From: Hlavac, Vaclav <hlavac@cmp.felk.cvut.cz>
To: reichert@sl.ethz.ch, @LIST6C2E.PML,
 witzany@vc.cvut.cz
Subject: EUA visit to CTU, issues related to CTU development you asked for
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:05:26 +0100

Dear Dr. Sibille Reichert,

We met on Oct 11, 2004 during your EUA visit at the CTU
Prague. I am member of the CTU Academic Senate. I am
heading its Committee for Development and Research. I
participated in discussion with you together with three
other Academic Senate members. You asked me to send you
several headlines from analytical reports which our
committee wrote in its current term (2001-2004).

The report 'Contribution to Conceptual Issues at CTU' from
Oct 2002 observed not enough strategic thinking and
guidance from the university and faculties leadership. We
missed clearly specified strategic orientation of the CTU,
consensus on it between the Rector and deans of six
faculties, listed priorities and focusing to identified
main problems of the university development. Let me list a
few issues mentioned in this report and consequent five
more detailed analytic reports.

However, what is written below is my own choice and
interpretation which was not consulted with other Academic
Senate members or the university management.

I have to say that Rector Witzany has appreciated the
feedback in analytic reports from the Committee for
Development and Research. He also conducted a fruitful
discussion with the committee. The Rector issued a document
'Vision and development program of the CTU for 2004-2010'
in January 2004 which comprises many of the issues I write
about. The document names the problem openly. However, my
feeling is that it is and will be difficult to create
implementation plan and conduct it at the CTU in the near
future.

TEACHING

T1) There is a demographic gap to come. The number of a 19
years old A-level graduates at 2015 will drop to one half
as compared to the year 1993 and to two thirds as compared
to the year 2002. At the same time, the Czech Government
wants to increase the percentage of university students to
50 %, mainly in bachelor programmes. There is apparent drop
of interest to study technological subjects and the average
quality of students at input drops too. The university
study programmes at the CTU are too rigid and do not adapt
to this new situation.

T2) The drop out among enrolled students is too high,
between 40 and 50 percents. This makes the CTU less
attractive to potential students. Such situation shows that
the study is rather inefficient from financial point of
view. The latter is partly fault of the Czech Government
who pays to universities based on the number of enrolled
students. However, this is going to change soon. CTU does
not anticipate this situation and does not change itself to
adapt to it.

T3) Study programs at most CTU faculties are too rigid and
specialized (the exception is only the Faculty of
Architecture). This fact reduces adaptability of graduates
at the labor market. Even the bachelor, master, doctorate
system has been introduced, in reality the 'old 5 years
master' philosophy prevails. The reason is that almost all
bachelor graduates continue in master programs. The overall
scope is the same as it was before introducing
recommendations of Bologna declaration.

T4) There is too much teaching in contact with teachers and
too little well managed self-study of students. This makes
study ineffective and expensive. The CTU students in
general are less capable to formulate their ideas in
written as compared to students from say the Netherlands,
France or Britain. Roots of it are in secondary school
education. CTU students should be trained to work with
information on their own.

T5) The CTU wants to be elite university and educate mass
of students in the same study programs at the same time.
This is a clear contradiction which is, however, left
unnoticed by the university management. There should be a
more demanding track for talented students.

T6) The CTU does not adapt to changing external conditions
and does not modify its structure and study programs to it.

T7) The long-life education is undeveloped in the Czech
Republic in general and at the CTU as well. There is a lot
of (potential) money in this market. CTU does not have any
running programs in this direction and even not any plans
to have it.

RESEARCH

R1) The idea that excellent research is the only way for
the university to survive in global competition, to keep
its existing high profile and traditions is not accepted
both by the university management and by many members of
the CTU academic society. The heritage of the socialism era
(that time academic research was conducted mainly in the
Academy of Sciences and many universities 'just taught') is
very strong. There are a few islands of excellent and
competitive research at CTU in the world scale. However,
these are only a few groups. The university management
reinforces this bad situation instead of clearly promoting
those who are capable in research. The push cannot come
from inside.

