The Italian Association of Psychology (AIP), which includes psychologists who work in universities and research bodies, believes that on the DDL on the university system, approved by the House and waiting to be approved again by the Senate, other commentators, academics, unfortunately, have provided the public with distorted and incorrect. While agreeing with the need to reform the national university system to replace it fully in the European area of \u200b\u200bhigher education and confirming their willingness to contribute with suggestions and advice the President and the Board of AIP consider it useful and necessary to draw the attention of legislators and the public out of 5 blatant falsehood:
1) It 'true that the DDL is a reform.
The bill is essentially empty, consisting of 500 rules, which require 100 implementing regulations, 35 of which are issued only by the government. In fact, these decrees will be to determine how the Italian university, not the DDL. While some of those shared principles (simplification, rationalization, attribution to a single structure "for the purpose of performing the functions scientific research and teaching activities), they remain indefinitely in the absence of implementing decrees.
2) It 'true that the DDL will reduce the so-called degree unnecessary and unproductive universities.
The bill does not address the argument at all. In any case, the decision on the activation of degree courses are taken each year by the Ministry itself, in accordance with criteria established by the previous legislation (Article 2, paragraph 5, p. 7).
3) It 'true that the DDL favors the opportunity to study to deserving students (Article 4, paragraph 1b, p. 18). In fact, not even specify the amount of scholarships, or the total funds for scholarships, or the procedures for awarding grants (we refer to national testing standards, but these are not specified as not specify who should create and administer). In addition, stock markets are independent of family income, in fact, this implies a reduction in the probability of getting a scholarship for students with low family income if there will be an increase in the total amount of funds.
4) E ' false that the DDL introduce meritocracy in recruitment procedures of university teachers.
fact: a.
enabling national scientific does not provide a maximum number of qualified, has no immediate consequences (in the recruitment role), depends on the evaluation of publications and curriculum of the candidates on the basis of minimum criteria established by the Minister in consultation with the ANVUR (National Agency for the Evaluation of higher education and research). Practically anyone with a basic level of disclosure will enable (Article 16, paragraph 4, p.48).
b. The actual recruitment then be decided by individual departments based on the vote of a majority of teachers (Article 18, paragraph 1, p. 50). A Department is free to hire anybody from candidates in possession of their entitlement. There's no advantage to take the most deserving, nor any disadvantage to take the least deserving, because the allocation of 10% of the fund so ordinary (FFO) is based on the assessment (by ANVUR) \u200b\u200bUniversities not of the Departments (Article 5 paragraph 5 p. 27). In a university with many departments to recruit a very deserving candidate does not involve substantial damage and the recruitment of a deserving candidate does not involve particular advantages.
c. The bill introduces a term that researchers remain so for up to six years (Article 24, paragraph 3, p. 66). Since there is no correspondence between the posts to associate professor and researchers, a number of them, while scientifically meritorious, can not be made permanent (the opposite of tenure U.S.). One consequence is that researchers must take time away from research to carry out professional activities that allow them to live if you do not get a permanent position at the University and to conduct any research to their "dependency" of one or more professors, because they depend on their eventual employment. In practice, up to 36 or 37 years, a researcher can not, in fact, have their own independent research.
d. The role of the current research is a time limit to exhaustion (Article 6, paragraph 4, p.31). Researchers will have to compete with fixed-term for the role but in the position of associate professor goal disadvantage, because they have already made. Their career will be effectively blocked, regardless of their scientific merits.
e. The bill abolishes both the confirmation period of three years for members that overtime. So, unlike today, once recruited into the role of teachers are no longer subject to an assessment of their scientific activity to allow non-productive if their dismissal. The only damage to the unproductive teachers is the lack of attribution of the shot three years.
f. The bill provides that a Department can not hire a teacher who has a family relationship with a member of the same Department (Articolo 18, comma b, p. 50). La norma è facilmente aggirabile: basta che ad assumere sia un altro Dipartimento. Inoltre il problema dell’Università Italiana non è l’assunzione dei parenti, ma quella dei non meritevoli. Quindi, questa norma, non solo non propone criteri meritocratici di assunzione ma impedisce in modo discriminatorio l’assunzione di alcuni, a prescindere dal merito. E’, pertanto, chiaramente contraria alla Costituzione.
g. Il DDL stabilisce che l’ANVUR valuti le “politiche di reclutamento” degli Atenei, ma non chiarisce cosa s’intenda per "Recruitment policy" (Article 5, paragraph 7 p. 32).
5) It 'true that the DDL will reduce the power of so-called "barons".
In fact, the power of the "barons" will grow much because the DDL attributes the decision-making power to fewer people and only to professors:
a. The bill increases the power of decision Board of Directors (who shall also give strategic direction) and decreases the number of members (up to eleven, for the larger universities). In eleven are included the three members external to the faculty and student representatives. Thus, only about six members of the Board will be academics (professors only) (Article 2, paragraph i, p.7).
b. The number of full professors will decline sharply in coming years because of retirements already provided and the opportunity to commit the funds released for the recruitment of new ordinary only to the extent of 20% (Article 12, paragraph 1, p.42).
c. Only the professors are part of the governing bodies of universities.
d. Only the professors are part of the National Scientific Commission for certification (Article 16, paragraph 1, p. 48).
e. Only the professors of the Department will decide, by majority vote, calling professors in that department (Article 18 paragraph and, p, 51).
f. All other components of the academic staff (temporary research and associate professors) depend for their career on a decision by the professors.
For the little that the DDL rule, therefore, the University shall be governed by a few professors at the helm of strong groups (in terms of alliances, not necessarily scientifically), composed of a majority of researchers and professors with no decision-making power and without independent research. The consequences on the quality of teaching and research can only be negative.
addition to Article 18, paragraph 3, p. 52 on the "Call of the professors, the DDL that allows the burden of the teachers call can also be charged to private individuals, after concluding the Convention for at least 15 years. Allowing the use of private contributions on condition that an agreement raises reservations about the risks of privatization, at least in part, the public university.
