UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY O S M A N OKYAR

Existing Institutions Universities are quite recent institutions in Turkish life. The oldest of them, Istanbul University, was established just before the First World War. It grew out of a number of schools or colleges mostly founded towards the end of the nineteenth century as a part of the efforts of the declining Ottoman Empire to westernise itself. As at present constituted, higher educational institutions in Turkey are divided into two broad classes: the universities and the higher education institutions under the Ministry of Education, such as the academies of commerce, technical high schools and teacher training colleges. The latter accept either lycde graduates or graduates of lower level technical and professional schools and train them for a period of two to four years. They all come under the direct authority of the Ministry of Education and are primarily designed to give their students professional or technical training. During the academic year 1964-65, the number of students in academies and high schools was 26,628 while the total number of students in universities was 53,316, standing roughly in a proportion of one student in colleges to two students in universities. In the following survey, I shall concentrate on the universities. The universities in Turkey include self-governing and independent universities subject to Law No. 4,936 of 1946 1 and universities established urlder different special laws and, in one way or another, attached to the Ministry of Education. The oldest and largest university in Turkey, the University of Istanbul, is now a self-governing body coming under the Universities Law No. 4,936. It prides itself on descending from the theological and medical colleges established in Istanbul after the conquest of the city in 1453 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror. In its modern form, its faculties have grown out of various schools established in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The University of Istanbul as such was formed in 1900 by the grouping together of these various schoolsP The university was reformed in 1933 in an effort to modernise its methods and personnel. The reforms were aided by the recruitment of German professors, emigrds from the nazi regime. 1 See Appendix I, pp. 234-237, for a summarised text of the law in its present form. 2 The University of Istanbul Catalogue (/stambul 1962), p. 13.

214

OSMAN OKYAR

Up to the end of the Second World War, the university had remained under the authority of the government which made all the important appointments. Following the introduction of the multi-party system, a university law was passed in 1946 giving Istanbul University self-government and guaranteeing its autonomy. In the fifties, when tensions arose between the government and the university, the university law was amended giving more powers to the government.3 This was changed again after the revolution of 1960 and the law as it stands restores complete autonomy in all administrative and academic matters to the organs of the university. It is administered by a rector elected for two years by professors and associate professors of the university according to a system of rotation, which guarantees that each of the six faculties--letters, science, law, economics, medicine and forestry--supplies the rector in turn. The rector presides over the senate which has ultimate authority in matters concerning academic, administrative and student affairs. Each faculty is also a self-governing body with an elected dean, a council of professors and an executive board, deciding on administrative and academic affairs. The greater part of university finance is provided by the central government in a supplementary budget, prepared in consultation between the university and the Ministry of Finance and approved by parliament. In addition, there are other sources of finance such as students' fees, gifts or grants from institutions or individuals and revenue from various funds. Such financing, however, is of minor significance in comparison to government support. Istanbul University had under 10,000 students just before the Second World War; in 1963 it had 25,000. The size of the teaching staff was 990 in 1960 and has only reached 1,000 in 1963. The second university in Istanbul, the Istanbul Technical University, was formally established during the Second World War. It grew out of the School of Engineering established in the Ottoman Empire in the latter part of the nineteenth century. It is governed by the same laws as Istanbul University and its structure and administrative system are similar. It has five faculties: construction, mining, architecture, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. The number of students has remained around 2,700 since 1960, while the number of teaching staff has increased from 350 in 1960 to 366 in 1963. The University of Ankara was also established during the Second World War as an outgrowth of previously existing schools such as the Law School, 3 This amendment made it an offence for university teaching staff to participate actively in politics or to express opinions outside the limit allowed by the university law. This offence was to be punished by retirement. See Appendix I, p. 237, for text of amendment.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

215

the School of Political Science, and the Institute of Agriculture. The nucleus for the faculty of medicine was provided by members of the staff of the military hospital in Ankara. It is also one of the autonomous selfgoverning institutions governed by Law No. 4,936. The Univers,ity of Ankara now has the following nine faculties: law, political science, history-geography and letters, science, medicine, theology, pharmacy, veterinary science and agriculture. The number of students enrolled in the university has declined slightly from 18,380 in 1960 to 17,527 in 1965. The size of the teaching staff has remained around 1,050 between 1960 and 1963. The fourth and last self-governing Turkish university is Ege University founded in 1955 and situated at Izmir on the Aegean coast. It has only three faculties: medicine, science and agriculture. The teaching staff of its faculty of medicine has been recruited mostly from Istanbul University, while the faculty of agriculture has been staffed by Ankara professors. Its teaching staff numbered 332 in 1963 while the number of enrolled students was 1,576 in 1965. There are three universities in Turkey which do not come under Law No. 4,936. They are all recently established and two of them are situated in regions very far from the big centres of the country. The largest and most dynamic of the new universities is the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, which was set up by law in 1958. It was designed as an international centre of research and was intended to attract students from all over the Middle East, with its main emphasis on technical subjects and English as the medium of instruction. The university's structure, as defined by law, differs radically from the conventional type of Turkish university.4 The Middle East Technical University legislation created a board of trustees which enjoys final authority within the university. This body appoints a rector for a period of three years and is given wide latitude of action in developing the university. Academic matters are mostly dealt with by an academic council elected by the faculties. The university is not subjected to the central government financial and accounting regulations or to the law governing salaries of government officials, which regulates the basic pay of professors in other universities. It can employ teachers on a contractual basis for limited periods, an arrangement unknown in the other universities. All these features make the Middle East Technical University very different from the other universities. It has a proportion of foreign professors on its staff. Administration is held apart as mnch as possible 4 See Appendix I, pp. 238-241, for the text of Law No. 7,307, governing the Middle East Technical University.

216

OSMAN OKYAR

from academic affairs. There is a link between the university and the government through the board of trustees. The board is a governmentappointed body with complete authority over the university. The university consists at the present time of the following four faculties: arts and science, administrative sciences, engineering and architecture. The original emphasis on technical subjects was later altered to include social and natural sciences. Under the energetic leadership of Kemal Kurdas, rector since 1962, the university has shown remarkable growth. The number of students has grown very rapidly in recent years, rising from 330 in 1960-61 to 3,058 in 1964-65. At the present time, the number approaches 5,000. The university's teaching staff totalled 240 in 1963. The Atatiirk University, situated in Erzurum in northeastern Turkey, about 300 kin. from the Soviet border, was set up by law in 1957 and began classes in November 1958.~ It is named for the founder of the Turkish republic because Atatiirk had indicated several times before his death a desire to establish a university in eastern Turkey which would play a key role in the cultural and economic development of that backward region of the country. In 1954, the Turkish Government approached the American Government with a request for technical assistance in establishing such a university in northeastern Turkey. It was agreed then to create an institution on the lines of the United States land-grant universities, which would take an active role in regional economic development and in agricultural extension. An agreement was concluded between the United States Government, the University of Nebraska and the Turkish Government, according to which the University of Nebraska would provide technical assistance to the Atatiirk University for a period of 10 years. The legislation which was finally approved for the university was a compromise between the certain features of the existing university pattern (Law No. 4,936) and a more permissive pattern. The university was placed under the direct authority of the Minister of Education, who was empowered to make the first major appointments of rector, deans of faculties and professors. The Atatiirk University began originally with two faculties 9 agriculture and letters and science. A third faculty, the faculty of medicine, was added in 1966, under an arrangement concluded between the Hacettepe faculty of medical sciences of Ankara University and the Ministry of Education. The Hacettepe faculty will be responsible for the appointment 5 See Appendix I, p. 237, for a summary of Law No. 6,990, governing the Atatiirk University.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

