One of the most significant and unexpected developments in the Armenian higher education in the past 2 months was the outbreak of tension between diaspora students and the country’s educational and political authorities.
I have already discussed the beginning of the conflict (to read, pleas click here) and now will attempt to cover its development. This will however be done in separate posts as many different issues have surfaced. Here, in the first part, I will focus on the basic profile of the student body.
How many diaspora students are studying in Armenia? Where do they come from? What do they study? How long do they stay? What do they do after graduation? Unfortunately, no one seems to have exact answers to these questions.
In a recent interview with Panorama news agency, Ms. Amalia Kocharian from the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) Department of Diaspora Relations announced that there were approximately 3 thousand diaspora students in Armenia.
She added that this year 500 new diaspora students have been admitted to various institutions of higher education. These included 384 students from Georgia - more specifically, from the Armenian-inhabited region of Samtskhe-Javakheti. Diaspora students basically preferred studying at Mekhitar Heratsi Yerevan State Medical University, she added.
“We have not yet completed compiling the data on the countries of citizenship. This is being done. The geographical scope is pretty wide; they come from 25 countries. After graduation, 10 percent of diaspora students usually stay in Armenia.”
Data Juggling
Ms. Kocharian’s interview was dated 4 December, 3 months after the beginning of academic year. Even after 3 months, MES could not provide a clear and accurate account of the diaspora student population. But being slow and late were not the only problems.
The same Ms. Kocharian had reported back in August (11 August) that “about 270” diaspora students had applied to MES to study in Armenian public universities. She had specified that the majority of applicants were from Georgia, Russia, Iran, Syria and other [than Russia and Georgia] CIS countries. She had added that, for the first time, 2 students from Mexico had applied.
A month later, in a news release by Armenpress official news agency dated 22 September 2008, Ms. Kocharian had specified that “about 455” diaspora Armenians had entered Armenian public universities, that they came from “about 17” countries. The majority were from Javakhk [Samtskhe-Javakheti, Georgia], Russia, Germany, France, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Mexico and Canada. She had added that the majority of diaspora students preferred to enroll in Khachatour Abovian Yerevan State Pedagogical University (YSPU).
How the 2 applicants from Mexico, as indicated in the August report, turned Mexico into one of the main countries of origin a month later was a mystery to me for some time. Then why was Syria replaced by Iraq, and why was Canada mentioned as one of the countries from where “the majority” came from? How many Canadian-Armenians had applied to study in Armenia, anyway? Ms. Kocharian became increasingly confusing as she continued giving interviews and juggling data at each interview, instead of processing and presenting them accurately.
Another intriguing discrepancy was between “about 17” countries at the end of September, when universities had reopened and students had already registered – so the data was normally available, and 25 countries as mentioned in her December interview. I was again perplexed. How could such a big jump in numbers be possible? Had she meant 25 when she had mentioned 17? Does “about 17” include the number 25? How far does the range of “about” go, in general?
It was also strange that in her September interview (again, after the registration period), Ms. Kocharian had indicated YSUP as the most popular institution whereas in December she mentioned Medicine as being the most favored field of study. Considering that YSUP does not offer Medical Studies, I thought either a large number of diaspora students planning teaching careers had suddenly decided to become doctors and had transferred to YSUM or that Ms Kocharian or the reporters (?) had, once more, demonstrated their lack of meticulousness.
Finally A Table
Last week MES finally published the data for 2008-2009 and resolved some of these mysteries. The table entitled “Distribution of Armenian Diaspora Applicants According to Institutions and Countries for 2008-2009 Academic Year” is, in fact, a compilation / collage of the data Ms. Kocharian had disclosed earlier in her different interviews.
According to the table, diaspora students who have started their studies this year number 497 and come from 17 countries (neither 25 nor “about 17”). This, however, strangely includes Abkhazia that Armenia has not recognized as an independent state (but this may explain the use of “about”).
On the other hand, Artsakh (de facto independent republic of Nagorno Kharabakh) students have not been identified as coming from abroad. We know they number 55. So does this mean that MES considers Artsakh part of Armenia? Does the Ministry of Education have its own foreign policy premises?
According to the table, the top 5 countries of origin are:
Georgia – 331 students
Iran – 60
Russia – 53
Syria – 18
USA – 10
It is interesting to notice that in her December interview Ms. Kocharian had mentioned 384 students from Javakheti, Georgia, whereas in the final table they are only 331. What happened to the 53? Had she, by yet another error, included the Russian-Armenians in her calculation of students from Georgia?
It is also surprising to see that with 10 students the USA ranks 5th, something that Ms. Kocharian had never pointed out in her interviews whereas she had bothered to mention Germany and France that sent only 2 each.
Other than the top 5, the remaining 12 countries collectively account for 25 students. Mexico has indeed sent 2, as have Canada, Iraq, Germany and France. The other countries are Kazakhstan (4), Turkmenistan (5), Uzbekistan (1), Ukraine (1), Greece (1), Turkey (2) and of course Abkhazia (1).
In terms of institutions of choice, according to the table, the 5 most popular universities are:
Yerevan State Pedagogical University (YSPU) – 136
Yerevan State University (YSU) – 63
Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) – 61
Yerevan State University of Economics (YSUE) – 51
Yerevan State University of Architecture & Construction (YSUAC) – 36
The YSUE ranks 4th with 51 students. However, 49 of them come from Javakheti. A similar concentration is seen at YSPU where out of the 136 diaspora students, 130 come from Javakheti.
But An Incomplete One
The MES table does not include the diaspora students who have enrolled in some of the bi-national public universities. It includes students at the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) State University (RAU) and European Regional Institute of Information & Communication Technology Academy (ERIICTA) but excludes those studying at the American University of Armenia (AUA) and the French University in Armenia (UFAR).
Curiously, AUA has more diaspora students that what MES has reported for RAU (5) and ERIICTA (4) combined.
The MES table also excludes students who study at private institutions of higher education. They are certainly a lot fewer than those at public universities; nevertheless, they are diaspora students in Armenia.
All these signify that although the MES table is more useful than the contradictory information given at previous interviews, it is inconclusive. Probably because all private and some of the binational public institutions handle their student admissions in an autonomous way whereas MES is directly involved for the others. Of course, MES could have obtained the missing information very easily by simply contacting other institutions.
Absent: The “Real” Diaspora
Another significant aspect of the MES table is that it reveals those who are absent; absent from the table, absent from Armenia.
Hosting 3 thousand diaspora students may look quite impressive at the first glance but when one goes over it, it becomes apparent that the composition of diaspora students has radically changed in the past decade.
What in the Soviet period used to be called, and many continue to call, the “internal diaspora” – meaning the Armenians living outside Armenia but within the boundaries of the Soviet Union – now dominates the whole picture.
Out of 497 students that have been counted by MES, 397 or 80 percent come from the “internal” diaspora – Georgia, Russia, Turkmenistan, etc.
Iran is also a new (post-Soviet) phenomenon as due to the Cold War, it traditionally did not send students to Armenia.
By contrast, countries that used to send students are sending fewer or no more. Lebanon that has one of the most populous, vibrant and organized diaspora communities has not sent even a single student this year. Neither have the communities based in other Arab countries, with the exception of Syria and Iraq (but only 2).
Another region that is completely absent is South America; strangely, there is no one from Argentina or Brazil.
Many think that the absence of the “real” or “traditional” diaspora can be explained by the sharp appreciation of the Armenian currency in the past decade. I, however, doubt that the currency rates can explain or be the main reason for the current situation.
All these subjects, including the reasons that have brought the current students to Armenia, warrant in-depth studies before clear policies can be devised to enhance Armenia’s ties with its diaspora.
Meanwhile, what Ms. Kocharian and her colleagues at MES can at least do is try to compile and publicize accurate and comprehensive information on a regular and timely manner.
