The StarThe Star
The Official Newspaper of the American University in Kyrgyzstan
March 2001 - Supplementary issue
The President's Comments on Credit Hours and Curriculum Reform
A Note from The Editor (John)
A Note From The Author (Anisa)
Comments From A CEP Lecturer in Uzbekistan (Carter Johnson)
We Trust CEP (Yulia Minibaeva)
The Reamons Play in Riga (Anna)
(Tania)The President’s Comments on Credit Hours and Curriculum Reform
First, I want to say that I am pleased that there is much community-wide discussion about the curriculum review that is underway. I particularly appreciate the positive role that The Star has played in facilitating that discussion—and in covering other complicated issues this year.
When something negative about the administration appears in The Star, even when I believe the information to be inaccurate, I feel that it is usually better not to respond. I don’t want to inhibit the free expression of opinions, and I don’t want to convey the impression that the administration wants to influence the editorial content of what should be the voice of the students. The piece about credit hours in the last issue, however, raised some questions that I believe it is important to address for two reasons: first, the curriculum issue is an important one for AUK. The community needs balanced information about what is happening and accurate information about the role that the administration has played in the process. Secondly, I think that the last issue of The Star raised some questions about how we interact with one another and resolve differences of opinion at AUK.
The specific questions seemed to fall into five categories: the rationale for reviewing the curriculum; the process of review; the current status of the review; the potential effect of the changes on faculty loads and salaries; and the ways in which the campus community is being kept informed with respect to the work that is underway.
Why are the current curricula being reevaluated?
There are several reasons, and they have been openly discussed at some length on campus:
· Many of our students aspire to continue their studies at universities abroad, particularly in the United States. Some of us believe that AUK should encourage and support these aspirations. Ourstudents will have access to a much broader variety of universities if AUK receives accreditation from one of the American regional accrediting bodies. But this can happen only if AUK’s curricula are consistent with the generally accepted accreditation standards. The question of whether students can continue their studies at another institution of their choosing is an important one—and one that students have raised with me on many occasions. Their concerns are valid and deserve to be taken seriously.
There are other legitimate reasons to seek U.S. accreditation. Accredited institutions are eligible for some important categories of financial support that are unavailable to other institutions. Accreditation will also aid us in our efforts to internationalize the institution (one of the major goals of the long-range plan that was produced by a campus committee). Accreditation will be seen by prospects from abroad as evidence of AUK’s quality, and, even more importantly, it will assure them that credits earned here can be freely transferred to their home institutions.
· The most important reason to review curricula is to further improve the quality of our academic programs. Many educators accept the view—which the research would tend to support—that higher education is most effective when it includes a balance of classroom instruction and guided independent work. There are, of course, variations by discipline. Mastering conversational skills in a foreign language may require more hours of in-class practice than a course in political science or in psychology. But no one familiar with current theory and practice in higher education would dispute the fact that most educators believe that it is important to give students an opportunity to work independently, outside of class. It is important that students engage in active learning.
Let’s look at one hypothetical example: a course in international marketing. One approach would be to cover the material in class, beginning with a theoretical conceptual framework and then moving on to particular examples. Students would be told how the theoretical concepts might be applied in particular cases. But another approach might be to provide the conceptual framework in the classroom and then to create student teams that would be put to work on real problems in international marketing in real multinational firms. Each student team could be assigned to a local firm and presented with an issue in international marketing that the firm is currently dealing with. The team would meet with management, discuss the ways in which similar problems have been addressed in other contexts, assign each member of the team particular responsibilities, and, ultimately, propose solutions to the problem. Each team would then return to class and, in seminar fashion, discuss their experiences, their successes, and their failures with the larger group.
Either approach can be effective. But it is certainly reasonable to suggest that the second approach may provide students with more useable skills and knowledge. It forces them to find creative solutions to problems rather than simply to memorize the solutions that have been presented to them by others. It provides experience in the team approach to problem solving—experience that will be valuable when they begin their careers. Certainly it is appropriate in a university environment that alternative pedagogical styles be discussed and debated before we decide to limit our students to the more passive style of education.
