Higher education has always been one of the most problematic areas in Turkey, and particularly so since the establishment of YÖK. (Higher Education Board)

Actually even before the establishment of YÖK, ever since the University Reform of 1933, the university regime was designed to be the most vital establishment of tutelage.

The establishment of YÖK was nothing more than an updating of the existing process to ensure that tutelage was imposed more effectively, efficiently and actively. Even the university reform carried out in 1933 was in no way a search for knowledge that would be more scientific, freer, and more relevant to the times.

On the contrary, the intention was to be extremely ideological and raise generations who would become revolutionary ideologues and militants. The Darülfünun (academy of science in Ottoman times, which was the precursor to universities) was not even close to being an institution that would realize those aims, and when compared to many universities established much later, it was more independent and more scientific.

There was no attempt made during the period of single-party rule to increase the number of universities and make higher education more accessible despite this mission being imposed on universities.

More universities would mean lesser control and a public on an upward curve that would not be stoppable, and such a situation was not desirable. This is why in 1946, even before 15 years had passed since the foundation of Ankara University’s Language, History and Geography Faculty; heavy-weight academics such as Behice Boran, Niyazi Berkes and Muzaffer Şerif were purged.

After that, the military that ran affairs through tutelage, would think of universities as another army corps and mobilize them whenever a coup attempt was made. University professors were generally organized under military tutelage and given a voice; and student-related incidents were seen as the building blocks for a road leading to a coup.

Following the coups of Sept. 12, 1980 and Feb. 28, 1997 as well, universities carried out the role assigned to them; a role which is unique to Turkey. Universities in Turkey have never sought a role and performance that is generally the mission of all universities across the globe. On the contrary, they took on and implemented the stupid mission of raising generations compatible with the regime’s ideological goals.

That is why appearance was always considered more important than knowledge and the thoughts that would be produced in universities. A university was more concerned with the identity of the students that would study there rather than with itself. This was an attempt to control who could benefit from the class advantages that came with a university education.

It was to prevent a situation where whoever chose to could attend university, and to ensure that those who didn’t pledge everlasting loyalty to the regime didn’t graduate. That was why they banned headscarves and beards; and introduced coefficients. The implementation of the coefficient model alone was something that required mathematical genius to even think of it. The bigwig professors of YÖK met for months to discover that system!

The expected change in the YÖK law has still failed to materialize. From a legal standpoint, YÖK is the same YÖK. But during my recent visits to universities and after observing the issues these universities choose to tackle, it becomes increasingly clear that the problem is not in the legal basis but rather it is with the mindset.

I can personally attest that all universities have increased their efforts and attempts to improve their research, education, student quality and participation in recent times. Universities from Hakkari to Muş, and from Siirt to Edirne, are researching how higher education can be better positioned in the current market and how they can make a difference.

In the past few days I was a guest at a meeting between students and the dean of the Open and Distance Education Faculty (AUZEF) at Istanbul University. I can say that what I saw created great excitement and hope in me with regard to the ideals a university should have. All the topics being debated were focused on how knowledge can be passed on most effectively in this age of growing communications and globalization, and the most efficient way of ensuring student participation.

Since it is a system based on connecting via the Internet, student attendance is taken out of the equation. The students can do their work based on the related documents whenever they feel ready. For each subject the relevant professor prepares a study book, which contains detailed and clear video explanations, and allows for the students to enjoy a more interactive educational experience.

Technology-supported education/learning has not seriously impacted student dropout rates in its initial stage; however, when compared to formal education it can result in an opportunity where there are fewer dropouts, and for students to be more active in the education process due to the flexibility of the program.

Istanbul University’s AUZEF has also created mobile applications for smart phones and tablets to allow the spread of this opportunity. Students can access documents and videos relevant to their subject at any time. The AUZEF administration conducted a survey amongst the students to learn about their requests in regard to these applications. For example when students frequently complained that their limits on data use were being exceeded, AUZEF solved this problem with technological solutions.

The text documents developed for each subject will also soon have short videos added to them so that the professor of that particular subject can add more clarifications where it is deemed necessary.

Prof. Dr. Alper Cihan, the dean of Istanbul University’s AUZEF, defines the system they have created as, “a learning-orientated and not a diploma-orientated system.”

To be honest I became very excited when I saw that university professors are focused solely on knowledge and university matters and not involving themselves with an ideological agenda.

This means that a law is not the be all and end all. But it certainly wouldn’t hurt to deal with that law now that we have already concerned ourselves with that matter.