217

of staff and the organisation of teaching and other medical activities in Erzurum for a period of 10 years. The Atatiirk University has also grown fairly rapidly in recent years. The student body consisting of 224 in 1959 has since risen to around 1,700 in 1966. The number of teaching staff has risen from 71 in 1959 to 260 in 1966. The last of the non-autonomous universities is the Black Sea Technical University with headquarters in Trabzon, a port on the eastern Black Sea coast. It was established by special law in 1958. It is organised according to the standard pattern of the older institutions except that it is under the direct authority of the Ministry of Education. The aim of the university is to train engineers, architects, scientists and other technical personnel. To help develop the university and to meet its needs of teaching staff, "special relationships" of cooperation and supervision were arranged with the faculty of science in Istanbul University and the Technical University of Istanbul. For the time being, the Black Sea University has two faculties: the faculty of construction engineering and the faculty of architecture. It is planned to open a faculty of basic sciences. The university began teaching in 1963-64 with 100 students and this number has risen to around 400 in 1966-67. The teaching staff numbers around 60 at the present time. The most recent important development in the field of higher education in Turkey was the creation of Hacettepe University in the summer of 1967. This university developed out of the Hacettepe faculty of medical sciences, which between 1963 and 1967 formed the second faculty of medicine of Ankara University. The faculty itself had developed from what was originally a children's hospital. Rapid progress resulted in its incorporation into Ankara University in 1963. From its inception modern methods were applied to the teaching of medicine at Hacettepe, under t,he guidance of the founder of the faculty, Professor Ihsan Dogramaci. Dissatisfaction with the standards of teaching of basic sciences in the existing faculties led to the establishment of separate departments of basic sciences in the Hacettepe faculty, thus strengthening further the quality of medical teaching. The marked difference in outlook and methods between the new faculty and the existing faculties of Ankara University soon gave rise to certain tensions and conflicts. In 1967, by mutual agreement, Hacettepe faculty separated from Ankara University to become the nucleus of a new university, named Hacettepe University, which was established in the summer of 1967 by the passing of Law No. 892. 6 6 See Appendix I, p. 241, for a summary of Law No. 892.

218

OSMAN OKYAR

Problems and Tasks of the Turkish Universities since the Second World War Changes in Turkish society since the Second W o r d War, such as the recent rapid growth of population, increasing contact with foreign countries, especially the West, foreign economic assistance and a large increase in domestic investment, the spread of literacy and urbanisation and the growth of the middle and working classes, do not seem to have been accompanied by a parallel growth in the quantity and quality of educational institutions, particularly of universities. It is inevitable that there should be some disproportion between very rapid economic and social transformations and the adaptation processes which occur in institutions, particularly in institutions such as universities, part of whose functions is the conservation and transmission of tradition. Be what it may, this disproportion or lag has created a number of tensions which tend to attract the attention of public opinion. One of these tensions is apparent in the disparity between the requirements of a rapidly developing society for highly trained manpower of all kinds and in particular of technologically trained manpower on one side and the limited supply of graduates from higher educational institutions on the other. The requirements of society for manpower are not however always expressed in effective demand for manpower at the going market rates of reward. This is true in the case of certain governmental organisations where the rate of pay offered is too low to attract graduates of good quality. This sort of situation does not of course alter the fact that different types of trained manpower are required if in the long run the economy and the society are to develop along paths regarded as right by responsible persons in the society. Another tension arises in the form of unfulfilled expectations from an evergrowing demand for the benefits of higher education coming from the swelling numbers of lycde graduates, which cannot be met because of the limited facilities provided by the universities and other higher educational institutions. Thus, in recent years, only about one third of the lycde graduates applying for admission to higher educational institutions have been able to gain admission by passing the Central Entrance Examination organised by the universities. There is a large number of applicants who hold the lyc~e diploma and who sit for these entrance examinations every year without success. This is a waste of manpower and causes much resentment and distress. Another product of the faulty relations between the universities and society is the "brain drain"; gifted university graduates, especially in certain technical fields such as medicine, engineering, architecture and

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

219

science, take up employment abroad or stay abroad after finishing their graduate studies in a foreign university.7 This is partly a consequence of differentials in payment between Turkey and advanced countries, but it is also a result of lack of flexibility and receptiveness on the part of national organisations, and in particular of the universities themselves, towards students who have done their postgraduate studies abroad. Some of the difficulties referred to above arise from the failure of Turkish higher educational institutions to increase their intake of new students or to adapt old and introduce new courses of study, methods of teaching, etc. There is also another class of problems, at least equal in importance to the first, facing the universities in Turkey today. These arise from the role of the universities in the great processes of cultural transformation, of the assimilation and application of western science and techniques and of the necessity for the universities to play some kind of leadership role here. Even if the universities were to increase their intake of lycde graduates, they would still be far from meeting the requirements of the time. Universities are required to train and assimilate a corps of research workers, abreast of the main currents of the natural and social sciences, capable of making some contribution, here and there, to the scientific knowledge of our time and, in any case, able to apply theoretical knowledge or the results of their own research to the many practical issues arising in medicine, agriculture, industry, social work, etc. Active public opinion in Turkey expects universities, in addition to meeting the requirements for trained manpower arising from economic development, urbanisation, and so on, to play a leading role in economic development. These expectations are especially pronounced vis-gt-vis universities situated in the economically more underdeveloped regions of Turkey such as Eastern Anatolia or the Black Sea. But the demand is directed to all universities in Turkey, whether old or new, whether established in the major centres of Turkish society or at the periphery. Yet until the universities have established within themselves a "critical mass ", ~n elite of scientific and research workers of high theoretical standing and sufficiently numerous to be able to sustain themselves and each other, who can devote themselves to discovering and solving important practical problems and who can also gain the confidence of the politically relevant public, they will not be able to exercise the right kind of influence. The capacity r There are no detailed statistics for the " b r a i n drain " from Turkey, although there are estimates for the field of medicine. According to an unpublished, mimeographed report, Manpower in the Field of Health in Turkey, jointly prepared by the Ankara School of Hygiene and the International Health Department of the School of Public Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, some 2,250 doctors are working abroad out of a total number of 12,275. No studies have yet been completed for the " b r a i n drain " in engineers, architects and scientists, although such studies are under way. Some estimates put the number of engineers and architects working abroad at 500.

220

OSMAN OKYAR

of the universities to play a role which they have not played before in Turkey will determine whether Turkey will make substantial progress in many spheres of life or will make only uneven and sporadic advances. In addition to this role, the level of accomplishment of the universities can contribute to national development through the enhancement of national self-esteem. They will be able to perform this latter function only if their accomplishments gain the esteem of the worldwide intellectual community. Turkey is now in a situation in which its economy has become much more complex and has acquired a fairly wide and diversified industrial base, when a more complicated financial and credit superstructure has to be erected, when progress in agriculture depends wholly on increasing yields per hectare, when the difficult tasks of exporting and competing abroad become crucial, when a higher level of administrative skills is required all round. Trained intelligence and strong motivation becomes as important as an increasing rate of capital formation. Other levels of the educational system have, of necessity, to carry part of the burden of training human resources. But the universities and other higher educational institutions have to carry most of the burden of training the person to make the decisions or take the initiative and also the people who will afterwards themselves train other people in the various stages of the educational system.