· I believe that it is healthy for any institution to review its curricula on a regular basis. Some of the regional accrediting bodies in the United States now require periodic program reviews. The previous institution for which I worked automatically conducted a thorough review of every program every three years, and that approach served us well. It forced us to compare what we were doing to what our competitors were doing on a regular basis and, even if no significant changes were made, it kept us abreast of current developments in the discipline.
In connection with the question of pedagogical approach, two concerns have been raised that deserve careful consideration:
1. Do we have the resources that we need in order to support independent work? The truth is, that insome departments we do not yet know. That is one of the questions that we are exploring. I suspect that in most cases we will find that the resources are adequate but less than ideal. If in the case of any particular class we find that we don’t have the minimum level of resources required to support independent student work, we will either acquire the resources or teach the course using the “old model” until we do. However, it is also important to note that in most cases (such as the hypothetical international marketing course) vast library resources are not required. A bit of imagination and creativity can go a long way. In addition, with the University’s enhanced technical resources, students will have better access to significant on-line resources in all disciplines.
Academic choices are rarely simple or clear cut. They typically require that we weigh pluses and minuses as we try to identify the better of two imperfect choices. In the case of many of our programs, the question will come down to this: do we move to a system that requires independent, creative work even in the absence of some needed resources, or do we stay with the current system until we have all the books, reading rooms, and computers that we would like to have? Are there program areas that are so “resource poor” that a reasonable level of independent and creative work is not possible? Perhaps there are. But if that is the case, there is a related question that should be asked, as well. Should AUK be offering post-secondary academic programs in areas that are so lacking in resources that students cannot pursue independent work?
2. The second question has to do with whether we can maintain the current level of academic rigor while requiring a greater proportion of independent work. It has been seriously suggested to me that local students are inherently less responsible in this regard than their American or European counterparts. First, I would say that our experience in the United States has been that students from the former Soviet Union do as well or better than their American counterparts when presented with independent learning tasks. I’d also point out that in our own ICP Department, where we have been experimenting with giving students more independent work, the results have been very positive. I have yet to hear a complaint from an ICP student that their program resembles “zaochnoe obucheniye.” Finally, if we were to move to a system which required significant outside work, each instructor would prepare detailed syllabi detailing the nature and the objectives of the out of class requirements. We would never permit a reduction in class hours without documented evidence that the reduction will be balanced by additional independent work.
Before we move on to the next question I must point out that campus discussion about introducing independent learning elements into the curriculum is not new and that it did not arise because of any changes in the Ministry of Education. Certainly a friendly Ministry can make the task of curricular reform much easier. And of course the fact that the current Ministry of Education is supportive of our reform efforts should, along with many other considerations, be taken into account as we consider changes to the curriculum. But the need for curriculum reform was already a major topic of discussion when I first set foot on the AUK campus in December of 1999, long before any changes in the Ministry were contemplated.
What is the process for review, and who will make the final decisions?
There are two very important points that need to be made in this regard:
· The piece in The Star conveyed the impression that “the administration” has some sort of a plan for curriculum conversion that, for some unspoken reason, is being kept from the students and faculty. That is simply not an accurate representation of what has been taking place. The truth is as follows: at my request, an ad hoc committee chaired by Chad Thompson, a faculty member in ICP, is studying the feasibility of incorporating elements of the American approach to higher education into AUK’s curricula. This committee consists of a mix of local faculty, international faculty, and administrators. It has been meeting twice a week this semester and has been examining everything from language requirements to core curriculum issues. There have been regular reports to the Rektorate (as well as to reporters from The Star) about the progress being made by that committee. Later this week the chairperson of the Committee will also update the Academic Senate on the work that has been done to date.
This process is being carried out in an open and democratic way, and participatory processes are by their nature slow and cumbersome. It would be relatively easy for a small group of administrators to sit in an office and quickly make all the decisions about curriculum reform. We could undoubtedly complete the process very efficiently, and we could promptly issue a full report outlining exactly what the new program would look like, which students would be affected, when it would be implemented, and what formulas would be used to calculate faculty pay. There would be no frustrating periods of uncertainty while we wait for representative committees to agree on issues such as language requirements and core curriculum. But that is not the way things are done at AUK.
