The extraordinary expansion of higher education has not been accompanied by more equitable access to universities for various disadvantaged groups. Rural youth is at the heart of this study that draws on secondary data and literature to examine rural-urban disparities in higher education access in two high-participation systems in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This multiple case study uses a historical-comparative lens to offer a synthesis of the evidence on the subnational and cross-national differences in the three domains of higher education access -academic preparedness, HE aspirations, and HEI/programme choicemaking -to point to the existence of prominent rural-urban disparities in Georgia and Kazakhstan. The study contributes to an improved understanding of the structural-territorial foundations of inequalities in higher education access and charts future directions for policy. The framework used in this study can be applied to examining disparities in access to higher education in other national contexts. KeywordsHigher education, access and participation, Georgia, Kazakhstan, rural disadvantage, examinations 2006). The methods section of this paper explains in detail the reasons for selecting these two countries.Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the living conditions as well as the educational opportunities for the rural population deteriorated (UNICEF, 2001). In the last two decades, Georgia and Kazakhstan have been in the process of transition into what these countries refer to as competitive, knowledge-based, market economies (Chankseliani & Silova, 2018). Both countries have implemented a number of public policy reforms including the abolition of what was described by local reformers and global partners as the Soviet-style, corrupt system of university-based admissions and the establishment of centralised examinations for student selection in 2003 in Kazakhstan and 2005 in Georgia (Bethell & Zabulionis, 2012; World Bank, 2012). The centralised examinations determine who enters university, how entrants are distributed to higher education institutions (HEIs), and how the state grant for tuition is allocated. The governments fully control, administer and fund these examinations. Kazakhstan's National Testing Centre (NTC) and Georgia's National Assessment and Examinations Center (NAEC) report to their respective line ministries in charge of education and allow almost no involvement from HEIs in the process of student selection.Up until 2020, the Georgian Unified National Examinations (UNEs) included three compulsory tests for all HE applicants: foreign language, Georgian language, and General

In response to the scant academic research about higher education internationalization in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, this paper investigates the characteristics and influences of internationalization in the Republic of Georgia. Based on interviews with Georgian government representatives and university faculty and administrators, this research identified the perceived benefits of internationalization and the effectiveness of its implementation. The research findings indicate that three main engines are driving internationalization in Georgia: western influences through modeling and international programs; national higher education accreditation processes; and the academic programs, courses, and partnerships developed by internationally-mobile Georgian faculty and students. In addition, two recent opportunities for additional growth in internationalization are described -international students in Georgia and joint and dual degrees -along with recommendations on how to further enhance internationalization efforts.

No abstract

In the context of increasing numbers of students enrolling in higher education in the last decade, understanding student expectations of their universities becomes more important. Universities need to know what students expect if they want to keep them satisfied and continue attracting them. On the other hand, it is also important to know whether student expectations are in line with the purpose of the universities and the causes they serve. This research explores students' expectations and perceptions of the university in post-Soviet Georgia, as well as whether these expectations are in line with the perspectives of university administrators. For the purposes of this research, over 800 bachelor level students of different academic programs were surveyed at five big public universities across Georgia. Additionally, 10 in-depth interviews were conducted with university administrators to learn about the purpose that public universities try to serve and to understand their perspectives on what should be expected of university. After the analysis of the results, two focus groups were conducted with the students in Western and Eastern Georgia to make sense of the findings obtained through the student survey. Finally, 4 in-depth interviews were conducted with experts to understand their perspectives on the actual findings of this research. The results suggest that employment is the main expectation from a university education. Moreover, there is a mismatch between what students identify as their primary expectation and what administrators believe students should expect. Significance and implications of these results for universities are discussed.

<p class="apa">The current study investigates educational decision-making in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The focus is on decisions concerning issues of school governance decentralization/recentralization in the period of 2003-2012. The research draws on in-depth interviews with over 20 top decision-makers, and an extensive review of legal documents, relevant research and media reports to gain a better understanding of decision-making practices in a newly democratized state. Two theoretical foundations are employed: the Multiple Streams model of decision-making and Electoral Connection. The research largely supports the Multiple Streams theory and expands the theory of Electoral Connection to fit the political setting of a post-soviet state. Among other findings, the research shows that decisions concerning school governance recentralization were primarily election-driven.</p>