The Turkish Higher Education System from the Kaleidoscope of Martin Trow

Abstract

KeywordsThe present study examines the Turkish higher education system using Martin Trow's ten-aspect transition model from elite to mass to universal access in higher education. Using a semi-structured interview form, 13 eminent people in the higher education sector, including executive board members of the Council of Higher Education, government officials, university administrators and faculty members, and representatives from major educationrelated non-governmental organizations, were interviewed. Qualitative data was analyzed through descriptive analysis. Findings revealed that the Turkish higher education system has been under the influence of politics and vulnerable to threats from the continuously changing political landscape due to its centralized, non-autonomous structure. Problems arising from the rapid increase in the number of higher education institutions and the expansion of the system are more visible today in every segment of the system, from attitudes toward access and the role of the universities attributed by public, issues with diversity and equity in access, and central student selection and placement mechanisms. Additionally, problems related to state control and the centralized structure of the system, failures in institutional governance, and the lack of institutional autonomy as well as problems related to curriculum, forms of instruction, and the lack of mechanisms for quality control and accountability in the institutions were also discussed. Recommendations for further research and policy were provided.

An Analysis of the Expansion of Higher Education in Turkey Using the New Institutional Theory

“…Mızıkacı (2006, p. 21) stated, "Rapid and unplanned expansion made some universities' educational and academic qualities vulnerable." A vast volume of literature exists in Turkey on the issue of quality versus quantity (Altınsoy, 2011;Arap, 2010;Çetinsaya, 2014;Doğan, 2013;Ergüder, Şahin, Terzioğlu, & Vardaroglu, 2009;Gök, 2016;Gül & Gül, 2014;Günay & Günay, 2011;Gürlesel, 2004;Karadağ & Yücel, 2016, 2017Kavak, 2010;Mızıkacı, 2006Mızıkacı, , 2010Özoğlu, Gür, & Gümüş, 2016;Tosun, 2015).…”

“…However, establishing in a short time so many universities in less-developed cities without the required infrastructure has been argued to lower their quality, causing them to face significant academic, financial, and administrative problems (Arap, 2010). However, Karayalçın (1988) suggested a higher education planning policy, specializing universities with key campuses as centers of excellence in well-developed cities, whereas Gök (2016) claimed that universities should be established in cities with populations of around 1 to 1.5 million. According to Altınsoy (2011), new universities should have higher educational externalities.…”

Quantitative changes in higher education between 1999-2015 in turkey

“…Both male and female student enrollment rate has increased since 2000. This increase in the number of students in higher education indicates that Turkey shift from elit higher education in 1970s and 1980s to universal access stage in 2010s (Gök, 2016). Academic institutions worldwide have faced pressures of increasing numbers of students (Altbach & Peterson McGill, 1999).…”

“…Due to government's policy for establishing new universities around the country, there has been a rapid development especially at numbers of foundation universities since 2000. Government has made great efforts to stimulate massification of higher education in the last decade, through increasing quotas in the existing public universities and establishing new not only foundation universities but public universities also (Çetinsaya, 2014;Gök, 2016;Özoğlu, Gür & Gümüş, 2015).…”

State Level Higher Education Boards in the USA and Reform Suggestions for Turkey: Governance, Quality Assurance, and Finance

“…Son on yıl boyunca Türkiye'de yükseköğretimin hızla yaygınlaşması, bir yükseköğretim reformu yapılmasını özellikle de YÖK'ün yeniden yapılandırılmasını gerekli kılmaktadır (Gök, 2016;Özoğlu, Gür ve Gümüş, 2016). Ancak Türkiye için alternatif yükseköğretim üst yönetim modellerinin ortaya konulmasına yönelik akademik araştırma ve tartışmalar oldukça sınırlı düzeydedir.…”