1) It 'true that the DDL is a reform.
The bill is essentially empty, consisting of 500 rules, which require 100 implementing regulations, 35 of which are issued only by the government. In fact, these decrees will be to determine how the Italian university, not the DDL. While some of those shared principles (simplification, rationalization, attribution to a single structure "for the purpose of performing the functions scientific research and teaching activities), they remain indefinitely in the absence of implementing decrees.
2) It 'true that the DDL will reduce the so-called degree unnecessary and unproductive universities.
The bill does not address the argument at all. In any case, the decision on the activation of degree courses are taken each year by the Ministry itself, in accordance with criteria established by the previous legislation (Article 2, paragraph 5, p. 7).
3) It 'true that the DDL favors the opportunity to study to deserving students (Article 4, paragraph 1b, p. 18). In fact, not even specify the amount of scholarships, or the total funds for scholarships, or the procedures for awarding grants (we refer to national testing standards, but these are not specified as not specify who should create and administer). In addition, stock markets are independent of family income, in fact, this implies a reduction in the probability of getting a scholarship for students with low family income if there will be an increase in the total amount of funds.
4) E ' false that the DDL introduce meritocracy in recruitment procedures of university teachers.
fact: a.
enabling national scientific does not provide a maximum number of qualified, has no immediate consequences (in the recruitment role), depends on the evaluation of publications and curriculum of the candidates on the basis of minimum criteria established by the Minister in consultation with the ANVUR (National Agency for the Evaluation of higher education and research). Practically anyone with a basic level of disclosure will enable (Article 16, paragraph 4, p.48).
b. The actual recruitment then be decided by individual departments based on the vote of a majority of teachers (Article 18, paragraph 1, p. 50). A Department is free to hire anybody from candidates in possession of their entitlement. There's no advantage to take the most deserving, nor any disadvantage to take the least deserving, because the allocation of 10% of the fund so ordinary (FFO) is based on the assessment (by ANVUR) \u200b\u200bUniversities not of the Departments (Article 5 paragraph 5 p. 27). In a university with many departments to recruit a very deserving candidate does not involve substantial damage and the recruitment of a deserving candidate does not involve particular advantages.
c. The bill introduces a term that researchers remain so for up to six years (Article 24, paragraph 3, p. 66). Since there is no correspondence between the posts to associate professor and researchers, a number of them, while scientifically meritorious, can not be made permanent (the opposite of tenure U.S.). One consequence is that researchers must take time away from research to carry out professional activities that allow them to live if you do not get a permanent position at the University and to conduct any research to their "dependency" of one or more professors, because they depend on their eventual employment. In practice, up to 36 or 37 years, a researcher can not, in fact, have their own independent research.
d. The role of the current research is a time limit to exhaustion (Article 6, paragraph 4, p.31). Researchers will have to compete with fixed-term for the role but in the position of associate professor goal disadvantage, because they have already made. Their career will be effectively blocked, regardless of their scientific merits.
e. The bill abolishes both the confirmation period of three years for members that overtime. So, unlike today, once recruited into the role of teachers are no longer subject to an assessment of their scientific activity to allow non-productive if their dismissal. The only damage to the unproductive teachers is the lack of attribution of the shot three years.
f. The bill provides that a Department can not hire a teacher who has a family relationship with a member of the same Department (Articolo 18, comma b, p. 50). La norma è facilmente aggirabile: basta che ad assumere sia un altro Dipartimento. Inoltre il problema dell’Università Italiana non è l’assunzione dei parenti, ma quella dei non meritevoli. Quindi, questa norma, non solo non propone criteri meritocratici di assunzione ma impedisce in modo discriminatorio l’assunzione di alcuni, a prescindere dal merito. E’, pertanto, chiaramente contraria alla Costituzione.
g. Il DDL stabilisce che l’ANVUR valuti le “politiche di reclutamento” degli Atenei, ma non chiarisce cosa s’intenda per "Recruitment policy" (Article 5, paragraph 7 p. 32).
5) It 'true that the DDL will reduce the power of so-called "barons".
In fact, the power of the "barons" will grow much because the DDL attributes the decision-making power to fewer people and only to professors:
a. The bill increases the power of decision Board of Directors (who shall also give strategic direction) and decreases the number of members (up to eleven, for the larger universities). In eleven are included the three members external to the faculty and student representatives. Thus, only about six members of the Board will be academics (professors only) (Article 2, paragraph i, p.7).
b. The number of full professors will decline sharply in coming years because of retirements already provided and the opportunity to commit the funds released for the recruitment of new ordinary only to the extent of 20% (Article 12, paragraph 1, p.42).
c. Only the professors are part of the governing bodies of universities.
d. Only the professors are part of the National Scientific Commission for certification (Article 16, paragraph 1, p. 48).
e. Only the professors of the Department will decide, by majority vote, calling professors in that department (Article 18 paragraph and, p, 51).
f. All other components of the academic staff (temporary research and associate professors) depend for their career on a decision by the professors.
For the little that the DDL rule, therefore, the University shall be governed by a few professors at the helm of strong groups (in terms of alliances, not necessarily scientifically), composed of a majority of researchers and professors with no decision-making power and without independent research. The consequences on the quality of teaching and research can only be negative.
addition to Article 18, paragraph 3, p. 52 on the "Call of the professors, the DDL that allows the burden of the teachers call can also be charged to private individuals, after concluding the Convention for at least 15 years. Allowing the use of private contributions on condition that an agreement raises reservations about the risks of privatization, at least in part, the public university.
