The evaluation of applications for professorial appointments is a rather new and, as far as I know, an internationally unique evaluation activity of the HAC. Therefore, it seems to be prom-ising as far as the elucidation of the relationship between values and method is concerned, since the influences of historical factors and international patterns are not too strong here.
Another reason for choosing this activity as subject of a case study has to do with the fact that other prominent activities of the HAC are, from a methodological-methodical point of view, presently in transition. Special ad hoc committees are working on the procedural and methodi-cal details of the second cycle of institutional accreditation and the parallel evaluation of study programs within a discipline.
Object and purpose of evaluation of professorial applications
The number of students entering higher education in Hungary tripled in the 90’ies.1 That fact obviously involved a need for growth in the number of instructors, too. However, due to other developments implied by the transition of the state driven “socialist” economy to a market oriented capitalist one, the latter growth was subject to some unfortunate constraints, espe-cially in a qualitative sense. Diminishing resources, poor state financing of both higher educa-tion and research, together with lucrative incomes and posieduca-tions offered by the emerging busi-ness sector, drew young, talented people towards the latter. The pool of potential university and college professors tightened while more and more new appointments were made.
Realising the quality problems of the professorial appointments, the Ministry of Education initi-ated changes in procedures. Though the HAC was very much against it, the 2000 amendment of the HEA prescribed that the HAC had to express its opinion on the applications for university and college professorships on an individual basis before the actual appointments were made by the President of the Republic (university professors) and the Prime Minister (college professors).2 The HAC’s standpoint was understandable: though it also realised that there were quality prob-lems in the appointment process, it insisted on its mandate and practice of evaluating institu-tions, organisational units, or programs only. Behind these official structures, there is always a group of people, and the HAC did not want to take on the burden of evaluating individual persons directly. Since the academic year 2000/01, however, it has had to do so. 3
In 2000/01 and 2001/02, evaluations of individuals applying for professorial appointments were initiated externally, by the Minister of Education. Each institution sent its proposals for ap-pointment to the Minister who, in turn, asked for the opinion of the HAC. This procedure was, however, successfully appealed against by some individuals in the Constitutional Court. Thus, from 2002/03, institutions themselves ask for the opinion of the HAC on applicants for
profes-1 The total number of students including those enrolled in distance education was about 102,000 in 1990/91, while it rose to more than 313,000 by 2001/02.
2 That has been the first and, as yet, the only case where government intentions overruled the arguments and standpoint of the Hungarian Accreditation Committee in connection with its tasks and functions.
3 As a result, the number of actual appointments decreased considerably. Between 1998 and 2000 there were 230-250 professorial appointments yearly, while this number was reduced to 123 in 2001, and to 157 in 2002.
Educational Evaluation around the World 164
sorial appointments and then decide on the applications, and send their proposals together with the HAC opinions to the Minister.
Thus, the objects of evaluation here are individual persons applying for university or college professorships. The purpose of evaluation is to give advice to the institutions and the minister on the quality of individuals applying for professorships and, through this process to safeguard the quality of university and college professors in Hungary.
Values and methods of evaluation of professorial applications
Individual persons obviously differ from institutions or programs as objects of evaluation. Never-theless, the general methodological framework of evaluation is the same here as in the other cases: peer-review. Differences are only in the implementation, the actual procedures, in the details of method. As opposed to institutional accreditation and the accreditation of operating programmes, there is no site visit (or personal interview) here. Interestingly, however, the pro-cedure of evaluating professorial applications and new programmes to be established or launched at operating institutions are almost exactly the same! (See Figure 2 in the previous article.) The only difference is that professorial applications are discussed at the second level, not by the HAC’s colleges4, but by a special standing committee established for this particular purpose.
It is important to note that potential professors – unlike institutions and programmes –are only to be evaluated, there is no formal “accreditation” obligation for the HAC. In spite of this fact, not only the methodological framework but also its cornerstone, the threshold level (accredita-tion) approach, is the same as in the case of the other three kinds of objects, though actual standards, minimum requirements obviously differ here from those applied in the case of insti-tutions or programmes.
The value-world behind the methodology of the evaluation of professorial appointments is the one that was discussed in the previous article. Here, the importance and the central role of the value of equality can be seen most clearly. Potential professors are evaluated by equals, by their peers. The academic value set, the values of science can also be grasped here, on the standards level.
In the academic year 2002/03 there were five sets of standards applied in the evaluation of applications for university professorships:
teaching performance
established scientific/artistic school(s) scientific performance and publications
inventions, patents, or works of art (professional performance) activities in professional public life.
These sets were determined on the basis of the prescriptions contained in the Higher Education Act. However, while for university professors the HEA prescribes only a PhD/DLA degree (and habilitation), the HAC raised the standard and, beyond these, in many disciplines expected a Doctor of Science (HAS) degree, or a “scientific performance equivalent with that degree or title”.5 Now, of course, it is obvious that for the evaluation of scientific performance, a scientific standard (degree) should be chosen. In the actual evaluation process, however, this standard became dominant, more important than other requirements. If an applicant possessed this degree, he/she was almost “automatically” on the winning side and could be sure in advance of the HAC’s positive opinion. (Though about 30-40 % of the applicants supported by the HAC
4 On the second (medium) level of decision making the HAC has three Colleges, for Humanities and social sci-ences, Life sciences (medicine and agriculture), and Natural sciences and technology, respectively. Members of the colleges are HAC members grouped according to their field of expertise.
5 The Doctor of the HAS qualification can still be earned today as a “title”, though it is not a “degree” anymore.
Educational Evaluation around the World 165
did not possess this qualification.) And while this elevated degree was not required from appli-cants for college professorships, publications and scientific performance played a decisive role here too. In some actual cases they were regarded as clearly more important than teaching performance and experience, and could “trade-off” weaknesses in the latter.
Educational Evaluation around the World 166
Educational Evaluation around the World 167
The Netherlands – Higher Education
A.I. Vroeijenstijn
Senior Advisor Quality Assurance
Association of the Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU)