No abstract

The aim of the work is to analyze key problems and risks that have arisen in connection with the transfer of universities to distance educational activities during the introduction of strict restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic. Among the main objectives of the study – identification of problems in the field of educational inequality, quality of education, the complexity of the educational process and cost of educational services as well as research experience of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, as one of the leading Russian universities, to overcome these problems in the period of the pandemic.Materials and methods. The analysis used data from sociological studies about attitude of university students and lecturers to distance learning conducted by expert organizations during the pandemic, analytical and informational materials of universities and bibliographic sources. Secondary analysis and interpretation of the results of sociological surveys, systematization and classification of theoretical and factual materials were used, analysis of management practices and experience of universities in the conditions of extreme transition to remote mode, including in comparison with foreign universities.Results. The study identified the key problems faced by the university community during the transition to distance work, among which are the growth of educational inequality, the dependence of the quality of education not only on the capabilities of educational institutions, but also on the competencies and technical capabilities of students and lecturers; increased academic load on both students and lecturers; possible quality reduction due to the spread of online education; the rising cost of education.The response of state authorities to the new “challenges” of the pandemic was timely: the regulatory framework was brought into line with modern conditions, the format of holding operational meetings of working groups with representatives of the university community was introduced and free access to a variety of domestic online courses was opened.Actions of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics to overcome threats during the pandemic, such as the revision of norms of time for calculating academic load, providing temporary use of laptops, webcams, organization of unlimited access to the largest electronic platforms for online learning, carrying out activities for administrative and teaching staff on issues of distance work, developing temporary local acts, organization of “Hot line” allowed to go into distance mode. Conclusion. Higher education institutions have passed a serious test for the strength and effectiveness of their work. Some countries, such as Brazil and a number of developing countries, have not been able to fully overcome the effects of the pandemic and switch to distance operation. The activities of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the University Community of the Russian Federation have demonstrated high efficiency and cohesion.Distance education will not completely replace classical full-time education. The future development of the higher education system will be influenced by two multidirectional trends of support and rejection of the full distance learning format. However, the coronavirus pandemic has shown the possible effectiveness of converting part of the learning to digital format, which will make learning more flexible, personalized and effective in the future.

Bioeconomy is considered as a special type of activity and economic system, which is based on the science achievements, primarily related to biology, as well as chemistry, bioengineering, computer science, ecology, and even sociology. This activity is actively carried out in dozens of countries where national bioeconomy development programs have been formed. The existing programs provide, first of all, for the set of works implementation performed with the help of biotechnologies for the goods (bioproducts) based on natural bioresources production, including industrial, agricultural and household waste processing. As a result, global and regional bioproducts markets are being formed, providing consumers with new materials, as well as intangible benefits and services. The bioeconomy state analysis in several leading countries, as well as in the Russian Federation, indicates the expediency of using a regional approach to bioeconomy development, as well as advance training of relevant personnel. To achieve these goals, it is proposed to use several principles arising from the essence of the bioeconomy activity organization.

The article was written at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, when unprecedented restrictive measures were taken regarding the activities of a large proportion of economic actors to ensure a regime of self-isolation and social distance. The article attempts, on the basis of a synthesis of expert and analytical materials published during the pandemic in various information sources and the results of sociological studies assessing its real socio-economic consequences, to provide forecasts for the near and distant prospects, taking into account various parameters of an economic and social nature. The impact of the pandemic on macroeconomic indicators, the situation on the labor market, the dynamics of income of the population was considered. The social consequences of the pandemic are analysed separately, in particular in the field of health care, education, social support, social and labour relations, as well as the peculiarities of the relationship between power and society. The Russian economy is facing a recession corresponding to the long-term recession of the world economy. According to the authors, the scale and social consequences of this recession can be reduced for Russia. The formation of an anti-crisis fund to support economic sectors and citizens against the background of the coronavirus situation should lead at all levels of government to the adoption of constructive management decisions and the effective use of each ruble.

Аннотация. Выход из Болонского процесса актуализировал дискуссии о перспективах развития уровневой системы высшего образования в России. В статье систематизированы основные направления критики «болонизации» российского высшего образования и представлен авторский подход к переосмыслению уровневой системы, сформулированы предложения к её новому видению. Указывается, что в условиях динамизма профессиональной сферы и роста профессиональной мобильности, многоуровневая система высшего образования оказывается более перспективной, а её новые контуры целесообразно выстраивать в направлении обеспечения её многоформатности, структурной гибкости, открытости, внутренней и внешней интегрированности. С учётом этих принципов предлагается обновлённая интерпретация основных уровней высшего образования (бакалавриата, специалитета, магистратуры, аспирантуры), представляется новое видение многоформатной магистратуры, формулируются авторские предложения относительно гибкости сроков обучения на всех уровнях и возможных схем выстраивания индивидуальных образовательных траекторий в системе межуровневой мобильности. В качестве перспективного вектора развития обосновывается необходимость перехода от парадигмы уровневой системы высшего образования к парадигме интегрированной системы образования.