers. Following this logic, higher learning in any scientific field is a distinct product, and has become a commodity with an expected market value that exceeds production costs. Added value is the key word.
On citing Slaughter and Leslie (1997), Zamojski further states that what has happened is the colonization of education by economic logic, intertwined with the capitalization of knowledge and the commercialization of research. This condition has forced accountability upon higher education institutions in their “production line”. For this reason, the higher education regime then introduced bureaucratization, proceduralization and juridification on educational activities at higher learning institutions.
The multilayered standardization of the various academic activities of lecturers and students aims to ensure the effectiveness of the existing academic process. This approach is known as the bureaucratic-administrative model for “academic enterprises" and promises to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of higher education institutions. This model that focuses on efficiency, consistency, and control has shown to be strangling higher education institutions, because it creates a mountain of administrative burdens.
An alternative to the bureaucratic-administrative model is the collaborative university model. Essential of this collaborative model is the higher education institutions\' willingness to open their doors and lower their walls to invite all stakeholders, both internal and external, to participate in setting goals and the academic process. This model has been applied quite successfully in business, and is perhaps on this basis that Minister Nadiem Makarim initiated the idea of MBKM, or “Freedom to Learn”.
In the collaborative university model, the primary principle is not autonomy but interdependence. On the one hand, the collaborative approach appears more suited for knowledge production and knowledge exchange than the bureaucratic-administrative model.
On the other hand, the collaborative university model runs counter to the two traditional principles of higher education institutions, namely professional autonomy and self-governance. Decision-making in the collaborative model involves more people who represent multiple stakeholders, and will thus take more time to reach a consensus.
It can be surmised that the transition from a bureaucratic-administrative model to a collaborative model will not happen overnight. Of course, there is an ongoing dynamic in the "kitchen" of the education ministry’s Directorate General of Higher Education between the proponents of the bureaucratic-administrative and the collaborative models. The world of higher education will be held hostage if the debate between these two models continue.
Soul of ‘universitas’
The emergence of these two university models, the bureaucratic-administrative and the collaborative, rests on the assumption that higher education institutions are on the verge of extinction or, at the very least, are finding adaptation difficult.
The advocates of these models believe that each can prevent the collapse of higher education. What must be ensured is that whichever model is selected, it should not destroy the soul of higher education, or the spirit of the Latin "universitas" that is the essence of higher education institutions.
The soul of universitas must not be forgotten merely to ensure that higher education institutions can meet the pragmatic demands of the business and industry sectors. The essence of higher education institutions is universitas magistrorum et scholarium, or “community of masters and students”. As a community of learners, higher education institutions are formed by practice, not by institutional structure.
"Universitas" describes certain activities that a group of people creates and conducts in a certain way. A university community revives the spirit of "universitas" every time they study, teach, or hold seminars and conferences, the praxis of which forms the essence of higher education institutions.
The soul of "universitas" appears in another way when people gather together because they are truly interested in learning something that has captured their attention, to the point that they forget their status, position, role, and wealth (Piotr Zamojski, 2020). The soul of "universitas" makes it seem as though the university community has disappeared from the bustling world outside so they can devote their full attention to their learning interests.
DOKUMENTASI BUDI WIDIANARKO
Budi Widianarko
When the soul of "universitas" is fully present in a university community, the joy of learning is realized. If all higher education institutions are able to create a space and environment that allows all lecturers and students to become immersed in the joy of learning, it will not really matter which higher learning model is chosen.
Budi Widianarko, Professor, Soegijapranata Catholic University; Member of the Center for Higher Education, Aptik; Trustee, United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia.