The Supply and Demand for Graduates The State Planning Organisation, in its preparatory work for the second five year plan period of 1968-72, has attempted to produce a comprehensive picture of higher education in Turkey? It has drawn up a set of estimated requirements for graduates of higher educational institutions and the expected supply of such graduates during the coming five year period. Higher education, according to this definition, includes, in addition to universities, colleges and academies, public and private, giving professional and technical training at a high level, as well as those teacher training institutions which train teachers for post-primary education, for periods of two to four years. The supply side has been calculated on the basis of the stock of available personnel in the initial year to which estimates of yearly accretions of all higher educational graduates, broken down into main categories, have been added. Manpower requirements, except for health, have been calculated as functions of expected increases in production with the help of tools developed by educational planning methods. In the case of health, demand s Turkiye'de yuksek ogretimin egitim slsterni icindeki yeri ve gelismesi (The Place and Development of Higher Education in the Educational System in Turkey), State Planning Organisation, March 1966 (mimeographed, in Turkish).

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

221

estimates a r e a r r i v e d at in a different w a y b y t a k i n g social d e v e l o p m e n t into account. T h e s e estimates r e p r e s e n t m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s for m a i n taining p r o d u c t i o n at the 7 p e r cent. rate of increase envisaged in the five y e a r plans. T h e table giving the figures for the y e a r s 1967 a n d 1972 is as f o l l o w s : TABLE I

Prospective Demand for and Supply of Graduates of Higher Educational Institutions 9 (assuming no change in the capacity of the higher education system) (in thousands) 1967

1972

98"6 106-3 + 7"7

135"0 128-3 -- 6"7

24"8 21"5 - 3"3

34"0 24"8 -- 9"2

25"7 17'4 -- 8"3

29-0 20" 1 -- 8"9

63.8 37"7 - 26' 1

75"0 48"7 -- 26"3

54-0 66"3 + 12"3

79-0 69"6 -- 9"4

266"9 249"2 - 17"7

352-0 291"5 -- 60"5

General administration and management Demand Supply Difference

Engineering Demand Supply Difference

Medicine Demand Supply Difference

Education Demand Supply Difference

Other sectors Demand Supply Difference

Total Demand Supply Diflerence

G r a n t i n g that the figures are o n l y very a p p r o x i m a t e , the first thing to b e n o t e d is the very slow rate of increase in g r a d u a t e s of higher e d u c a t i o n a l institutions u n d e r present conditions. T h e n u m b e r of university g r a d u a t e s rose f r o m 3,658 in 1961 to 4,421 in 1964. C o n s i d e r i n g that the t o t a l n u m b e r of students e n r o l l e d in 1961 was 46,000, while it rose to 54,000 in 1964, it a p p e a r s t h a t the " p r o d u c t i v i t y " of universities is r a t h e r low, o n e g r a d u a t e to 12.5 students in 1961 a n d one g r a d u a t e to 12 students in 1964. I n the s a m e period, the n u m b e r of g r a d u a t e s f r o m colleges a n d o t h e r similar institutions rose f r o m 2,021 to 3,313. This was a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y 9 State Planning Organisation, mimeographed document, op. ctt., p. 24.

222

OSMAN OKYAR

the result of the increase in the number of graduates from the teacher training institutions, the number of which has recently been increased. The projections of the supply of higher educational graduates in the future are based on the assumption that the number of such graduates will rise slowly to an average of 8,000 per annum in the period 1967-72. This is perhaps a reasonable assumption, considering the trends in the intake of students by universities and the very small likelihood of expecting a change for the better in the "productivity" of universities in the near future. The total annual intake of students by universities has actually dropped from 13,691 in 1960-61 to 12,993 in 1964-65. The reason for the drop was the large reduction in the number of students accepted by the older universities of Istanbul and Ankara. This decreased by 3,018 from 12,503 to 9,485 and it was not compensated by the increase in the number of students accepted by the newer universities. I~ The biggest increase among the newer universities occurred in the Middle East Technical University of Ankara where the number of students accepted rose from 330 in 1960-61 to 1,977 in 1964-65. The second trend to be revealed by the State Planning Organisation's estimates is the widening gap between the demand for graduates of higher educational institutions and their supply during the coming period. For 1967, it is estimated that the gap between demand and supply will be around 17,000, increasing to 60,000 in 1972. In other words, if no steps are taken to increase significantly the output of Turkish higher educational institutions in the very near future, there will not be enough graduates to fill key jobs throughout the economy and the social services. The Planning Organisation asserts that the shortage of highly educated personnel is greatest in engineering, medicine and education. In 1967, the gap between requirements and supply for teachers at all levels of the educational system, above primary education, is estimated at around 40 per cent. of total requirements in these fields. There exist also serious shortages in engineering and medicine, while in general administration and management supply at present seems to exceed demand. However, it is reckoned that by 1972 all the sectors of the economy will have deficiencies in their requirements for graduates, the most critical ones continuing to be in the fields of engineering, medicine and education. The deficiency in education is most serious because it has a multiplier effect throughout the education system above primary level. This quantitative shortage is also bound to have qualitative effects on all post-primary levels of education through a depression of educational standards. J0 This decrease in student numbers is the result of an attempt by the universities to lower the student-teacher ratio, which was rising too rapidly.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

223

The deficiencies referred to above arise partly from the maldistribution of university students among the different branches and faculties of universities. There is a disproportionately large number of students in the social sciences and humanities faculties (Table II). 11

TABLE I I 12

Distribution of University Students Among Faculties (percentage) Total number Humanities & Science & enrolled O00s Social Sciences Engineering 1959-60 1961-62 1962-63

39-0 49-5 50'0

57-3 63"0 64"0

23"3 21'4 19'2

Health

Agriculture

Total

11-8 9'2 9'8

7'6 6'7 7'0

100 100 I00

The concentration of students in the humanities and social science faculties has moreover increased in recent years. This distribution and its trend are of course contrary to the requirements of the economy. Whether the distribution is a function of the tastes and ambitions of the students or of the admissions policy of the different faculties is not known at present. In m a n y countries, technical and scientific faculties follow a more restrictive admissions policy than humanities and social sciences because of the greater cost per student where laboratory equipment and space are involved. This factor should be operative in Turkey also.

The Effectiveness of the Turkish Universities The question of the quality of performance in teaching and research cannot be neglected even though it is obviously extremely difficult to deal with it in an objective and reliable way. There is need for objective appraisal and self-criticism by members of universities themselves and also need for serious enlightened criticism by members of the public, press or other institutions. The universities cannot demand to remain outside or above such criticism, if they wish to have any claim to intellectual respect and social utility. What sort of judgements can we pass, as fairly and objectively as possible, on the present quality of Turkish universities? First, something must be said about the cultural background of the universities. We have to remember that universities are relatively new institutions in Turkey. Scientific and intellectual traditions which have taken centuries to develop in the West have had only about 50 years to become implanted in Turkey, where for centuries past the dominating tradition was unquestioned theological belief, where dogma was supreme al State Planning Organisafion, mimeographed document, op. cit., p. 36. 12 In Table II, humanities and social sciences include law and business administration.