>
I have already discussed the beginning of the conflict (to read, pleas click here) and now will attempt to cover its development. This will however be done in separate posts as many different issues have surfaced. Here, in the first part, I will focus on the basic profile of the student body.
How many diaspora students are studying in Armenia? Where do they come from? What do they study? How long do they stay? What do they do after graduation? Unfortunately, no one seems to have exact answers to these questions.
In a recent interview with Panorama news agency, Ms. Amalia Kocharian from the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) Department of Diaspora Relations announced that there were approximately 3 thousand diaspora students in Armenia.
She added that this year 500 new diaspora students have been admitted to various institutions of higher education. These included 384 students from Georgia - more specifically, from the Armenian-inhabited region of Samtskhe-Javakheti. Diaspora students basically preferred studying at Mekhitar Heratsi Yerevan State Medical University, she added.
“We have not yet completed compiling the data on the countries of citizenship. This is being done. The geographical scope is pretty wide; they come from 25 countries. After graduation, 10 percent of diaspora students usually stay in Armenia.”
Data Juggling
Ms. Kocharian’s interview was dated 4 December, 3 months after the beginning of academic year. Even after 3 months, MES could not provide a clear and accurate account of the diaspora student population. But being slow and late were not the only problems.
The same Ms. Kocharian had reported back in August (11 August) that “about 270” diaspora students had applied to MES to study in Armenian public universities. She had specified that the majority of applicants were from Georgia, Russia, Iran, Syria and other [than Russia and Georgia] CIS countries. She had added that, for the first time, 2 students from Mexico had applied.
A month later, in a news release by Armenpress official news agency dated 22 September 2008, Ms. Kocharian had specified that “about 455” diaspora Armenians had entered Armenian public universities, that they came from “about 17” countries. The majority were from Javakhk [Samtskhe-Javakheti, Georgia], Russia, Germany, France, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Mexico and Canada. She had added that the majority of diaspora students preferred to enroll in Khachatour Abovian Yerevan State Pedagogical University (YSPU).
How the 2 applicants from Mexico, as indicated in the August report, turned Mexico into one of the main countries of origin a month later was a mystery to me for some time. Then why was Syria replaced by Iraq, and why was Canada mentioned as one of the countries from where “the majority” came from? How many Canadian-Armenians had applied to study in Armenia, anyway? Ms. Kocharian became increasingly confusing as she continued giving interviews and juggling data at each interview, instead of processing and presenting them accurately.
Another intriguing discrepancy was between “about 17” countries at the end of September, when universities had reopened and students had already registered – so the data was normally available, and 25 countries as mentioned in her December interview. I was again perplexed. How could such a big jump in numbers be possible? Had she meant 25 when she had mentioned 17? Does “about 17” include the number 25? How far does the range of “about” go, in general?
It was also strange that in her September interview (again, after the registration period), Ms. Kocharian had indicated YSUP as the most popular institution whereas in December she mentioned Medicine as being the most favored field of study. Considering that YSUP does not offer Medical Studies, I thought either a large number of diaspora students planning teaching careers had suddenly decided to become doctors and had transferred to YSUM or that Ms Kocharian or the reporters (?) had, once more, demonstrated their lack of meticulousness.
Finally A Table
Last week MES finally published the data for 2008-2009 and resolved some of these mysteries. The table entitled “Distribution of Armenian Diaspora Applicants According to Institutions and Countries for 2008-2009 Academic Year” is, in fact, a compilation / collage of the data Ms. Kocharian had disclosed earlier in her different interviews.
According to the table, diaspora students who have started their studies this year number 497 and come from 17 countries (neither 25 nor “about 17”). This, however, strangely includes Abkhazia that Armenia has not recognized as an independent state (but this may explain the use of “about”).
On the other hand, Artsakh (de facto independent republic of Nagorno Kharabakh) students have not been identified as coming from abroad. We know they number 55. So does this mean that MES considers Artsakh part of Armenia? Does the Ministry of Education have its own foreign policy premises?