Let me give you one example of how this committee process is working: all members of the committee were invited to submit their visions of general education to the group. I submitted one version, and other members presented their views on the subject, as well. After several meetings and many hours of discussion, debate, and compromise, the committee agreed to a general education curriculum that was very unlike what any of us had originally proposed. The discussion of language requirements followed a similar pattern. There were multiple meetings on the subject, and there was much disagreement about the relationship between language and AUK’s mission. Diverse views were presented with respect to what AUK should require of students in Russian, English, and Kyrgyz. After considerable debate, a consensus gradually emerged—a consensus that, once again, represented a compromise. In my opinion, this is exactly how the process should work. But it takes time.
· It is also very important to remember that this committee is conducting a review and will ultimately make recommendations to the Academic Senate. Neither the committee nor the administration has the authority to make any curriculum changes without the consent of the Academic Senate. As I have explained both to the Rektorate and to reporters from the Star, according to the University charter, any recommendations regarding curriculum must be submitted to the Academic Senate for review and approval. The Academic Senate consists predominantly of faculty, but it also includes student and administrative representation. All of these constituent groups will have the opportunity to express their views fully during the Academic Senate meetings. The Senate will then have the authority to accept or reject any or all of the recommendations of the committee. I have made no secret of the fact that I personally believe that introducing more independent learning into AUK curricula would benefit our students and the University. However, I have also made it clear that, under our governance system, this is not a decision that the president makes. If the Academic Senate decides that nothing should change for next year, then nothing will change. That is not a “platitude.” It is a simple fact.
Where are we now in the process?
Space does not permit including a full record of the details here, but I will summarize briefly my understanding of what the committee has, to date, decided to recommend to the Senate:
· The recommendation will be that any new curricula that are implemented will apply only to first year students (Once again, this is not new information, and it has been pointed out repeatedly to the Rektorate and to reporters for The Star). Continuing students who wish to make the transition to a new curriculum would speak with an advisor to determine the personal implications of the change. In the case of second year students, a transition to the new system would in most cases probably be possible. In the case of upper-level students, the transition would be more difficult and would probably require extending their time at AUK. Students who entered AUK under the “old” curriculum would have the option of staying with their original curriculum.
· The committee will recommend that students complete 144 credits for graduation. This will require 18 hours per week in the classroom. This is a significant departure from the American system, and represents what the committee believes is a reasonable compromise between the requirements of the American system and the local system. In the U.S., the normal requirement would be for students to take 15 hours per week for 15 weeks, each “hour” consisting of50 minutes. Most courses would be three-credit courses, meeting for 15 hours a week. The recommendation will be that our students take six courses each semester that will meet for a total of 18 hours per week. However, a three-credit course would meet for 160 minutes rather than 150, and it would meet for 17 weeks rather than 15. AUK students, therefore, would spend about 45% more time in class than their American counterparts. In part, this is to reflect the relatively smaller amount of resource material available to students here for independent work. In addition, we want to allay any concerns that the level of rigor may be reduced.
· All students will be required to achieve proficiency in English and Russian. In English we will continue to require a TOEFL score of at least 550. We will use a yet to be selected exam in Russian to assure a comparable minimum level of proficiency in that language (Additional language requirements may, of course, be introduced by individual departments). Some credit will be awarded for formal course work that may be required in order to bring students to the required level of competency.
· The 144 credit curriculum will consist of the following elements
o Required courses in the major: approximately 51 credits, or 17 courses
o General education requirements: approximately 48 credits or 16 courses (consisting of courses in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and mathematics. This is consistent with the usual requirements of accrediting agencies)
o Free electives and academic minors: approximately 45 credits or 15 courses
The specifics of the proposal change frequently, since the committee meets twice a week. By the time this article makes it into print, more changes will inevitably have taken place. However, at this point I think we have a rather clear outline of what the ultimate proposal to the Academic Senate will look like. We will make an effort to keep the community informed as discussions continue.
Will the proposed changes affect teaching loads or elective choices?
This question, it seems to me, is peripheral to the central questions about curriculum design, but since it came up in The Star, I will address it here. I have been very clear all year with the Rektorate and with departments about our need to be more efficient. That needs to happen regardless of what we decide to do with curricula next year.