224

OSMAN OKYAR

in content and form. Under such circumstances, scientific and intellectual discipline in the observation of nature and in the expression of ideas was little practised, while strong attachments to traditional institutions and beliefs often stood in the way of freely ranging discussion and criticism. Such things are not changed overnight. Strong feelings and the stifling straitjacket of dogmatic thinking continue to influence attitudes and behaviour and the mode of thinking in various ways. Academic accomplishment at all times depends very closely on the prevailing scientific and intellectual atmosphere outside and inside the academic institution. When the proper atmosphere is lacking outside the university or when it is just beginning to emerge and is not supported by very strong internal institutional traditions, it is no wonder that we do not yet find a generally high level of scientific and intellectual achievements in universities. Turkish cultural traditions are changing, intellectual dogmatism is diminishing, a more empirical, matter-of-fact attitude is developing, but meanwhile standards of analysis and exertion in Turkish universities are below the levels prevailing in western countries. But even now there are variations in this situation; there are small circles within the Turkish university system in which work of a very high level is carried on, where the morale of intellectual commitment is strong and unremitting and in which the foundations of a fruitful intellectual tradition--in both the natural and the social sciences--are being established. There are now in Turkish or in western universities a number of scholars, mostly products of Turkish universities, who have lately shown outstanding ability in the theoretical field in such subjects as physics, chemistry, mathematics, mechanics and biology. There are also others who have proved themselves the equals of the best in applied sciences such as medicine, engineering and architecture. We must note, however, that almost all these persons have done their postgraduate studies in western universities. All these examples prove two things: the existence in some individuals of a high degree of native ability and the capacity to assimilate western science and technique, and secondly the possibility of the implanting of a tradition of modern science and scholarship in propitious institutional conditions. Quite apart from the general cultural background, the quality of performance in Turkish universities is deeply affected by the internal traditions and arrangements within the educational system as a whole and within the universities themselves. With respect to the former, we should first mention the unsatisfactory standards of lycde graduates, the products of secondary education who become university students. The secondary level of education in Turkey suffers from a very serious shortage of teachers and this shortage is one of the factors--not the only one--

UNIVERSITIFLS IN TURKEY

225

which accounts for the archaic courses of studies and methods of instructionY Some of the Turkish lyc~es, mostly in major centres or the western regions of the country, are staffed and serviced much more adequately than others. The great expansion in the number of students who now attend lycdes and who increasingly seek university education only aggravates the situation. The universities have tried to restrict this inflow by instituting a Central Examination which applicants have to pass before they can be admitted. Less than half of the applicants are usually successful but on account of continuous increases in the number of applicants and of the pressure exercised by public opinion and the government, the universities have been increasing student admission quotas much more than they would like, while their teaching staffs and teaching facilities grow at a much slower ratel During the first years of the five year plan, the government and the planning organisation tried to take steps to divert the flow of school children at the stage below the lyc~e, from a lyc~e education towards technical education, by instituting an examination between the two stages within secondary education and by diverting into technical schools those unable to pass the examination. This attempt to control the flow of students had subsequently to be abandoned on account of political pressures. With regard to the internal factors influencing Turkish university work, perhaps a convenient point to start is a remark by Professor Sarc to the effect that contacts within the university between teachers and students are far too few and too short. ~4 He attributes this to lack of space in classrooms, to lack of other facilities and to excessive numbers of students, but there are other, probably more fundamental, factors which are operative here. The observation about the lack of contact between teachers and students does touch on a fundamental problem of education in Turkish universities today. This is the cut-and-dried, stereotyped style of teaching in most faculties of the universities. Teaching seems to be restricted for the most part to classroom lectures addressed to large numbers of anonymous students and it often takes the form of reading year after year the same manuscript based on a textbook or lecturing from prepared notes 13 This defective preparation of lycde gradugtes entering the universities was stressed by Professor t r u e r Celal Sate, of Istanbul University, as the most important single factor affecting the standard of achievement in the university in his paper on " H i g h e r Education in Turkey " read at the seminar on education, organised by the Economic and Social Studies Conference Board in Istanbul in August 1966. See Professor Omer Celal Sarc, " H i g h e r Education in Turkey ", E d u c a t i o n as a F a c t o r in E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t (Istanbul: Economic and Social Studies Conference Board, 1967), p. 144. 14 Cf. Sarc, O. C., op. cit., p. 144.

226

OSMAN OKYAR

which have scarcely been revised since they were first made. The students are then expected to memorise the content of the lectures with little outside reading or additional work such as seminars, tutorials or discussion classes. The examination deals only with subjects covered in the lecture, neither the teacher nor the students wanting or expecting any divergence from the accepted text. As a result, students are driven to the mechanical absorption of the subject rather than to assimilating it critically and thoroughly. This description does not apply without exceptions but it is true of most of the teaching currently done in Turkish universities. Deeply rooted traditions are hard to change and, unless a concentrated effort is made to break the vicious circle, they are likely to go on repeating themselves for a long time to come. If the students of today are taught in the same way, those among them who become teachers are likely to continue to practise the same methods and transmit them to their students in turn. This suggests that the essential point in the system where a change, which can have repercussions throughout higher education, should be carried out is the stage where university graduates are trained to become members of future teaching staffs. Under the present system, the way towards becoming a docent (associate professor), the rank which confers the right to lecture in universities, consists of well-defined stages with examinations and/or thesis writing at each stage, with definite periods of time stipulated for passage from one stage to the next. It takes approximately 10 to 12 years to complete. One gets the impression that concentration on formalities and procedure has tended to divert attention from the content and methods of graduate studies in the universities. The most important stage is the immediate postgraduate stage leading eventually to the Ph.D. degree, which is a prerequisite of preparation for the docentship. At present, doctoral studies probably constitute the most neglected and most haphazard aspect of university teaching. There is no intermediary degree such as the M.A. before the Ph.D. There is little systematic instruction given to the Ph.D. candidate as he advances towards the final stage. The thesis is supervised by one professor and the amount of time professors spare to help their Ph.D. candidates varies greatly according to their goodwill and their other preoccupations. Relations between a professor and the candidate sometimes take the form of master-apprentice relations. More often the student is left simply to his own devices and the outcome is generally a weak piece of writing, of a repetitive and descriptive character which the professor has scarcely seen before it is submitted and which in the end somehow gets accepted as a Ph.D. thesis.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

227

The next stage which leads to the docent examination and thesis is often roughly a repetition of the Ph.D. stage. I would suggest that the lack of systematic training and other deficient arrangements at the Ph.D. level are the most important factors influencing the standards and capacities of prospective university teachers. The arrangements for the Ph.D. degree tend to perpetuate enfeebling, archaic practices derived from the past and thus contribute markedly to the continuation of formalised, repetitive and impersonal teaching in universities. In addition, when a great number of the staff are trained in this way, this is also bound to affect the quality and quantity of research carried out. This situation is partially explained, and it is certainly aggravated, by methods of university administration, standards of remuneration and the practice of outside employment. We have said previously that the oldestablished universities under Law No. 4,936 are independent and selfgoverning institutions, but that they are also virtually dependent on the central government for finance. Their spending procedures are subject to budgetary provisions, their accounts are controlled by the government accounting board and salaries are the same as for government officials, except for limited additional payments for assistants, docents and professors who are not doing other paid work outside the university.I~ The chief justification for the autonomy of the university government is the desirability of keeping the universities free from government interference and political pressures so that they can do what universities should do. However, the provisions guaranteeing the autonomy and the selfgovernment of universities and the maintenance of academic freedom, although they are related to excellence of academic performance, are not identical with it. Academic quality is not something to be achieved by legal arrangements; it is something far more subtle and deep, which requires the existence of certain basic attitudes among university members, a certain solidarity in the face of threats to intellectual freedom and a disposition to accept responsibilities as individuals and as institutions. But in Turkey today this identification is used to defend the universities from any and all criticism from outside and to maintain that university affairs are the sole prerogative of the university, which is not answerable to anyone as regards these matters. This approach, if pushed to its logical extreme, would make the university a state within a state, but it does not prevent it from being a poor state. This belief does not facilitate the relations of universities with other organs, especially the executive and legislative organs. It does not promote flexibility, self-criticism and internal change within the university. 1~ See Appendix II, p. 242, for academic salary scales.

