Vice Rector Čábyová: Bachelor’s students will complete their studies with a state exam. Graduates can choose between an internship or a final thesis

In this interview, you’ll also learn:

• what changes are in store for degree programs,
• what the purpose of the doctoral school is,
• how to earn micro-certificates,
• what will change regarding student feedback,
• and what impact the Higher Education Act has on UCM.

The position of Vice Rector for Education and Quality is an unusual combination of two areas. How do you personally envision their relationship?

I have to admit that it wasn’t the original plan to combine these roles in one person. Looking back, however, I’m glad it turned out this way because they’re interconnected. I think it’s a great advantage when you can apply knowledge from the field of education to quality assurance (or, more specifically, to accreditation, which is directly related to quality).

As an example, I can mention adjustments to degree programs. It’s important to know how to design a degree program so that it meets accreditation standards. However, if we also understand the field of education itself, the academic regulations, and all the related processes, we can approach this in a much more practical way.

In the interview, the rector said that the quality system is “set up in a very complicated way” and she wants to simplify it. Where specifically do you see the biggest problem—in the processes, in the tools, or in people’s attitudes toward quality?
Over the summer, we worked hard to simplify the quality and accreditation system. This is especially important because, by the end of the year, due to changes in the Higher Education Act, we must revise and re-approve all 186 degree programs we offer at UCM. We have drafted 10 new core internal guidelines. I am pleased to say that we have succeeded in significantly streamlining our processes. This means fewer documents and forms, less administrative work, clearer responsibilities, and, most importantly, shorter approval times.

The rector’s campaign platform mentions simplifying accreditation processes and significantly reducing the bureaucratic burden. What does this mean in practice for departments and faculties?

I don’t want faculty members to become quality administrators or for us to be slaves to bureaucracy. Documentation is necessary, but it does not, by itself, create a higher-quality education. The digitization of the university and more efficient use of AIS also help simplify accreditation processes. In particular, we’ve streamlined the accreditation process and the modification of study programs, and significantly reduced the number of forms that had to be filled out for these processes. For example, faculties will now submit only 2 forms when making modifications; previously, there were about 10.

How does the new Higher Education Act fit into this?

Very fundamentally. As I mentioned earlier, we must revise every study program at the university to include the option to complete studies with a final internship, incorporate practical instruction and mobility windows, revise all information sheets, and adjust the credit system and student workload accordingly.

We also have to amend nearly every document and form at the university in a very short time and bring them into compliance with the new law: from the UCM Statutes, through the statutes of all faculties and institutes, the UCM Board of Trustees Statutes, the Academic Regulations, the Scholarship Regulations, the Guidelines on Tuition and Fees, the Disciplinary Regulations, and many other internal regulations in the areas of quality, creativity, human resources, and academic affairs.

This is therefore not a mere cosmetic adjustment of a few regulations, but a comprehensive overhaul of virtually the entire educational system. It is a great deal of work, but I also want to view it as an opportunity to eliminate elements that did not work in practice. My goal is for the result to be more than just a statement that UCM is in compliance with the new law; I want us to have a better-structured educational system after this change.

You mentioned new features such as completing studies with a final internship, practical instruction, and mobility windows. What can a student expect from these changes? Which academic years will be affected?

At UCM, we have agreed on a unified approach across all faculties and institutes. In bachelor’s programs, with the exception of professionally oriented programs, students will complete their studies with a state exam, without a bachelor’s thesis or a final internship. This change will affect current second-year students, who will no longer be required to defend a bachelor’s thesis in their third year.

At the master’s level—that is, in master’s and engineering programs—we want to give students a choice: a master’s thesis or an internship. This option will apply to current first-year master’s students.

The final internship is intended to allow students to complete their studies with a stronger connection to professional practice. Faculties will offer internship opportunities at partner organizations and employers, but students will also be able to find a suitable placement on their own. In such cases, the internship must be approved in advance by the faculty to ensure it aligns with the program’s focus and the required learning outcomes.

The new Higher Education Act places greater emphasis on linking higher education with professional practice and on hands-on instruction. That is why we now have the opportunity to adjust study plans so that they meet not only the new legislative requirements but also the real-world needs of the professional field and future employers.

Another new feature is mobility windows. Their purpose is to create a period in the curriculum that is most suitable for a student to participate in a study abroad program. Faculties can structure study plans so that students do not miss out on important major-specific courses during their mobility period and do not have to “make up” additional courses upon their return home.

Will the course content also change?

In many study plans, the course content will change; there is now both the scope and the opportunity to do so. As I mentioned, there should be a greater emphasis on practical instruction.

We realize, however, that these changes may cause certain complications, especially for students who have been studying longer than the standard duration of study, or for students who have not successfully defended their thesis, and under the new curriculum, the thesis will no longer be part of the program. I believe there will be as few such cases as possible. If they do arise, we will address them individually and promptly so that students can successfully complete their studies.

Micro-certificates are a relatively new topic. Do you already have a concrete idea of what the system for them should look like at UCM?

Yes, we have everything ready and can now approve the educational programs. Microcertificates are shorter forms of education focused on acquiring specific knowledge and skills applicable in practice, such as in the fields of artificial intelligence, digital technologies, or language proficiency. Their major advantage is that we can award credits for them, which, once certain conditions are met, can be applied toward the student’s degree. Students can “piece together” a large portion of their degree from multiple micro-certificates.

To give a simple example: a student completes a course on artificial intelligence, for which they receive a micro-certificate worth three credits. If the course content and learning outcomes meet the requirements of their degree program, these three credits can be recognized, for example, in place of an elective course. This means they do not have to take another course just to earn the required number of credits. In this way, too, higher education can become more flexible, and students can tailor part of their education to their professional interests.

An interesting new development is that UCM will grant the right to offer these educational programs to other certified institutions as well. A language school or digital university can apply to UCM for accreditation of the educational programs they offer so that their students can earn micro-credentials for them.

The rector’s campaign platform mentions creating a “meaningful and functional feedback system” that will not be merely an administrative obligation. How, specifically, will this differ from the current system?

We want to reduce the frequency of feedback and ask only about what respondents actually understand and have real-world experience with. Just as important—if not more important—than the feedback itself is addressing the shortcomings identified through the feedback process. Only then does the feedback have meaning.

If student feedback points to a teacher who has consistently performed poorly, what actually happens with that data? Is there a mechanism at UCM for taking action based on the evaluations?

That’s a very good question. Feedback is meaningless if we just collect it, turn it into a graph, and file it away in a report. If the same problem repeatedly arises with a specific instructor, a response must follow—for example, a meeting with the department chair to identify the problem and agree on what needs to be changed. This could involve, for example, teaching methods, communication with students, assessment criteria, or the need for the teacher to pursue further training.

At the same time, however, I do not want us to draw conclusions about staff based on a single questionnaire or a single negative experience. It is important to track results over time and to consider additional information as well. However, if a problem persists and no improvement occurs even after corrective measures have been taken, the feedback must lead to real consequences. Otherwise, we cannot seriously ask students for their opinions.

 

Do you have any ideas on how to improve the quality of education in individual degree programs and faculties?

There are many ideas. But perhaps the most important thing is that every instructor must start with themselves. They should hold themselves—and their students—to high standards. They should prepare thoroughly for every class and continuously educate themselves—not only in their field but also in procedural matters, such as how to properly design assessments, write engaging textbooks, and motivate and prepare students for professional practice.

Then all it takes is a few capable people in the leadership of the faculties and the university who can create good conditions and establish meaningful processes. I believe that at UCM we have a solid foundation for high-quality education. And what’s important is that we have the drive, energy, and many capable people with whom we share these common goals.