According to the table, the top 5 countries of origin are:
Georgia – 331 students
Iran – 60
Russia – 53
Syria – 18
USA – 10
It is interesting to notice that in her December interview Ms. Kocharian had mentioned 384 students from Javakheti, Georgia, whereas in the final table they are only 331. What happened to the 53? Had she, by yet another error, included the Russian-Armenians in her calculation of students from Georgia?
It is also surprising to see that with 10 students the USA ranks 5th, something that Ms. Kocharian had never pointed out in her interviews whereas she had bothered to mention Germany and France that sent only 2 each.
Other than the top 5, the remaining 12 countries collectively account for 25 students. Mexico has indeed sent 2, as have Canada, Iraq, Germany and France. The other countries are Kazakhstan (4), Turkmenistan (5), Uzbekistan (1), Ukraine (1), Greece (1), Turkey (2) and of course Abkhazia (1).
In terms of institutions of choice, according to the table, the 5 most popular universities are:
Yerevan State Pedagogical University (YSPU) – 136
Yerevan State University (YSU) – 63
Yerevan State Medical University (YSMU) – 61
Yerevan State University of Economics (YSUE) – 51
Yerevan State University of Architecture & Construction (YSUAC) – 36
The YSUE ranks 4th with 51 students. However, 49 of them come from Javakheti. A similar concentration is seen at YSPU where out of the 136 diaspora students, 130 come from Javakheti.
But An Incomplete One
The MES table does not include the diaspora students who have enrolled in some of the bi-national public universities. It includes students at the Russian-Armenian (Slavic) State University (RAU) and European Regional Institute of Information & Communication Technology Academy (ERIICTA) but excludes those studying at the American University of Armenia (AUA) and the French University in Armenia (UFAR).
Curiously, AUA has more diaspora students that what MES has reported for RAU (5) and ERIICTA (4) combined.
The MES table also excludes students who study at private institutions of higher education. They are certainly a lot fewer than those at public universities; nevertheless, they are diaspora students in Armenia.
All these signify that although the MES table is more useful than the contradictory information given at previous interviews, it is inconclusive. Probably because all private and some of the binational public institutions handle their student admissions in an autonomous way whereas MES is directly involved for the others. Of course, MES could have obtained the missing information very easily by simply contacting other institutions.
Absent: The “Real” Diaspora
Another significant aspect of the MES table is that it reveals those who are absent; absent from the table, absent from Armenia.
Hosting 3 thousand diaspora students may look quite impressive at the first glance but when one goes over it, it becomes apparent that the composition of diaspora students has radically changed in the past decade.
What in the Soviet period used to be called, and many continue to call, the “internal diaspora” – meaning the Armenians living outside Armenia but within the boundaries of the Soviet Union – now dominates the whole picture.
Out of 497 students that have been counted by MES, 397 or 80 percent come from the “internal” diaspora – Georgia, Russia, Turkmenistan, etc.
Iran is also a new (post-Soviet) phenomenon as due to the Cold War, it traditionally did not send students to Armenia.
By contrast, countries that used to send students are sending fewer or no more. Lebanon that has one of the most populous, vibrant and organized diaspora communities has not sent even a single student this year. Neither have the communities based in other Arab countries, with the exception of Syria and Iraq (but only 2).
Another region that is completely absent is South America; strangely, there is no one from Argentina or Brazil.
Many think that the absence of the “real” or “traditional” diaspora can be explained by the sharp appreciation of the Armenian currency in the past decade. I, however, doubt that the currency rates can explain or be the main reason for the current situation.
All these subjects, including the reasons that have brought the current students to Armenia, warrant in-depth studies before clear policies can be devised to enhance Armenia’s ties with its diaspora.
Meanwhile, what Ms. Kocharian and her colleagues at MES can at least do is try to compile and publicize accurate and comprehensive information on a regular and timely manner.
>