At the beginning of the last semester there were originally more than 170 sections scheduled with fewer than five students. We had departments that proposed offering more electives than they had students. As a result, we found ourselves facing significant budget challenges this year. As a past member of many accrediting teams, I am thoroughly familiar with average course loads, salaries, and class sizes at dozens of American colleges and universities. Even the wealthiest American institutions cannot afford to tolerate inefficiencies on that scale. As you all know, we are not wealthy, so we certainly have to do a better job of planning and scheduling.
How will we achieve these efficiencies? First, I will readily acknowledge that I don’t have all the answers. This is a complicated issue, and I don’t expect to have all the related questions resolved until well into the summer months. However, I can mention some general principles that seem sensible to me:
· The number of electives offered by any department must have some reasonable limit. Each elective that we offer must attract a reasonable number of students. What constitutes a reasonable number? We can discuss that with departments and in the Senate, but ten is often used as the basic figure at American institutions and seems reasonable to me. The departments that are offering an extraordinary number of electives will need to make some choices about which electives to retain. I believe that the decision should, in general, be left to departments, but I wouldexpect that we would choose to retain those electives that we offer at the highest level of quality—for which we have highly trained faculty and ample resources.
This does not mean that we will not offer courses with enrollments of fewer than ten students—or even that we will never offer a course with fewer than five students. There are advanced courses in the major that need special consideration. We should conduct small seminars for groups of upper-level students with strong interests in a particular academic area. But these small sections need to be balanced by larger sections of survey courses and introductory level courses.
· Secondly, I believe that there should be a relationship between faculty pay and the number of contact hours. Under the current system, a faculty member who teaches two sections of 5 students each receives double the pay of another faculty member who teaches one section of the same subject with 20 students. So the second faculty member is teaching twice the number of students for half the pay. This system of compensation is neither fair nor rational, and it must not continue. The trustees have delegated to the president the responsibility of ensuring that the University’s resources are used in a responsible way, and I cannot avoid addressing this issue.
· Regarding the number of hours that faculty teach per week, I have made it clear that I believe that a basic load of 15 hours per week is reasonable—if we then make adjustments for those faculty who are engaged in other major professional activities. For example:
o Teaching loads should be reduced for faculty actively engaged in research.
o Teaching responsibilities should be reduced for faculty who are involved in other major professional activities (major committee responsibilities, organizing conferences, etc.).
o Department heads should have significantly reduced teaching loads.
o Faculty who teach large sections should teach fewer hours per week. For example, one faculty member in ICP taught well over 100 students in three sections last semester. In my opinion, in a case such as this the load should be limited to three courses—or 9 hours, rather than 15.
o Writing faculty should teach no more than twelve hours per week.
o Faculty should not be required to teach more than three different classes in any semester.
But like any other issue, the question of course loads is something that can be discussed. But however we resolve this question, departments across campus must find ways to operate more efficiently.
· We are getting into rather fine detail here, but since the question of release time for course preparations was brought up in The Star, I will comment briefly. In most cases, I do not believe that release time for new course preparations is appropriate. One of the reasons that University faculty are relieved of mandatory teaching responsibilities during the summer months is so that they have time to engage in professional activities: research, keeping abreast of current developments in their fields, and preparing their courses for the following year. There will, of course, be exceptions. If it turns out that the Academic Senate approves a new curriculum approach that imposes unusual burdens on faculty during the transition period, those faculty who are affected should be compensated either with extra pay or with release time.
Questions of faculty salaries and load are obviously closely related to more general budget questions. The process of creating a viable budget will extend well into the summer months. It is impossible to make final decisions now, because we have no firm information about enrollments for next year or about the level of OSI support that we can expect. It would be irresponsible to make detailed promises now. At this point all that I can do is to describe the general framework that will guide our decision-making processes. But there are several points I want to emphasize here:
· With respect to specific budget questions, the only certainty is that there will not be as muchmoney available as people would like to spend. In next year’s budget requests I have requests for nearly three times the amount of money that we are likely to have. Some hard choices will have to be made.
· In making these choices, we will make every effort to be fair, and the budget building process will be an open one. With the exception of individual salary data, anyone who is interested will have access to all basic budget information. Everyone in the AUK community will have an opportunity to review and comment on the institution’s budget choices.
