Yükseköğretim ekonomisi ve Türkiye üniversitelerinin aktüel görünümü

İkibinli yıllar, yükseköğretim için önemli sayılabilecek değişimler ile başladı. Ekonomik açıdan en temel değişimin bu sektöre aktarılan kamu kaynaklarındaki bariz azalmalar olduğu iddia edilebilir. Yanı sıra, 1998'deki Sorbonne ve 1999'daki Bologna deklarasyonu ile birlikte 2000 yılında kamuoyuna duyurulan Lizbon stratejisi, yükseköğretimin Avrupa Birliği üye ülkelerinde standart hale getirilmesi için kayda değer bir politika yapım etkisi de oluşturdular. Bu anlamda, kamu inisiyatiflerinin yanı sıra özel ve vakıf mülkiyetine sahip yeni oluşumların da bu sahada faal olmaya başlamasına şahit olundu. Türkiye, Birliğe aday ülkelerden biri olarak, devlet dışı aktörleri, yükseköğretim hizmeti sunumunda destekleyen ülkeler arasında yerini aldı. Günümüz itibariyle Türkiye yükseköğretimi bünyesinde 80'e yakın vakıf üniversitesi, kamu üniversiteleri ile rekabet halinde, faaliyette bulunmaktadır. Nicelik olarak varlığı ve önemi artık göz ardı edilemeyen bu üniversitelerin akademik sahada gösterecekleri başarının Türkiye'ye yapacağı katkı da yadsınamayacak bir gerçektir. Bu çalışma, dünyada ve Türkiye'de kamu yükseköğretiminin durumunu irdelemekle birlikte, vakıf üniversitelerinin Türkiye yükseköğretimindeki yerini inceleme altına almıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kamu yükseköğretimi, Türkiye, vakıf üniversiteleri, yükseköğretim.

Economics of Higher Education and Contemporary Outlook of Turkish Universities

The years 2000s began with changes that can be considered significant for higher education. It can be claimed that the most essential change financially is the apparent decreases in public funding allocated to this field. In addition, Sorbonne and Bologna declarations (1998 and 1999, respectively) as well as Lisbon strategy (2000) had a tremendous impact on policy-making of higher education in terms of standardization of quality of education across EU member and candidate states. Therefore, new initiatives that have capabilities to provide cutting-edge research and education facilities to the lecturers and students respectively have been supported by governments. Turkey -as a candidate country to join EU- is one of the leading countries to encourage non-profit entrepreneurs for opening up state-of-art universities through financial contributions and tax exemption status. Eventually, nearly 80 non-profit (NP) universities are operating in Turkish Higher Education alongside with public universities contemporarily. It is an undeniable fact that these universities, which cannot be ignored for their presence quantitatively and significance, would also contribute Turkey with their future achievements in the academic world. This paper reviews public higher education system and the challenges that it's facing currently as well as discusses the role of NP universities in the provision of higher education relying on the Turkish case.

Keywords:

Higher education, non-profit universities, public higher education, Turkey.,

PDF

___

Alexander, F. K. (2006). Concluding remarks. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on high- er education) (pp. 337–344). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bettinger E. P., and Long, B. T. (2006). The increasing use of adjunct instruc- tors at public institutions: Are we hurting students? In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on higher education) (pp. 51–69). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Blose, G. L., Porter, J. D., and Kokkelenberg, E. C. (2006). The effect of institutional funding cuts on baccalaureate graduation rates in public higher education. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on higher education) (pp. 71–82). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Browne, L. (2010). Browne Review: Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education. An independent review of higher education funding & student finance. London: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, UK Government.
Çetinsaya, G. (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğreti- mi için bir yol haritası. Ankara: YÖK.
Clotfelter C. T., Ehrenberg R. G., Getz M., and Siegfried, J. J. (Eds.) (1991). Economic challenges in higher education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
De Alva, J. K. (2000). 21st Century challenges to higher education in the age of information. Educause Review, 35(2), 32–40.
Dill, D. D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3), 167–155.
Doğramacı, İ. (2007). Türkiye’de ve dünyada yükseköğretim yönetimi. Ankara: Meteksan.
Education Commission of the States Distribution Center (1999). Transforming Postsecondary Education for the 21st Century, Briefing Papers.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Studying ourselves: The academic labour market, Journal of Labour Economics 21, 267–87.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (2006). Introduction. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s hap- pening to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on higher educa- tion) (pp. 71–82). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Erkoç, T. E. (2011). Mapping out economics of non-profit sector in Turkish context. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 4(2), 35–50.
Jenny, H. H. (1968). Pricing and optimum size in a nonprofit institution: The university. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 270–283.
Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403–410.
Jongbloed, B (2010). Funding higher education: A view across Europe. Brussels: European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities (ESMU).
Küçükcan, T., and Gür, B. S. (2009). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim: Karşılaştır- malı bir analiz. Ankara: SETA.
Lepori, B., Benninghoff, M., Jongbloed, B., Salerno, C., and Slipsaeter, S. (2007). Changing models and patterns of higher education funding: Some empirical evidence. In A. Bonaccorsi, and C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (PRIME Series on Research and Innovation Policy in Europe) (pp. 85–111). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Mises, L. E. (1935). Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth. Accessed through on June 17th, 2015.
Önder, Ç., and Önder, R. K. (2011). Resource endowments and responses to regulatory pressure: Publications of economics, management, and political science departments of Turkish universities in indexed jour- nals, 2000–2008. Higher Education, 61(4), 463–481.
ÖSYM (2011). 2010-2011 öğretim yılı yükseköğretim istatistikleri, Ankara: ÖSYM.
Rizzo, M. J. (2006). State preferences for higher education spending: A panel data analysis, 1977-2001. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happen- ing to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on higher education) (pp. 3–36). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
SCImago (2014). Scimago journal & country rank. March 2014. Accessed through on September 17th, 2015.
Shumar, W. (1997). College for sale: A critique of the commodification of higher education. (Knowledge, Identity, and School Life Series: 5). London: Routledge.
Tekeli, İ. (2010). Tarihsel bağlamı içinde Türkiye’de yükseköğretim ve YÖK’ün tarihi. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) (2015). University rankings 2015. Accessed through on June 16th, 2015.
Wiley, J. D. (2006), Why we won’t see any public universities “going pri- vate”. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), What’s happening to public higher education (ACE/Praeger series on higher education) (pp. 327–336). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers
YÖK (2007a). Türkiye’nin yükseköğretim stratejisi. Ankara: YÖK.
YÖK (2007b). Vakıf üniversiteleri raporu, Ankara: YÖK.
YÖK (2015). Üniversitelerimiz. Accessed through on June 16th, 2015.