Problem

For a long time, one of the key problems of distrust in the system of higher education has been the phenomenon of corruption during admission to institutions of higher education, which has been significantly addressed through the introduction of external independent testing. The success of this tool and its support by stakeholders is evidenced by opinion polls. Nevertheless, there are still admission paths with high corruption risks (e.g., creative competitions and internal enrollment exams). Such admission rules pose an extremely high risk of unjustified distortion of grades.
Another corruption factor in admission to institutions of higher education involves unjustified granting of privileges and preferences. For example, the privileges of taking an internal exam instead of an external independent evaluation test were used unfairly by individuals whose health condition actually made them eligible for testing under the general procedure.
It is also worth recalling that for more than 10 years, the admission conditions allow submitting applications for participation in the competitive selection process for enrollment at institutions of higher education in electronic form. This practice is not only convenient for entrants, but also ensures proper transparency, efficiency, and avoidance of unnecessary contact with members of the admission (selection) committee. However, to date, some categories of people can still submit applications only in hardcopy form. For example, if there are discrepancies between the entrant’s data in the Unified State Electronic Database in Matters of Education (last name, first name, patronymic (if any), date of birth, gender, citizenship, etc.) and the relevant prior proof of education and in the certificate of external independent testing, or when a foreign proof of education obtained at a foreign educational institution is submitted, the person is forced to appear before each admission (selection) committee, which theoretically can make different decisions on the same issue – admission of the applicant to the competitive selection process.
Another problem characterized by a high level of corruption risks in higher education is the issue of admission of foreigners and stateless persons to domestic institutions of higher education. In particular, the system of obtaining study invitations for foreigners and stateless persons is not sufficiently transparent. Thus, every foreigner or stateless person must apply to a higher education institution to receive such an invitation, which creates an opportunity for officials of institutions of higher education to receive unjust enrichment or satisfy their private interests.
The process of obtaining a higher education and evaluating learning outcomes also entails a number of corruption risks. The opportunity to demand or receive unjust enrichment in return for a passing grade during end-of-semester exams or artificially inflated grades for current academic performance is a complex and large-scale problem in the educational activities of institutions of higher education. The consequence of this problem manifests itself in unqualified graduates of institutions of higher education, and the main reason is the non-transparent and ineffective management of the educational process at institutions of higher education.
Corruption risks are equally inherent in the process of writing and defending qualification and research papers. At the same time, the legal means of holding people accountable for academic dishonesty, including academic plagiarism, are not perfect. For example, Ukrainian legislation does not contain procedural rules governing the procedure for holding students legally accountable for manifestations of academic dishonesty. This has resulted in the judicial overturning of more than one decision of the Ethics Committee of the National Agency for Higher Education Quality Assurance regarding possible violations of academic integrity rules in texts of theses.
It is worth separately emphasizing the uncertainty of the statute of limitations for liability when it comes to academic dishonesty. On the one hand, the public insists that the legislation should explicitly state that there is no statute of limitations for stripping a person of their a degree for academic plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and other violations of academic integrity. There is no statute of limitations applicable to theses defended after the Law came into force (i.e., on September 6, 2014). This creates a situation where such papers can be reviewed at any time, while earlier papers cannot be subjected to review under any circumstances.
Another factor that causes corruption risks is the existence of provisions in some laws that provide for the possibility of additional allowances for academic degrees or academic titles for individuals whose functions do not directly involve academic or research work.