The Armenian government introduced sweeping reforms this year targeting the country’s higher education sector, marking the latest in a series of distraction campaigns. True to its modus operandi, the proposals lack clear reasoning and focus more on a public relations spin than a data-driven strategy. An unnecessarily complicated site serves as a repository for the proposed changes, offering little clarity on their rationale.
According to the shared details, the proposed “Law on Higher Education and Science” aims to establish a unified legal framework for managing academic and scientific activities in Armenia, encompassing all institutions regardless of organizational or legal status. The law aims to promote principles including academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the integration of education with research to meet international standards. It also outlines mechanisms for licensing, accreditation and ensuring quality and accessibility. However, these buzzwords lack substance in the absence of a comprehensive vision outlining the country’s scientific needs, aspirations and goals. As a small, landlocked nation surrounded by geopolitical threats, Armenia’s future hinges on leveraging its intellectual capital through science and technology. Yet, this foundational step is glaringly absent from the proposed framework.
Instead, the plan focuses on merging and shutting down multiple universities, relocating them to a new “Academic City” on Yerevan’s outskirts, centralizing control and imposing rigid constraints. While this approach has elements worth exploring, its lack of transparency and coherence undermines its potential.
It is undeniable that Armenia’s higher education sector suffers from under-resourced institutions incapable of providing a robust value proposition for the nation’s future. According to Webometrics, the oldest Armenian university — Yerevan State University (YSU) — ranks 2,765 globally, while Times Higher Education places YSU at 1,501+. Such rankings highlight the severe limitations of Armenia’s higher education institutions in driving the nation forward. See Figure 1 for a complete list of Armenian university rankings from Webometrics.
The purpose here is not to advocate for a rankings-focused overhaul but to highlight that these metrics serve as valuable benchmarks for assessing progress and identifying milestones as part of a comprehensive approach. Armenia’s current system, with over 60 universities and research centers, is a relic of the Soviet model, where higher education and research were integrated into a centrally funded network. Despite its small size, Soviet Armenia excelled in education.
However, the dissolution of the Soviet Union eliminated the centralized funding mechanism that sustained this model. To their credit, Armenian scientists have shown resilience, continuing to produce work despite limited resources and support. Any reforms to the education sector must prioritize strategic vision and robust systems to unlock Armenia’s intellectual potential and meet its pressing challenges.
Revitalizing Armenia’s higher education sector requires setting comprehensive system-wide goals aligned with national strategic priorities. This includes strengthening the economy and bolstering national security. Achieving this vision demands extensive data collection and consultation with Armenian and diaspora scientists, international higher education experts and professionals from countries that have successfully reformed their systems, such as Singapore, Ireland, South Korea and Estonia. Only through such a rigorous process can the government articulate a well-founded vision, laying the groundwork for effective planning and implementation. Unfortunately, the current administration appears to have skipped this critical step, opting instead for superficial PR campaigns and short-term distractions masquerading as nation-building. Such plans often lack depth and longevity and take a decade at best to devise and implement, a timescale in which most of these officials will be long forgotten, as demonstrated by previous gems such as the Armenia National Interests Fund (ANIF) and FlyArna.
While Armenia has too many uncompetitive institutions of higher education, and consolidation or mergers may be beneficial, establishing a new institution is likely unnecessary. What is essential is a deep understanding of the nation’s higher education needs for future generations, focusing on areas of economic and national security importance and identifying sectors with high return on investment (ROI). The system must be flexible enough to adapt to shifting global trends. For instance, while programming offered high ROI for small nations like Armenia, the emergence of artificial intelligence requires a pivot to new skill sets. Training app developers may be a short-term solution, but it does not constitute a long-term strategic vision. A robust system should respond to current trends and anticipate future demands, positioning Armenia for sustained success.
This understanding must include a detailed analysis of how universities, colleges and research institutes, along with their interrelationships, can maximize ROI while minimizing overhead and bureaucracy. Directly adopting models from larger nations such as the U.S. or Germany may not be as fruitful. Instead, Armenia may study and learn from smaller nations that have successfully revamped their higher education systems as engines of economic growth. A thoughtful and thorough evaluation can help outline a vision for national growth through research, education and innovation, underpinned by a robust value system and work ethic.
Regrettably, the proposed law does not reflect such an in-depth analysis. The Armenian scientific community, while commendable, represents a closed-loop system with limited external exposure. This insularity has perpetuated the narrative that “locals know best,” stifling meaningful external input and guidance. By the same token, while trained under much more diverse and competitive systems, the diasporan Armenian scientific community has enjoyed the luxury of established higher education and innovation systems and may not be as well-versed in processes to design and implement a system from the ground up. Therefore, the Armenian nation must acknowledge its limitations, seek appropriate external expertise and make decisions based on comprehensive data rather than anecdotal evidence or personal motivations. Armenia can pave the way for meaningful and lasting reform in its higher education sector by addressing these issues and adopting an inclusive, data-driven and forward-thinking approach.
