It seems to me that Tallinn University has been somewhat hesitant to highlight the fact that your primary mission is teacher training. The university promotes many exciting things happening in its Narva maantee buildings, but the teacher training component has somehow remained more understated. Now could be the right moment for that to change, since interest in becoming a teacher has been growing rapidly among young people in Estonia. So perhaps you can now confidently say that you are Estonia's best teacher educators?

We are happy to say that — and we have said it before — but it is true that perhaps we have not placed enough emphasis on it. It is important to bear in mind that Tallinn University was established nearly 21 years ago by a very diverse group of partners. There were more than ten of them and they were all quite different, even in legal terms: they included state professional higher education institutions, private higher education institutions, a public-law institution and even an academic library.

At the time, we therefore had many different priorities. The largest institution to join the merger was the Pedagogical University and we consciously did not want to shape the image of Tallinn University as merely the successor of that university. Since then, Tallinn University has taken on many other core responsibilities as well. That said, I agree that teacher education is one of our key areas of responsibility and we certainly invest a great deal in it.

Turning to your own field: what is the situation with training biology and physics teachers? Have the numbers of graduates increased or decreased? What does the overall picture look like?

Let me give you an illustrative example. It is from about 10 years ago, but the situation is relatively similar. We were visiting a school when an elderly gentleman came to greet us. The principal said he was their physics teacher and that he was 70 years old. "We have two physics teachers," the principal added. "He's the younger of the two."

That sums up the situation. The National Audit Office has also pointed out that schools are struggling with a shortage of science teachers. Formally, nearly a quarter of them do not meet qualification requirements. What that means is they do not hold a master's degree or a professional teaching credential.

As for substantive qualifications — meaning that if I teach physics at school, I have actually studied physics at university — the shortfall is approaching 50 percent. So the situation with science teachers in schools is indeed not good.

At the same time, it is encouraging that interest in studying to become a science teacher has improved. Four years ago, we had seven applicants in this field; over the past two years, that number has been 27.

So in reality, the situation is still quite bleak?

Yes, even 27 clearly does not meet the goal of ensuring that we can provide schools with fully qualified teachers. That is why we have also developed shorter pathways, such as microdegrees.

At Tallinn University, we offer more than 10 microdegree programs designed for teachers who are already working in schools but do not yet meet the formal qualification requirements.

So in fact, the Ministry of Education and Research is entirely right when it says that your university's primary focus must be teacher training and that all other side activities should really be scaled back?

No, it does not mean that. We have responsibilities in many other fields as well, not only in teacher education. We offer a number of unique programs that are not taught anywhere else. We also have very strong social sciences and humanities, as well as languages and cultures, where we likewise have nationally mandated responsibilities.

Speaking of administrative contracts, there has been quite a heated dispute between the ministry and Tallinn University over whether you should be training lawyers and whether that should be funded from the operational support the ministry provides. At the same time, when you want to expand teacher training, you are asking for additional funding. The ministry says that is not possible and that no extra money will be allocated for it. I understand that Tallinn University has even threatened to take the ministry to court.

I personally hope and believe that it will not come to that, as far as going to court is concerned. I would separate this into two aspects.

One is the legal dimension — what obligations can actually be imposed on a university through an administrative contract? It is a fundamental question: if we have our own law that defines the areas in which we operate and if there is a funding model established for universities that sets out how they are financed, can an administrative contract then impose restrictive additional burdens?

The second aspect is substantive — the broader issue of legal education in Estonia. Our position is that concentrating it within a single institution is not necessarily in the best interest of the Estonian state. At one point, we sought to develop this in cooperation with Tallinn University of Technology, although at present that no longer appears likely to materialize.

Why?

Because it genuinely requires additional resources and Tallinn University of Technology is not a social sciences and humanities–oriented university in the way that Tallinn University is. Still, I believe it would be necessary from the perspective of the Estonian state.

Ultimately, we are talking about marginal numbers. We may admit around 20 students a year to law studies, while in total we admit about 2,000 students annually. It is marginal in financial terms as well. This is more a matter of principle and indeed about what is better for Estonia.

Speaking of legal professionals, we know that in the field of law it is very difficult for universities to find lecturers because they can earn very high salaries in other sectors, as attorneys or prosecutors. It is hard to attract them to an academic institution. If legal education is offered at multiple universities, doesn't that dilute the already limited pool of lecturers even further? On the one hand, students are given the option of studying in Tallinn or Tartu, but on the other hand, finding qualified teaching staff is very difficult for both. Could there be mutual agreements — that one institution gives up something and the other does the same — or is that simply never possible with the University of Tartu?