R2) Transfer of knowledge and technology from academics to
industry is undeveloped at the CTU. The CTU does not have a
single spin-out company. There is no functioning policy to
protect intellectual property, treat conflict of interest
(many people transfer their knowledge to industry on
private basis), etc.

R3) The division of governmental funds by the CTU
management does not stimulate research activity. The
formula by the Ministry of Education is copied. It puts
most of weight to teaching (approx 85 %). The attempts to
stimulate good individuals and groups by the rector exist
but do not lead to a real change.

R4) The scientific councils of the CTU and individual
faculties are overwhelmed by the habilitations and
professorial promotions. The actual research issues and
strategic orientation questions are left intact.

R5) There is a substantial number of doctoral program
graduates who do not reach European or world research
level. The level of high-ranked international journals in
respective fields is too high for a good portion of our
PhDs. Research which does not tackle cutting edge knowledge
looses it sense. However, the situation improves gradually
over years.

R6) National and EU programmes bring research funds which
are assigned on competitive bases and are independent of
rigid CTU managerial structure. This introduces a positive
spirit to departments. Such support allows small groups to
be established and flourish even the management does not
support them explicitly.

HUMAN RESOURCES

H1) It is not understood that seeking young, talented
people with ability to manage and appointing them to
managerial position is the key responsibility of the acting
management.

H2) There is a big age gap at most departments of people
between 40 and 55. Many of good people grabbed the
opportunity after the political change in 1989 and moved
elsewhere.

H3) CTU suffers from lack of mobility. Most staff members
are CTU graduates and did not see many other places in
their professional life. There is not policy at the CTU to
overcome this problem. The mobility of students should be
enhanced. Prague and CTU has been attractive for foreign
visitors, both staff and students. This comparative
advantage is not explored as it could.

H4) The 'service organization' as Rector's office and
offices of deans consist only from clerical staff able to
conduct clear procedures. Thinkers who can perform more
complicated tasks, seek new opportunities, simplify
administrative procedures and help to higher-level
management do not exist. One of the reasons in their
underpayment. However, it is not the only reason. The
management does not build its qualified support.

OTHER ISSUES

O1) CTU does not have policy for quality management. This
important feedback is missing to all three managerial
levels (the Rector, deans, head of departments).

O2) There is lack of integrity at the CTU. The university
acts as a holding of 6 faculties with strong independence
(it has its reason which were explained to EUA Evaluation
Team). The relation between the Rector and deans is uneasy.
The situation deepened in the Rector Witzany's term.
Faculties keep fences around them.

The same holds within faculties where the departments are
encompassed by fences too. These fences are financial. The
rector distributes its budget to deans and most deans to
head of departments according some ministerial formula
which takes into account mainly teaching. The many years
tradition at the CTU is the fight for subjects to teach
between head of departments. This 'trench warefare' is
conducted at each reform of curriculum which comes
regularly approximately every five years.

(My personal opinion is that this issue is key one for the
further CTU development. This vicious circle should be cut.
The vitalization of research is the other second important
issue.)

O3) Culture and effectiveness of day-to-day management
needs improvement. Repeated activities have to be well
designed and documented (on the www) to be clear for the
end-user. The situation at the CTU is far from it. If this
procedure were implemented then the staff conducting it
could be less qualified, cheaper and easier to be checked.

One the other hand, support staff which is able to design
procedures, find new opportunities and help academics to
solve new problems in almost non-existing. E.g., if my
research group comes with a larger research contract from
industry which is able to pay couple of researchers for
several years then the university management does know how
to deal with it. Similar situation is if one organizes
larger international conference in Prague.

O3) CTU orients only to technology subjects in research and
teaching. If CTU likes to attract students including
females then it should open its study programs towards
humanities, econonomics, management, etc. The fact that
chemistry is outside the CTU is not productive either.

O4) CTU does not know what its graduates do, how successful
they are in the labor market, the alumni organizations
exist at some faculties but does not have big impact. This
is important but unexplored feedback.

Dr. Reichert, I hope my text will help to your EUA
evaluation exercise.

If you have further questions then do not hesitate to
contact me.

Vasek Hlavac