228

OSMAN OKYAR

Another aspect of the present system of self-government through faculty general councils, boards of professors, executive committees and finally the university senate is the large amount of time it takes from the teaching staff's working time. Repeated meetings of different committees at various levels are often devoted to settling essentially minor administrative details. Decision-making through committees also gives rise to the development of factional intrigues. These all lead to the loss of valuable time which could otherwise be devoted to teaching and research. The insufficiency of salaries and the university law which makes it possible for members of the teaching staff to work outside universities for a total of 10 hours per week provided they renounce any special payments for university services leads very many professors to find outside jobs whereby they can supplement their insufficient income. This takes them away from the university and further reduces time available for teaching and research. Only two Turkish higher educational institutions have instituted a system whereby the teaching staff they employ are expected to devote all their working time to their own institution. They are the Middle East Technical University of Ankara, which is empowered to hire teaching staff on contract at salary levels determined by the board of trustees, and the new Hacettepe University, which supplements regular earnings of teaching staff through a trust fund which is at its disposal. H o w can the Turkish Universities be Reformed?

We are at present facing the difficult problems of coping with unprecedented numbers while trying to raise standards of teaching and research which the .existing traditions and practices of the Turkish universities and of other higher educational institutions do not seem able to solve. The present university system, composed on one side of old-established universities, which are extremely large and cumbersome, attached to their own status quo and showing little capacity even to paper over their internal differences with agreed common proposals for change, and, on the other side, of new universities which have not all yet found their balance and sense of direction, has to be closely and critically examined. In the following, I attempt to suggest certain ideas as to possible solutions. I divide the problems into two groups: the first group of problems has perhaps a greater quantitative emphasis and is concerned with the ways of meeting the future needs of the country for graduates of higher educational institutions, the second group has a qualitative emphasis and is directed at the formation of new teaching staffs with improved academic standards. The two groups of problems are of course

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

229

closely interrelated and any action taken to deal with one group will have some influence on the other. The Ministry of Education convened a meeting in May 1966, where representatives of all universities and of other higher educational institutions were invited, when the issues of new universities and the expansion of university capacity were discussed. Two points of view were expressed there on the best methods of university expansion. The first point of view, expressed by representatives of the State Planning Organisation, leant towards the view of increasing teaching capacity in higher education through an increase in enrolment in faculties within already existing universities, on the grounds that this would be a quicker and less costly undertaking than establishing entirely new universities. The other point of view was that taken by the universities, the spokesmen of the older ones saying that they could not be expanded and that in fact they badly needed to reduce the number of students to make them workable; it was argued also that the creation of new universities, especially in the outlying regions of the country, was necessary on cultural, social and economic grounds. They contended that considerations of cost were of secondary importance. On the whole, the meeting inclined towards the establishment of new universities and this was reported to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education then convened a smaller committee to prepare an operational report on issues such as the methods of establishing new universities, the places which should be chosen as sites, and to prepare a draft for a new law. In view of the strong political pressures exercised by several Anatolian provinces to have universities in their regional capitals and for other reasons as well, funds will probably be forthcoming for the establishment of at least two and possibly three universities by 1972. This method of expansion will not produce results before the middle seventies and the large deficits foreseen in the estimates of the State Planning Organisation are likely to remain unfulfilled for a long time. Whichever method of expansion of the output of higher educational graduates is chosen, it is clear that the major problem is the training and recruitment of new staff to be employed in teaching and research. The necessity to improve the form and content of teaching as well as the necessity for more and better research in all fields calls for new vigour and changed training methods at the postgraduate level of university studies. How should we go about solving this problem? Should it be solved by improving existing facilities for postgraduate studies in Turkey, by establishing new centres of postgraduate studies or by sending people

~30

OSMAN OKYAR

abroad for their postgraduate studies? One thing is clear; a rising standard in postgraduate studies in all fields and therefore a rising standard in the level of teaching and research staff requires the working knowledge of a foreign language, because of two things--first, scientific literature in sufficient number and quality is not available in Turkish, and, second, the knowledge of a foreign language is an essential element in intellectual discipline. This is just as true if training is provided in Turkey as it is for study abroad. Turkey should not remain perpetually dependent on facilities situated abroad for the formation of first-class teaching and research staff. But quite apart from the requirements of national dignity, the indigenisation of advanced training would stimulate research in a way in which foreign training could never do as long as it is the main form of training for Turkish university teachers. The solution may be reached through a series of stages which combine domestic and foreign training, The first stage would be to send to foreign institutions most university graduates who are to be trained as future teaching staff, while at the same time changing radically the system of postgraduate studies in Turkish universities. Meanwhile each university could try to improve its own particular programme of graduate studies, but it would be better if they pooled their limited resources to create a joint graduate school which would require full-time participation and which would be strengthened by foreign scholars. In the second stage, after the establishment in Turkey of improved graduate schools, it would be possible to start training more of the teaching staff entirely at home. At the third stage, when the facilities of the graduate schools or central institutes are adequately expanded, the majority of teaching staff could be trained in Turkey. The first five year plan provided for sending abroad for postgraduate studies 1,000 Turkish university graduates, the aim being to start filling Turkish requirements for high level university graduates in various fields, including higher education. Realisation, however, fell very short of the target, since only some 300 students could be found able to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Education. But quite apart from this, the ministry has not shown itself capable of selecting the foreign institutions most appropriate for the students' requirements, nor has it been successful in gaining admissions into the foreign institutions for those students who did qualify. Finally, it has not been able to control and supervise effectively the students it sends abroad. As a result, the students sent abroad are left very much to their own devices and failure and other wastage is greater than it need be. The guidance of students in foreign universities can probably be done

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

231

most efficiently when they are attached to a definite university or institution in which they will work when they return home. The effectiveness of the participant training programme carried out jointly by Atattirk University and Nebraska University is a useful example. Of the 60 participants sent to the United States since 1958, most of them studied at Nebraska, with a few in other institutions. Something like one half have taken master's degrees, three have obtained doctorates and there are presently about 15 more in the United States, three of whom are working towards a Ph.D. We regard this as a very satisfactory result. It has been made possible by the close cooperation between the sending and receiving institutions and by the close guidance, help and supervision provided by Nebraska University. This experience provides a model from which lessons should be drawn, especially by newly established universities or other higher educational institutions. Another question which has engaged university reformers in Turkey is the constitutional position of the university. The dominant point of view mostly among the representatives of old-established universities in Turkey is that all universities, new as well as existing institutions, should come under the same fundamental law. The main argument used in support of this thesis is a legal-constitutional one. According to Article 120 of the constitution, promulgated in 1961, universities in Turkey are created by law; they are autonomous and self-governing institutions which are administered by organs whose members are elected from among the teaching body itself by the members of the teaching staff. The same article of the constitution, however, allows certain exceptions; these concern universities established by special laws with special purposes. The proponents of uniformity maintain that these exceptions apply only to the two institutions which have been established in the past through special laws, namely, the Middle East Technical University and the Atattirk University. They assert that all other universities and in particular universities which are to be newly established should come under Law No. 4,936, the same fundamental law which at present applies to oldestablished universities. It is implied that only institutions constituted by the provisions of Law No. 4,936 can possess autonomy and academic freedom. In the proposed alteration of the present temporary statute governing Atattirk University, which would permit a more flexible system of university government with a board of trustees, the intended modification is opposed by upholders of the orthodox approach with the argument that the constitution does not provide for such a change. The proponents of the conventional view argue also that having a single and uniform system of university government in Turkey would facilitate the exchange