No, we actually have very good cooperation with University of Tartu, for example in teacher education and educational sciences. For more than 15 years, we have had strong collaboration, joint projects and everything has worked very well. Cooperation and competition are balanced and I believe this could serve as a model in other fields as well.

As for the specific issue of duplication and the claim that it makes things more expensive, we do not agree with that. If there are five students per lecturer or 50 students per lecturer, one model is 10 times less expensive than the other, since the core cost is still faculty salaries. Because there are many applicants who wish to study law and also a significant demand for legal professionals, it makes no difference in that sense whether they are educated in Tartu or Tallinn.

In addition, our faculty profile is somewhat different. In our law program, we make extensive use of practitioners from courts and law firms and I believe that is very important. This is also a way for them to give back. They are not seeking the same compensation they receive at their law firms; they are willing to teach for lower pay. It is similar to career changers who teach in schools — they are not doing it for the money. They do it to develop themselves in a different environment and to pass on their knowledge to others.

This is a very complicated issue. One thing is what people want to study and another is the actual demand for those graduates and their work. As I understand it, law graduates are among those who we can often meet at the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It's a difficult question because a young person wants to study and we cannot really impose restrictions. We can try to guide them. I never told my own children at home what they should or should not study, even if I felt they might have chosen something else. It's not my place to decide for them — a young person has to make that decision themselves. But five years later, the situation may not look so good and there may be regrets. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily right.

I would say that you are right. I very much agree. If we look at the current debate on higher education funding and what we supposedly need or do not need, the argument often revolves around "societal needs" or what "society" wants. But what exactly is society in this context?

In reality, we are mainly talking about two parties: what the Ministry of Education and Research wants and what employers want. Yet young people themselves are almost entirely left out of this discussion.

We can certainly guide and motivate them to some extent, but we cannot force them. It is not the case that we can create 100 additional study places and expect students to enroll against their will — that simply does not happen. Looking ahead, if we consider where the additional 2,000 high school graduates should go — whether into professional higher education or an academic university — I believe we need to listen much more carefully to their voices and their preferences.

No one knows what the future will bring. The Ministry of Education and Research does not know. Employers do not know either; they tend to focus on today or at most tomorrow, not on what will happen in three, five or 10 years. And universities do not know either.

As a journalist, it sometimes seems to me that employers have become one of the most influential groups in Estonia. At times it even feels as though employers are wiser than universities and the Ministry of Education put together because they are the ones who need the workforce.

Naturally, they stand up for their interests and have every right to do so. We take that into account as well — it is not as though universities operate purely in their own interests. In reality, we do consider the needs of employers and the state, as well as what the Ministry of Education and Research tells us.

I do not see a major conflict there. However, I do think that the freedom to allow young people to choose and to shape what we teach, which fields we offer and in what volume has somewhat receded into the background.

Current Tallinn University Rector Tõnu Viik wrote an opinion piece on the ERR portal last spring in which, as I understood it, his main message was: give us funding. We at the university will decide for ourselves — that is academic freedom. We will teach what we want and admit whom we want and it is no one else's business. Isn't that an extreme position?

That is not academic freedom, but university autonomy. And in my view, framing it that way is not entirely accurate — nor did Tõnu Viik put it quite like that.

The issue is not that universities simply want more money. The issue is that universities advocate for a more educated Estonian society and for a greater number of highly educated people in Estonia. If universities do not stand up for that, then who will?

It is understandable that universities need resources to fulfill their mission. At the same time, it cannot be the case that universities are told they must do certain things and they are willing to do them, but are given no means to carry them out.

But the ministry says: do this, admit students to these specific fields and we will provide funding for it. So what is really the issue? Why are the administrative contracts dragging on?

I think the situation may be somewhat overstated. Even the issue of legal education is marginal in the current state of the administrative contract negotiations. The core issue is sustainable funding.

We see that over the next four years, the number of young people eligible for higher education will increase by nearly 20 percent. I believe everyone in Estonia understands that this represents a tremendous opportunity. We know what our demographic situation looks like and this is the last upward wave we should make the most of. I think there is broad agreement that if that additional 20 percent attains higher education, they will ultimately be better able to support our pension system than if they do not. In that sense, it is an investment and the state should invest accordingly.

The key point is that an administrative contract is an agreement between the Ministry of Education and Research and the universities under which universities assume certain obligations. However, the ministry says it cannot guarantee that it will fully fund those commitments. For example, would you agree to sign a three-year employment contract if the other party said they could not promise to pay you for it? That is the heart of the issue.