The administration markets the “pivotal” aspect of the law, the “Academic City,” as a modern, state-sponsored environment fostering collaboration among educational, scientific and industrial organizations. While this sounds very exciting, it suffers from strategic and tactical issues. It makes the nation’s entire education and innovation sector a nice target for the enemy, conveniently removes the youth from the city center so that they are less of a nuisance and groundswell for any opposition, and moves the youth out of the provinces, which will have a detrimental effect on regional growth, development and prosperity. Establishing the Central Bank’s education center in Dilijan was an excellent success story, which catalyzed local economic growth and development with a vision to set up a hub of economic and financial research outside of Yerevan. On the flip side, large parcels of valuable real estate in central Yerevan will be freed up for development and exploitation.
Working through the proposal’s incredible sounding yet hollow word salad, some immediate concerns arise stemming from its establishment of a centralized system. This would enable government officials to micromanage academic and research work. Additionally, the proposal lacks external review mechanisms to objectively evaluate institutional successes and failures — essential tools for ongoing improvement.
According to the proposal, the changes will grant the government authority over crucial academic and administrative decisions. This includes approving educational positions, staff roles, teaching methods, admission processes, scholarship distributions and even the salary structure for scientific personnel. Such control will limit universities’ ability to operate independently, as the government would oversee key aspects typically within the domain of educators and scholars.
This plan also reinforces government influence by mandating that the composition of university boards and the founding status of scientific organizations fall under state control. This restricts institutions from governing themselves and risks subjecting academic pursuits to political agendas, which is the de facto MO now, anyway. These changes will make them de jure.
The proposed law will primarily delegate oversight responsibilities to the government rather than independent external experts. This restricts opportunities for objective program reviews, critical for ensuring quality and innovation. It proposes an Ethics Committee, an internal body with limited capacity for broader, impartial assessment. With its members elected from within the university, it may lack the impartiality needed to address ethical concerns at the administrative or academic level.
The proposal emphasizes the creation of an “Academic City” as an infrastructural hub but fails to prioritize the development of internationally competitive faculty. Quality in academia is driven by the expertise and reputation of educators and researchers, not solely by physical plants.
It will also restrict the construction of university facilities outside the Academic City, barring exceptions for specific geographic needs. This clause challenges universities that may wish to explore alternative development models. It effectively freezes needed investments in research and education during the long period required to build the Academic City.
The proposed changes blur the lines between faculty governance, administrative governance and oversight by the Board of Trustees. For instance, the Board of Trustees includes student and faculty representatives, but with the composition determined by state-approved structures, the independence of university governance is compromised. The proposed Academic Council, comprising a mix of faculty, administrative staff and students, will not separate academic decision-making from administrative responsibilities. The presence of the rector and vice-rectors as ex-officio members further complicates governance, as administrative leaders are heavily embedded in academic decision-making processes.
Each of these issues points to potential inefficiencies and restrictions that could undermine the quality and independence of Armenian higher education. Alternative approaches, such as a more bottom-up reform model, could help preserve autonomy and encourage gradual, incentive-based transitions rather than sweeping, mandatory changes. In cases where consolidation will make the most sense, these steps should be taken carefully and evaluated alongside internal and external experts.
The government’s intention to relocate all Armenian universities, both public and private, to a single academic hub outside the capital will limit whatever is left of university autonomy, present logistical difficulties and force private universities under government oversight. There is also the exorbitant cost of building new campuses and buildings for a resource-constrained nation, where such funds could be used to hire better professors and procure equipment and resources to conduct research, as opposed to building shiny new facilities for photo-ops and little else.
Private universities, such as the American University of Armenia (AUA), will be significantly impacted. The law restricts universities from expanding outside the Academic City, and private institutions cannot own property within it, deterring investment and limiting growth potential. Public institutions could also suffer under this model, as centralization will disregard the unique needs of each university, and a one-size-fits-all approach may dilute educational quality instead of enhancing it.
The current administration has consolidated full control over the government’s executive, legislative and judiciary branches. It has systematically destabilized and weakened all institutions and structures in the nation to consolidate power and remove any semblance of opposition. Now, it is the turn of the academics, who suddenly find themselves in the administration’s crosshairs. This is the price they pay for their silence when the administration systematically weakened the nation’s other institutions and structures, foisted a terrible war with a predetermined outcome upon the nation, wounded the nation’s pride, confidence and dignity, destroyed relationships with allies and abandoned Artsakh.
Armenia’s significant challenges and constraints in higher education are real, as they are in primary and secondary education. However, short-sighted and half-baked ideas formed by uninformed and uninquisitive leadership, concocted behind closed doors and led by a compromised collaborator will not provide the answers. Nation-building requires a fundamental belief in the nation’s future based on its values, resources and interests. A compromised regime fails at this very step.
Ara Nazarian, PhD
Latest posts by Ara Nazarian, PhD (see all)
- Nikol Pashinyan: The architect of Armenia’s decline through lies and fabrications - December 17, 2024
- The academic tempest in a teapot for a nation that has lost its way - December 3, 2024
- “When small men begin to cast big shadows” - October 30, 2024
Be the first to comment