232

OSM~'q OKYAR

of teaching staff among universities and would establish similar academic standards for similar academic ranks throughout the country. The opposing approach contends that flexibility and the existence of differences among institutions are in themselves good, making for healthy competition and progress and because important differences in the tasks and functions of universities in Turkey, old or new, necessitate differences in organisation and statute. The establishment of Hacettepe University has provided the latest instance of the clash between those upholding uniformity and those striving towards diversity of pattern. The general spirit of the Hacettepe law seems to be in harmony with the article of the constitution which requires Turkish universities to be autonomous and self-governing institutions, but it has certain features which are markedly different from Law No. 4,936. Stronger leadership and centralisation are emphasised through such provisions as the raising of the period of office of the rectorship to a maximum of eight years, the granting of final authority and responsibility for all expenditures to the rector and the election of the rector by the university senate instead of by the general assembly of teaching staff members, thus facilitating closer cooperation and leadership at the top. Moreover, greater flexibility in academic matters can be achieved at Hacettepe as the law allows the university senate to regulate such questions through its own by-laws. Such changes have provoked opposition in some circles in the older universities. The University of Istanbul has appealed to the Constitutional Court for the repeal of the Hacettepe Act on the ground that it is unconstitutional. Judgement is still pending. The various types of universities in Turkey should have somewhat different functions. Although I agree that the fundamental functions of universities are everywhere teaching and research, I think it can very well be argued that the universities in outlying regions of the country, remote from the major centres, should interest themselves actively in the problems of the region and should take a large part in the economic development of the region in which they are situated. The old-established universities, with the exception of the Middle East Technical University, which is a new institution, are all in the big centres of the country--Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir--and are therefore quite removed from Central, Eastern and Southern Anatolia, the regions most in need of technological innovation and economic development. In the light of this situation, I argue that there should be a difference of emphasis in the approach and in the content of university activities, such as types of faculties, fields of study, etc.; the old-established universities in large centres could remain theoretical and academic in their teaching and research, while the new ones

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

233

would concentrate rather on fields of applied technology (e.g., agriculture, engineering, medicine) with parallel activities in applied research and in agricultural extension. The necessity for universities to assume such functions is an overriding reason for allowing flexibility in types of institutions. Institutions interested in applied research which involves the establishment of experimental research stations throughout the region and in the communication and cooperative activities required by extension need an effective administration which can reward its staff according to merit and to intensity of work. This is not possible under Law No. 4,936, in accordance with which the exercise of administrative powers through numerous self-elected committees is dispersed and therefore weak, staff members have the status of government employees and come under civil service salary scales and there is a more or less automatic system of promotion and advancement. The regional institutions with their greater emphasis on applied research and services need a separation of academic activities, including research and extension, from administrative duties. The research and extension staff need to be free to devote their time to their research and to service of the community. There is a second and probably equally important reason for a university system which provides for different types of institutions. This is the necessity of establishing a progressive climate, favourable to desirable changes, in higher education. How do we bring about internal change and reform in universities? From inside, through self-induced and selfapplied changes, agreed upon by a consensus of the teaching staff in oldestablished institutions? Or from outside, by allowing the emergence of institutions with different structures applying new methods, experimenting with new ways in teaching and research and thus presenting an example to older institutions from which certain lessons can be drawn and stimulation be derived? Speaking personally, I must confess that I do not have much faith in the capacity of large and cumbersome institutions, where for various reasons a large number of people are attached to the status quo, to achieve the consensus necessary for significant changes to take place. This is why I believe in the advantages of flexibility and in allowing newer types of institutions to come forward. In Turkey, we have already seen the benefits which can arise from a healthy competition of this kind, in the case of the institution which has now become the Hacettepe University. The hoped-for effects of such modern institutions as the Middle East Technical University and the Hacettepe University upon the Turkish system of higher education and upon particular universities are yet to be realised. But already one notices significant changes in attitudes such as

234

OSMaN OKYAR

the readiness of the faculty of medicine of Ankara University to open a branch in Diyarbakir, in the south-east of Turkey. The improvement of the Turkish universities depends on the improvement of personnel, on institutional rearrangements and on the legal and constitutional provisions which might foster these improvements and rearrangements even though they cannot create them without the active cooperation of the Turkish universities. On the constitutional and legal side there is ground for optimism. The minutes of the constitutional convention show that when it agreed on Article 120, which dealt with universities, and when it accepted the existence of special situations in which new types of institutions could be created for special purposes, its members had in mind not only institutions already in existence but also higher educational institutions which might be established in the future. There is no legal case therefore to hinder the creation of new universities under a statute which differs f r o m Law No. 4,936 or to restrain the revision of the statute of Atatiirk University in the direction of a more flexible system of university government. For the rest, it depends upon parliament, public opinion and the present body of Turkish university teachers.

APPENDIX I TURKISH UNIVERSITY LAWS

O) Universities Law No. 4,936, published in the Official Gazette, 18 June, 1946, as amended by Law No. 115, published in the Official Gazette, 28 October, 1960 (summary).

Chapter I contains the general principles of the law. Universities possess the legal status of autonomous corporate bodies. Faculties within the universities are also autonomous. Autonomy is understood to mean academic freedom and administrative autonomy. This chapter also sets out the main functions of the universities, which are: (a) to equip their students with knowledge and experience in different fields, to develop character and to educate them to responsible citizenship; (b) to advance science and technology, first priority being given to those problems which affect the future of the country; (c) to treat all problems relevant to the development of the country, in cooperation with the government and other institutions, and to present their findings to the public; (d) to publish the results of their research and surveys and (e) to diffuse among the people, both in writing and in speech, scientific knowledge conducive to the advancement of Turkish society.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

235

Chapter II concerns the organisation and administration of the universities; it covers four subjects: the faculties, the universities, the interuniversity council and relations with the government. (a) Within the faculties there are four organs: the general council, the professorial council, the executive council and the dean. The general council is composed of all members of the teaching staff (professors, docents and charges de eours) and is responsible for academic activities, including the preparation of faculty by-laws and academic programmes. The professorial council is composed of all professors in the faculty and haft of the docents. It is responsible for the financial affairs of the faculty, elections, nominations and the establishment of institutes and departments. The faculty executive council meets under the chairmanship of the dean; its other members are the previous dean, three professors elected by the professorial council and two docents elected by the same body. It is responsible for the implementation of the by-laws and the decisions of the general and professorial councils. It also deals with all student questions. Student representatives are permitted to bring their special problems to the executive council at the beginning of each term. The dean is elected for two years by the professorial council from among the professors in the faculty and he can be reelected for one further term. He represents the faculty, presides over the various councils and implements their decisions. (b) The university is governed by three authorities: the senate, the university executive council and the rector. The senate is composed of the rector, the pro-rector, the deans of the faculties, two professors from each faculty elected by their respective professorial councils and a representative of each school attached to the facuRies and to the university. The senate is responsible for the preparation of draft legislation concerning the university for submission to the Ministry of Education and for the final decision on drafts of by-laws presented by the faculties and on their proposals concerning budgets, nominations, professorships, the establishment of new departments or institutes. The rector is elected for two years by an assembly composed of members of the professorial council of the faculties; the post rotates among the faculties in a fixed sequence. (c) Relations with the government are established through the presentation of decisions reached by the senates of the respective universities and the interuniversity council 1~ to the Minister of Education. The minister has no power to approve or reject such decisions but he can return to the inter-university council such decisions as he finds inappropriate. In such an eventuality, the council, one month later, reexamines the decision which it then presents in binding form to the minister. Chapter I I I of the law deals with questions of the status of professors and docents, and of non-university employment. 1~ This body comprises the rectors, deans and one member of the senate of each university.