· Democratic processes have their limits. No group can vote itself resources that AUK does not have. Ultimately I am responsible to the Board of Trustees for the financial viability of the University and for presenting them with a budget that reasonably addresses the mission and the priorities of AUK.
· Any increases in efficiency that we can achieve will benefit everyone. Such efficiencies will make more money available for such things as salaries, books, technology, instructional equipment, faculty development, travel, and all of the other important things that departments have requested for next year.
What is being done to keep the community informed about what is happening?
I was disappointed by the comment in the Star that little or nothing has been done to keep the community informed about the curriculum review process, since maintaining a free flow of information on this subject has been a priority for the administration. To date, we have done the following:
· The Rektorate is briefed regularly on the most recent developments. In addition, written summaries of the implications of curriculum changes have been provided to the Rektorate on three occasions.
· Reporters from the Star have been regularly updated with respect to recent developments (and their suggestions have been solicited with respect to how best to keep students aware of what is happening).
· Large public information sessions were held with students, faculty, and staff this fall, during which the credit hour issues were discussed at length and handouts explaining the credit hour system were provided.
· We are in the process of scheduling weekly meetings between the president and the academic departments in order to discuss the potential impact of curriculum changes at the department level.
· On a rotating basis, the president meets every Friday with students from one department on campus, and at each of these meetings he discusses the implications of a credit hour system for students.
· The president holds office hours every Monday afternoon from 4 to 6 p.m. to address personally any questions or concerns that any member of the community might have about this process—or about anything else that is happening at AUK.
Certainly it can be argued that more could be done. It can be argued that more should be done, or even that more must be done. Clearly if the impression that little has been done is widespread, we need to rethink our approach to providing public information. But to suggest that little or nothing has been done to keep the community informed strikes me as neither fair nor accurate.
I would add that although I agree that it is primarily the responsibility of the administration to keep the community informed about all matters of importance to the University community, the responsibility for communication is a shared one. If students are, indeed, unaware of information that was presented weeks ago to department heads at the Rektorate, that concerns me, since one of the primary purposes of the Rektorate is to present to department heads information that will subsequently be shared with their students and faculty.
When students, faculty, or staff have questions or concerns, they have a responsibility to ask for answers. In general, in addition to my office hours, I am available within 48 hours to meet with any member of the AUK community who needs or wants to see me. Other members of the administration are equally accessible.
One final comment. The core of AUK’s mission is to promote civil society in this part of the world. It is my hope that we can create a “civil society” internally, as well. As important as these curriculum questions may be, it is even more important to decide what kind of community we want to be.
A university campus should be a special place. It should be an island of reason and objectivity. Differences of opinion should be resolved through a process of rational discourse. How best to accomplish AUK’s mission is a question that lends itself to reasoned discussion, to debate, to analysis of information. This process of discussion and debate is not only a very effective way of making good decisions and creating a quality institution, but it can also be a great deal of fun. When we engage our colleagues in discussion, we get to know them and we learn from them.
Perhaps someone believes that the current point system is better for AUK than a credit hour system. Perhaps others are convinced that independent learning is not as effective as a traditional lecture approach. Some may feel that faculty teaching loads should be twelve hours a week—or nine, or six. Other members of the community may have ideas about how information can be disseminated more effectively. These are all legitimate areas for discussion and debate. If someone feels that they have found a “better mousetrap,” let them put their ideas forward for public scrutiny and comment. Let the community compare their ideas to others that have been proposed. Let the supporters of each approach present data to support their opinions. And then let the community make decisions based upon reason and evidence. This is how universities should function, and this is what makes them exciting places in which to work and study.
But in order for the process to work, we need to be able to trust one another to debate in good faith. We need to create an atmosphere in which people feel free to express their views. We must make it clear that no opinion is unacceptable and that no opinion has any special status by virtue of who holds it. We must avoid misrepresenting the views or impugning the motives of those with whom we might disagree. We need to have confidence that our colleagues will have the courage to talk to us when they disagree with us and that in any public discussion they will represent the facts accurately. And perhaps we all need to remind ourselves now and again that respecting the process is more important than “winning.”
