2020 Issue №1

The Anglo-Saxon traditions in the educational system: educa-tion as a commercial enterprise

Pages

98-106

Abstract

Since the 1990s, especially after Russia joined the Bologna Process in 2003, Russian education has been adopting the key features of the US educa­tional system, having acknowledged its greater efficiency in comparison to the Soviet one. Russian reformers, however, often overlook the substantial socio-cultural differences between the two countries. To understand whether it is prudent to adopt and copy in Russia either selected features of the US educa­tional system or its goals and objectives, it is necessary to analyse the litera­ture, to identify the key characteristics of the US educational system, and to track their evolution in the US pedagogical culture. This article examines a major tradition in the US education system — market-like behaviour. An at­tempt is made to analyse the historical background of traditions in US educa­tion and its market orientation. The study considers the critique of the latter feature by specialists in American education. It is concluded that, whereas the treatment of education as business and the commercialisation of education are historically inherent in US culture, copying and adopting these practices in Russia may cause irreversi­ble damage.

Reference

1. Вебер М. Избранное: Протестантская этика и дух капитализма. М. ; СПб. 2016. 656 с.

2. Костюкевич С. В. Высшее образование: современные мировые тенден­ции // Социологический альманах. 2012. № 3. С. 103—114.

3. Миронов В. В. Размышления о реформе // Вестник Московского универ­ситета. Сер. 20: Педагогическое образование. 2013. № 3. С. 32—70.

4. Русских Л. В. Реформа образования в России: промежуточные итоги // Вестник ЮУрГУ. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. 2014. № 4. С. 88—89.

5. Прохоров А. В. Ценности академической культуры США // Вест­ник Там­бовского университета. Сер.: Общественные науки. 2016. № 4 (8). С. 42—54.

6. Barrow C. W. Universities and the Capitalist State. Corporate Liberal­ism and the Reconstruction of American Higher Education, 1894—1928. Madison (Wisconsin), 1990.

7. Butler N. M. The American as he is. N. Y. 1908.

8. Cooke M. L. Academic and Industrial Efficiency. A Report to the Car­negie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bull. № 5. N. Y., 1910.

9. Delbanco A. College. What It Was, Is, and Should Be. Berlin ; Boston, 2014. URL: http://www.degruyter.com.lprx.bates.edu/view/product/465840 (дата об­ращения: 11.08.2016).

10. Flexner A. Funds and Foundations. Their Policies Past and Present. N. Y., 1952.

11. Herbst J. From Crisis to Crisis. American College Government. 1636—1819. Cambridge (MA) ; L., 1982.

12. Improving Measurement of productivity in Higher Education: Panel on High­er Education Productivity, Conceptual Framework and Data Needs. National Re­search Council (U. S.) / T. A. Sullivan, Ch. Mackie, W. F. Massy, and E. Sinha (ed.). Washington, 2012.

13. Lucas C. J. American Higher Education. A History. N. Y., 2006.

14. Ravitch D. The Death and Life of the Great American School System. How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. N. Y., 2010.

15. Smith M. And Madly Teach : A Layman Looks at Public School Edu­cation. Chicago, 1949.

16. Thelin J. R. A History of American Higher Education. The John Hop­kins Uni­versity Press. Baltimore ; L., 2004.

17. Tocqueville A. de. Letters from America / ed., trans., and with an in­trod. by F. Brown. New Haven ; L., 2010.