236

OSMAN OKYAR

The status of docent is awarded after the completion of an examination required by law. The candidate for the status of docent must have a university degree as well as a Ph.D. degree from a Turkish or foreign university recognised by the Ministry of Education. In addition, he should have worked for at least four years in a field connected with his subject after having acquired his Ph.D. degree. The jury examining the candidate is chosen by the interuniversity council. Before being admitted to the docent examination, the candidate has to pass a foreign language examination. The docent's function is to teach the courses assigned to him by the professor in charge of his department and to do research and practical work in his field. The professors are selected from among the docents in the university. Election to a professorship presupposes: (a) at least five years' service as a university docent or seven years in a field related to his subject after having gained the title of docent and (b) scientific or scholarly publications. All teaching staff members must fulfil all the duties assigned to them within the faculty but those who wish to do so may work outside the university for up to 10 hours a week. If they do this, however, they must forfeit their special university allowances which amount to 1,000 Turkish liras per month for professors and 600 Turkish liras per month for docents. 1~ Chapter IV concerns the auxiliary teaching staff, i.e. chargds de cours, lecturers, specialists, interpreters and assistants. Assistants are employed as prospective members of the teaching staff and are chosen under a special by-law according to the needs of the departments. After one year's probation, their appointments are confirmed and they are then required to complete their postgraduate studies and take a Ph.D. degree within four years of their appointment. This period of grace can be extended by no more than one year by the professorial council. Should the assistant fail to complete his postgraduate studies within this period, his appointment is terminated. On completing his postgraduate studies, the assistant is required to start work on a thesis which is part of the docent examination. At this stage, he receives an allowance of 300 Turkish liras per month, in addition to his regular pay, for a maximum period of four years, Assistants who are working for their Ph.D. degree receive an additional monthly allowance of 200 Turkish liras. The assistant's academic activities are directed by the professor or docent to whom he is assigned. Usually he assists the professor in his teaching activities and does research; he is encouraged to publish the results. The subject of Chapter V is the administration of the universities, its officials and other salaried staff. Chapter VI is concerned with disciplinary matters affecting members of the teaching staff and their auxiliaries. There are four categories of disciplinary action which may be applied against those members of the university staff who do not properly fulfil their functions or who commit acts which are lr Nine Turkish liras are the equivalent of one US dollar.

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

237

dishonourable or contrary to professional traditions: ( a ) t h e attention of the member of staff concerned is drawn to his duties; (b) notice is given of the dereliction of duty; (c) the person concerned is suspended from his duties and, finally, (d) the member of staff concerned is expelled from the university and his academic titles are withdrawn. The first two disciplinary actions can be taken by the rector or by the dean. The other two actions have to be approved by the senate. Chapter VII deals with financial matters. Universities are administered through a supplementary budget; budgets are drawn up by the rector and the deans, who are the final authorities in respect to university expenditure. The main source of revenue is from the central budget, supplemented by gifts or grants from individuals and irtstitutions, student fees, revenue from w o r k carried out on behalf of outside institutions, etc.

Law No. 6,185 dated 28 July, 1953 (subsequently amended by Law No. 115). Article No. 46, paragraph (d), of the Universities Law No. 4,936, is changed as follows: Members of the teaching staff who commit a dishonourable action, take an active part in politics or make statements outside the scope permitted under article No. 3, paragraph (e), of the Universities Law are to be suspended from their teaching activities. The university senate decides whether such persons should be permitted to retain their academic titles.

0i) Law No. 6,990 dated 7 June, 1957 (establishing the Atatiirk University in Erzurum (summary). The AtatiJrk University is to b e administered by the Ministry of Education and it will also be subject to those articles of the Universities Law No. 4,936 which are not contrary to the provisions of this present law. An advisory council of six members is to be set up in the university. The members are to be appointed by the Minister of Education from among those who represent the cultural, economic and professional life of the region where the university is situated. It meets at least four times a year under the chairmanshi p of the rector. The council's function is the formulation of the long-term educational, research and extension policies of the university. In addition, the council should present its views on the university's activities and their relationship to the university's principal goals to the rector and the Minister of Education. The rector is chosen by the government from among the candidates presented by the Minister of Education to serve for a period of five years. He must have the status of a university professor. The deans are appointed from among those with the status of a university professor, on the recommendation of the rector with the approval of the Minister of Education. Deans serve for a period of four years. Departments, which shall be autonomous with respect to their research

2'38

OSMAN OKYAR

and teaching activities, are to be created. The heads of the departments are to be appointed from among professors and docents on the recommendation of the dean with the approval of the rector. The teaching staff shall be appointed by the Minister of Education on the joint recommendation of the department head, the dean and the rector. When the university councils have been established, these appointments shall be confirmed for a period of 10 years, on the recommendation of the professorial council and with the approval of the rector and of the Minister of Education.

(iii) Law No. 7,307 dated 27 May, 1959, establishing the Middle East Technical University (abridged texO. The aims of the Middle East Technical University shall be the following: (a) to provide wide possibilities that will ensure for Turkish students a certain quality advanced education, generally conducted in the English language, in the scientific, technical and professional fields; (b) to ensure, after their application and their acceptance as students, equal possibilities for students from other countries who have similar qualifications; (c) to conduct applied research that will provide benefits for the Turkish nation as well as for other nations, said research placing special emphasis on development of the resources of Turkey and of the Middle East and on their economic problems; and (d) to conduct and to discriminate basic research aimed at the search for truth and at enriching the knowledge of mankind. The Middle East Technical University shall be administered by a Board of Trustees, comprised of nine persons selected in the following manner: (a) The members of the Board of Trustees of the Middle East Technical University shall be appointed for a period of six years, the said appointment being made by a decision of the Council of Ministers and with the approval of the President of the Republic is; (b) none of the trustees may accept employment from the Middle East Technical University as a member of the teaching staff, as an administrator, or as an employee; (c) it shall be permissible for only three members of the Board of Trustees to be persons holding elective public office or government posts in the Turkish State; (d) it shall be mandatory for members of the Board of Trustees to resign from board membership at least six months prior to elections in order to become candidates for any elective public office in the Turkish State; (e) the members of the Board of Trustees shall choose from among themselves and for a period of two years a chairman for presiding ever their meetings. It shall not be permissible to choose the same person as chairman for two consecutive terms; is This section of Law No. 7,307 was amended to read: The Middle East Technical University shall be administered by a Board of Trustees comprised of nine persons appointed for a period of three years, the said appointment being made on recommendation of the Minister of Education, upon a decree of the Council of Ministers and with the approval of the Head of the State. (01~clal Gazette, 11 August, 1960.)

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY

239

(f) except for the expenses they incur because of their services as trustees, the members of the board shall receive no compensation whatsoever. The President shall be the chief executive of the Middle East Technical University. He shall be elected from among Turkish nationals at a meeting of the Board of Trustees by a two-thirds majority of all members of the board. The President shall devote all his activities and efforts to the Middle East Technical University and shall have the authority to supervise the members of the teaching staff and other personnel of the university. The President may not apply during his period of office for any duty whatsoever connected with public service and it shall be mandatory for him to resign from the presidency at least six months prior to the elections in order to be put up as a candidate for an elective public office. The presidency shall not have a fixed term but the President shall retire from his duties at age 65. The Board of Trustees shall select from among non-Turks, as Consulting President, a person famous and prominent for his extraordinary experience in science and in technical education. The Consulting President shall be the chief consultant of the President concerning scientific, technical and professional research and education. He shall carry out and be responsible for duties connected with research and education entrusted to him by the President or by the Board of Trustees. In the academic hierarchy, the Consulting President shall rank immediately after the President. The legal entity of the Middle East Technical University shall be represented by the Board of Trustees. (a) Acting on behalf of the Middle East Technical University and for the purposes of ensuring benefit therefrom and use thereof to the university, the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to acquire from anywhere in the world property and real estate such as money, books, materials and equipment, furniture, land and buildings from real and judicial personalities, institutions, United Nations organisafions or from any international organisation anywhere in the world, as well as to acquire all sorts of rights by donation, conveyance, grant or bequest, and to exercise all rights of disposition over the said property and real estate such as renting, operating, bartering, selling, assigning or to keep them intact for use in the forms most beneficial to the university. . . . However, should the Council of Minislers not approve of the donations or bequests made to the university or disapprove of the conditions thereof, such donations or bequests shall not be accepted. (b) In appointing members of the teaching staff, the standards that are generally equal to the standards of universities in Turkey and in other principal countries shall be taken into consideration. (c) The Board of Trustees, with due consideration of the scientific, technical and international character of the university, and without being subject to the provisions of the statutes ruling thereon, shall appoint administrators, members of the teaching staff and employees from among nationals of Turkey and of other states, and shall determine the salaries, periods and conditions of employment, and contract basis for such appointments . . . .