Ultimately the most important thing about this discussion is not whether we will introduce more American elements into the AUK curriculum next year. Regardless of the outcome of the current credit hour debate, the University will carry on. Students, faculty, and staff will continue to love this place for the same reasons that they love it now. What is far more important is that we emerge from the discussion respecting one another, trusting one another, and better prepared to work together to accomplish the mission of the American University.
By John Atwood
In light of the controversy surrounding Anisa Afshar’s editorial “In CEP We Trust” The Star would like to make clear our editorial policy. We strive to support debate and discussion within the AUK community by printing any editorial. We have an editorial board that works with our staff and contributors, to help develop and polish editorials. Our staff members and contributors are responsible for any and all facts or opinions that are printed in their editorials. We advise staff members to check, recheck and verify their facts. However, we cannot recheck every allegation made in every article. We trust our staff members to do a good and solid job of reporting, verifying all facts, and making sure that the articles are written in a careful, ethical and unbiased manner.
As always we welcome views opposing Anisa’s. The Star is meant to be the student’s voice, and we hope that students will contribute regularly.
I personally regret what happened last issue. We are developing training procedures for those staff members who are not journalism students. This will include a code of conduct that all staff members, regardless of faculty, will have to sign and agree to abide by. Although The Star is not responsible for what Anisa wrote, we will do our best not to allow a staff member to publish something of that careless nature again. Please bear with us as we learn from this incident.
By Anisa Afshar
Concerning the editorial – “In CEP We Trust”, I wrote for the last issue of The Star, I would like to emphasize one more time, that the target of the article was not students, as The Star is the students’ voice. Therefore if the content of my article in any way appeared offensive to some students I apologize, it was not deliberate.
Comments From A CEP Lecturer in Uzbekistan
By Carter Johnson
As a CEP visiting lecturer in Central Asia, I would like to add my name to the growing voice of discontent over the Budapest selection process. While there were many aspects of Anisa A.’s article of which I disapprove, there is one point I feel deserves attention: the dangers of favoritism in the selection process.
The Budapest selection process, or any selection process for that matter, should try to minimize the risk of favoritism. While most of us aspire towards objectivity, we are all human. Norma Jo has stated, “no fellow ranked his or her own student’s proposal.” This should help to assuage students’ fears, but as Anisa’s article suggested, departments can be small and in those situations the risk of favoritism, or at least the appearance of favoritism, increases. This risk also exists in our university in Uzbekistan and no doubt in many others. I therefore recommend building better safeguards into the selection process. While CEP cannot always eliminate the risk of favoritism, for this specific conference it is possible and I would therefore like to propose a change for next year. I feel the process will be far more objective if, in subsequent years, proposals from each country are adjudicated by teachers from a separate country for the first round of the selection process. For example, all applications from Kyrgyzstan would be read by CEP teachers in Kazakhstan, all applications from Kazakhstan would be read by CEP teachers in Mongolia, and so on. While this might be a more complicated process, it is both a possible and effective addition to the process to ensure greater objectivity. At the very least, it would serve to address student concerns that I believe are legitimate.
I hope that no one at AUK was selected on the basis of personal relationships with their teachers. However, the possibility was present and I therefore applaud those students who raised their concerns.
In general, I would like to add that I found Anisa’s article encouraging and hope that more discontent will be publicly aired in the future to enable CEP to become more transparent and objective in the future.
By Yulia Minibaeva
The purpose of this brief note is to reply to the editorial by Anisa Afshar “In CEP We Trust” published March 5, 2001 in The Star. I was astonished by way the author chose to criticize CEP Central Asia. I find all the facts given, quotations used by the author, and the whole article itself extremely inaccurate and ridiculous.
According to the author “this article is not intended to bring into question the quality of those proposals that got accepted”. Dear reader, I am sure you were patient enough and read the article up to the end. Didn’t you find any contradiction here? From what she has said it becomes clear that proposals were good enough to be selected. So, if the
author does not doubt the quality of the excepted proposals, what is the use of talking about a biased, unfair and ridiculous selection process?Or we can try another way. Now we need to forget about the high quality of the chosen proposals and assume (please notice “assume”) that Ms. Norma Jo Baker and Mr. Chad Thompson, CEP fellows, are “corrupted” by Uzbek students. As a result, three out of six AUK representatives (please notice: “AUK representatives”) in Budapest are transfer students from Uzbekistan. In this case I consider Anisa’s point of view insulting. The author doesn’t consider Uzbek students to be real competitors in academics (by the way, she never mentioned, that she also applied for Budapest Conference. Why?!). Only with the help of a biased jury some students could get to the Budapest Conference? What is that?
As I have mentioned at the very beginning it is supposed to be a brief note. So, I would like to stop at this point by saying that CEP does not have to recover its relationship with students simply because they were not broken.
P.S. May I ask for another couple of minutes of your attention. There is another CEP conference which selection process might be interesting to those wanting to make an outstanding investigation on the matter of CEP being fair, open and democratic institution. That is the Issyk Kul Geopolitics conference, March 2001. Six out of seven AUK representatives for the conference come from Osh. What a coincidence! I suspect that the reason is that Osh is the region that borders with Uzbekistan. Moreover, you could accuse CEP of human rights violation. All seven representatives are male. What about women rights?
By Anna Kirey and Yulia Balybina, The Star’s Eastern Europe Correspondents
February the 17th became a memorable day for Riga, Latvia and for AUK students as well. This day in the Kipsala concert hall, the most popular German group, the Reamonn, were giving their only concert. Being international students in Latvia, me, Yulia Balybina and Anna Kirey, couldn’t miss such a rare opportunity to see the idols of so many people in the world, with our own eyes.
This is an amazing feeling, when you are in the crowd of thousands of people and you feel united with them, you feel the same vibration of your stomach and lungs together with the sound, which comes from the live guitar playing, percussion instruments’ beat and singing. The atmosphere at the concert was really warm and friendly. People were moving aside, if they saw that because of them, you couldn’t see what’s going on the stage. And the band members’ behavior on the stage, surprised with the respect and gratitude toward fans.
Uwe, Rea, Phil, Gomezz and Sebi
are the members of the Reamonn! They have extraordinary talent. The Reamonn’s first
German single ‘Supergirl’, has to date sold 400,000 copies and debut album
“Tuesday” has inside a month of its release gone gold. Their musical talent
notwithstanding, the group’s composition is somewhat unusual.
Four members come from the southwestern German State of Baden-Worttemberg, Rea hails from another corner of the world altogether, namely Co.Kerry, Ireland. They formed at the end of 1998, and despite only a handful of shows, had forged a performance so impressive that after a showcase in Hamburg barely a few months later, major-labels were falling over themselves to sign the band. ‘Tuesday’, their first album is the result, and it fully justifies the interest shown in them, not just by the record companies then, but also by millions of fans now. Judge for yourselves the passion of this work; it’s high consistency of song writing and breadth of mood. It’s certainly no exaggeration to say this debut sounds mature in the best sense of the word and has a sound that is at once of-it’s-time and timeless.
Rea is the soloist and the main figure in Reamonn. Often the “Reamonn” got shortening to “Rea”. He is also the author almost of all the songs in “Tuesday”.
”For the last couple of years people have wanted to hear again vocalists with strong melodies”, said Rea in his interview, “and it’s not surprising that in the Nineties bands such as Radiohead, Skunk Anansie and Live were successful because they provided just that. Now it’s our turn!!!” Despite the different characters involved in the group, Reamonn’s music has something these other groups also have - the knack of sounding at once unique but yet belonging to a long tradition stretching back to the Sixties.
This and not only this reason made the concert of Reamonn in Riga unforgettable.
This concert became a part of a big tour that Reamonn doing in Europe. They will visit many European cities, including Moscow and St.Petersburg and on the 15th of march they will come back for a while to their home city Berlin, to receive an award in Echo awards 2000, as the best German group the last year.