240

OSMAN OKYAR

The Board of Trustees shall have authority to form the faculties or faculty divisions it deems suitable. (i) The faculties shall meet at regular intervals as well as upon invitation by the President, the dean or divisional chairman; (ii) the minimum conditions to be met for qualification to vote in the faculties shall be determined by the faculties themselves; (iii) the university council shall be formed by the assembly of the faculties. This council shall be composed of all the professors plus a representative chosen each year by all the assistant professors and graduate assistants from among their own members. The total of the assistant professor and graduate assistant representatives shall not be more than half nor less than one third of the total of professors; (iv) the university council shall furnish to the President and to the Board of Trustees advice regarding educational matters concerning the university . . . . The Board of Trustees of the Middle East Technical University may invite an outstanding scientist or educator from each of the countries, with the exception of Turkey, that have sent a substantial number of students to the university, as well as a scientist or an educator belonging to each international organisation that has assisted the resources of the university, to visit the university jointly for a week during the scholastic year as members of the " I n t e r n a t i o n a l Consultant Board " . . . . This board shall make recommendations to the Board of Trustees concerning the educational programme and the research projects of the university . . . . The Board of Trustees shall submit to the Ministry of Education the budget to be drawn up by it, together with a written report, not later than 1 August. This report shall contain the annual educational, research and development activities of the university, as well as the requirement of the university and financial matters. Furthermore, an explanatory table indicating the financial situation shall be also affixed to this report. The Ministry of Education shall examine the budget and the report within the principles accepted for the preparation of the general budget and shall propose in its own budget the amount determined by the university . . . . . The revenue sources of the Middle East Technical University shall be the following: (1) the allocation to be included annually in the budget of the Ministry of Education; (2) all kinds of assistance, donations and bequests to be made to the university; (3) assessments and fees to be collected from students; (4) moneys to be collected for research, consultation and surveys as well as for all other kinds of services to be entrusted to the university; (5) income from university publications, all revenues to be procured from the sale of agricultural and other production materials produced as the results of the regular activities of the university, as well as from lectures and from all other activities; and (6) revenues from the property and real estate as well as from the rights belonging to the university. The Middle East Technical University shall not be subject to the provisions of the general accounting statute and the auction, bid and adjudication statute, nor the visa or the inspection of the accounting council. The manner

UNIVERSITIES 1N TURKEY

241

in which matters pertaining to auction, bid and adjudication as well as to accounting and expenditure are to be handled, as well as the forms and kinds of the documentations thereof, according to regulations to be prepared by the Board of Trustees. The accounts of the Middle East Technical University shall be audited by an auditing board consisting of three auditors, who shall be appointed for one year at the beginning each budget year, one by the Ministry of Finance, the other two by the Ministry of Education. The auditors shall be chosen from among persons who have higher education, who are experienced in government accounting as well as in the accounting of commercial and industrial institutions, who know English and who are truly capable of carrying out the duties imposed on them by this statute . . . . The auditors shall be under the duty of examining and inspecting all the various executions and decisions concerned with the revenues and expenditures of the university. They shall submit a quarterly report to the Ministries of Finance and Education regarding the university activities. A copy of each of these reports shall be affixed to the annual report to be submitted to the general assembly. . . . The general assembly of the Middle East Technical University shall be constituted by three delegates appointed by the Prime Ministry plus the members of the Budget, Foreign Affairs, Accounting Council and Public Works Commissions of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The General Assembly shall examine the final audit accounts of the Middle East Technical University budget, the annual reports of the auditing board, and the comments thereon made by the Ministry of Education, all of which documents shall have been sent by the Prime Ministry and referred to the General Assembly shall decide whether to approve or to reject the final audit accounts of the university . . . . All donations and bequests to be made to the Middle East Technical University shall be exempt from taxes, assessments and fees. Money grants, made against receipt to the said university, by tax payers subject to income and corporate taxes, shall be deducted from income and corporate earnings declared in the annual income tax return . . . . The properties of the Middle East Technical University shall be considered state property. Those who steal, misappropriate, embezzle or misuse the said properties in any form or shape shall be subject to the criminal procedure applicable to those that perpetrate such crimes against state property. . . .

fxv) Law No. 892 dated 4 July, 1967, establishing the Hacettepe University (summary). This law establishes the Hacettepe University as an autonomous institution with its centre in Ankara and with three faculties--sciences and social sciences, medicine and health sciences. The senate is empowered to establish new faculties or schools and to amalgamate or abolish existing ones.

242

OSMAN OKYAR

Academic and administrative matters are regulated by by-laws drawn up by the senate. The senate is composed of the pro-rector, the deans of the faculties, two representatives of each faculty (elected for three years) and the directors of the schools attached to the university, under the chairmanship of the rector, who is elected by the senate from among its members to serve for five years. After serving one term of five years, he can be reelected three times for successive periods of one year. The rector appoints one or two of the members of the senate as assistant rectors. The rector represents the university and is the final authority in administrative and financial matters. The deans are elected by the professorial council of each faculty to serve for four years and may be reelected for three successive one-year terms. Teaching staff members and assistants attached to the university may not work part-time in outside institutions, with the exception of those institutions with which the university senate has decided to cooperate. Furthermore, they may not exercise an independent profession. In all matters not specifically covered by the provisions of this law, the Universities Law No. 4,936 as amended by Law No. 115 shall apply.

APPENDIX I I ACADEMIC SALARY SCALES The basic salaries and special allowances of members of the teaching staffs of the universities, their auxiliaries and assistants are determined according to the salary scales regulating the remuneration of government civil servants, with the exception of the Middle East Technical University, where salaries are fixed by contract. The Hacettepe University has a trust fund from which it supplements the basic salaries and special allowances of members of its teaching staff with additional monthly payments, according to a prearranged scale. Basic salaries are fixed by seniority; promotion, although it must be approved by the university authorities, is more or less automatic. Thus an assistant who has a university degree begins at grade 12 and is promoted to grade 1! within six months of his appointment. He is also promoted one grade on passing the state foreign language examination, and on completing his Ph.D. degree. Otherwise, promotion is by seniority, the time interval between each grade being three years. Special allowances are paid to those members of the teaching staff who have not applied for permission to take up employment outside the university. As a rule, university assistants are not allowed to work outside the university, this opportunity being open only to professors and docent~ Table I shows the basic salaries of teaching staff members and assistants. In Table II the special allowances paid to teaching staff members and assistants are shown.

243

UNIVERSITIES IN TURKEY TABLE I

Basic monthly salaries oJ teaching staff members and assistants Grade

Gross salary (in Turkish liras)

Gross salary (in US dollars*)

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

600 675 750 900 1,050

66.6 75'0 83 '3 100"0 116"6 133.3 158.3 183"3 209.4 250.0 291"6 333.3

1,200 1,425 1,650 1,885 2,250 2,625 3,000

* Converted at the official rate of one US dollar to nine Turkish liras.

TABLE II

Monthly special allowances Rank Assistant Dr. assistant

Chargd de cours Docent Professor

Gross payment (in Turkish liras)

Gross payment (in US dollars)

200 500 400 600

22'2 55"5 44"4

1,000

111"1

66"6