8-ãî ìàðòà, êàê âñåì èçâåñòíî, ïðàçäíèê âåëèêèé, è âñå (íó èëè ïî÷òè âñå) åãî îòìå÷àþò, ñòàðàÿñü ñäåëàòü ýòîò äåíü ðàäîñòíûì è ñ÷àñòëèâûì íå òîëüêî äëÿ æåíùèí, íî äëÿ êàæäîãî. È âîò ðåøèëî íàøå ÀÓÊîâñêîå Student Government â ýòîì ãîäó ïðîâåñòè ïðàçäíèê â èçâåñòíîì è âñåì çíàêîìîì äèñêî-êëóáå “Red Fox”. Äîãîâîðèëèñü ñ äîáðîé òåòåíüêîé-àäìèíèñòðàòîðîì, Ìàðèíîé, çàãîòîâèëè áèëåòû, ïðîäàëè èõ è ïîøëè âñåì ìèðîì â õîðîøóþ, êàê äóìàëè, äèñêîòåêó. Ïî èäåå, â “Red Fox” äîëæíû áûëè áûòü òîëüêî è èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ÀÓÊîâöû è ÀÓÊîâêè, äà íå òóò-òî áûëî!.. Ïðèøëè ðåáÿòà, à èì è ãîâîðÿò: «Òàê, ìîë, è òàê, ìû âàñ, êîíå÷íî, î÷åíü ëþáèì è óâàæàåì, à òîëüêî ìàëî âû íàì äåíåæåê äàëè, ìû åùå õîòèì. À ïîñåìó ñ âàñ, ðîäíûå, åùå îïðåäåëåííàÿ (è äîâîëüíî êðóïíàÿ) ñóììà, èëè ìîæåòå êàòèòüñÿ êî âñåì ÷åðòÿì. ×òî äåëàòü? Äà íåò, íå ×åðíûøåâñêîãî ÷èòàòü, ïëàòèòü ïðèøëîñü, ïîñêîëüêó çà ñïèíîé Student Government ñòîÿëè â íåòåðïåëèâîì îæèäàíèè ñòóäåíòû, ïðèøåäøèå ïîâåñåëèòüñÿ è ïîïëÿñàòü. Èì îáåùàëè ïðàçäíèê. Ñåíàòîðû çàïëàòèëè (ñêðåïÿ ñåðäöå è ïîèñêàâ ïî ñóñåêàì, òî åñòü, ïðîñòèòå, ïî êàðìàíàì) è ðåøèëè âñå-òàêè îòòÿíóòüñÿ ïî ïîëíîé. Çàøëè. À òàì èõ æäàë âòîðîé ñþðïðèç!  êëóáå óæå óñïåëè çàñåñòü ïîñåòèòåëè, è íå êòî-íèáóäü, à âûñîêèå ãîñòè – ñûí Àñêàðà Àêàåâè÷à, âèäèìî, òîæå î÷åíü öåíèò çëîïîëó÷íûé “Red Fox”. “Ãîñòè” çàíÿëè ÷åòûðå ñòîëèêà è óõîäèòü ÿâíî íå ñîáèðàëèñü. Òàê è ïðîøåë ïðàçäíèê â êîìïàíèè… À êàê êëóá îòðåàãèðîâàë íà ñòîëü “äîëãîæäàííûé” âèçèò? Äà î÷åíü ïðîñòî! «Ðåáÿòà, ìû íå õîòèì èìåòü ïðîáëåì, ÷åãî è âàì æåëàåì,» - âîò è âñå, ÷òî ñêàçàëà äîáðàÿ òåòåíüêà-àäìèíèñòðàòîð. Òàê-òî îíî, êîíå÷íî, òàê, ïðîáëåì ó äèñêî-êëóáà íå ñëó÷èëîñü, äà òîëüêî âîò ïîòåðÿë îí ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ êëèåíòîâ; îáæåãøèñü íà ìîëîêå, äóåøü íà âîäó – íèêîãäà áîëüøå íå ñòàíåò Student Government óñòðàèâàòü ïðàçäíèêè èìåííî òàì, êàê ýòî áûëî ðàíüøå. Íó äà íè÷åãî, íà îøèáêàõ ó÷àòñÿ, íàäååìñÿ, íå òîëüêî íàøè ðåáÿòà, “Red Fox” ïîó÷èòüñÿ òîæå áû íå ïîìåøàëî.
Lay out: Konstantin Sudakov.
Staff who contributed to this issue: John Atwood, Anisa Afshar, Tatiana Pesina.
Advisors: Evangelia Papoutsaki, Deborah Eisenberg