The solution lies in the state budget strategy, but that will not be adopted until the fall.

That is not a solution.

No, it is not a solution, but it would at least be an indication. At the moment, however, there is no such indication and that is why universities do not see it as reasonable to assume additional obligations under these conditions — not even for activities they are already carrying out.

At the same time, we know that in next year's state budget, funding for higher education has actually been reduced rather than increased.

Yes, it is even decreasing in nominal terms. What happens then? The current administrative contracts remain valid through 2025. Will it even be possible to conclude new contracts for the following years during 2026?

I believe it will be possible and I think some kind of solution has to be found. We probably need to do a better job of explaining our position. Up to now, the additional funding provided through administrative contracts has essentially been back pay, because universities had not received increased funding for seven years and we know what inflation was like, at times reaching 20 percent per year. For example, the first year's increase went entirely toward covering heating bills and nothing reached faculty salaries.

Now the number of potential students is growing and, in my view, the worst possible outcome would be that funding is not provided and they are unable to enter university.

If you are a parent with five very talented children, in the past all five would have been admitted. Now only four are admitted and the fifth is not, simply because there is no funding. When it comes to university financing, we must recognize that this is not an expense but a clear investment in the future. On the one hand, these individuals receive an education that enables them to shape society, create jobs and develop ideas we may not even be able to imagine today. On the other hand, economic analyses show that every euro invested in higher education yields €7 to €10 in the long term. That is a very solid return on investment.

Every representative of a sector who has come on this program says more or less the same thing — starting with public health advocates: if you put one extra euro into our field, we'll generate two in return.

But in this case, there is also another side that can be demonstrated retrospectively. On the one hand, there is the contribution highly educated people make to society. On the other hand, they also represent lower public expenditure, because their healthy life expectancy is longer and they rely less on social benefits.

This is borne out by evidence — it is not simply a matter of each sector's representative coming forward and making the same claim.

Is there no longer any reason to talk about consolidating universities in 2026? Has that train left the station and will we still have the same number of universities in Estonia 25 years from now as we do today? Because of demographics, student numbers will increase in the coming years, but after that it is all downhill. We clearly need to think now about what will happen to Estonia's higher education institutions in 10, 15 or 20 years. Why should a young person pursue a doctorate if they know everything is contracting? Is merging universities completely off the table? Is there no longer any need to act?

With any such issue, the first question we need to ask is: what is the goal?

If we speak purely in financial terms, the goal would be to determine whether consolidation would generate savings or not. Is it worth calculating, for example, whether merging the Baltic Film, Media and Arts School — part of Tallinn University — with the Estonian Academy of Arts would bring financial benefits? Since your profile is largely in the humanities, would a merger with the Academy of Arts generate gains or not? That seems like something that could at least be discussed.

Within the Baltic Film, Media and Arts School, we have considerably more than just film and media, including teacher education, which is an area of responsibility for Tallinn University.

But in principle, art teachers could also be trained at the Academy of Arts, so there might be some room for savings there as well.

We are already doing that in cooperation. We have two joint curricula: we train music teachers in cooperation with the Estonian Academy of Music and Theater and art teachers in cooperation with the Estonian Academy of Arts. That collaboration works very well.

In that sense, I agree that mergers could have two objectives: one is economic savings and the other is achieving a greater societal impact together than separately.

However, I do not believe that either objective would be realized at present, given that we have six public universities that are already relatively well established in terms of their profiles. And as I mentioned earlier, simply transferring 20 students from one university to another does not make educating them any cheaper. In that sense, I am not convinced that such consolidation would bring meaningful benefits.

Did Tallinn University raise the fees for students who failed to complete the required number of credits within a year? There was some kind of recent increase, wasn't there?

There have been some minor increases. The system itself is quite interesting: figuratively speaking, students pay for something they do not receive. From the beginning, I have found that somewhat contradictory.

The idea behind it is to motivate students to study more consistently. I understand how it emerged with the 2013 tuition-free higher education reform: those who focus fully on their studies can study free of charge, while those who study alongside work and do not complete a full course load are expected to pay.

In many areas — for example, in teacher education — we have abolished this requirement altogether. It is not as simple as saying that someone works and therefore cannot study. Many students today struggle to study because they simply do not have the financial means. Tuition is only one part of a student's total living expenses. If they cannot afford housing and then also have to pay a penalty for missing credits, that can feel somewhat unfair.

How much did the penalty increase?

Typically, it cannot increase by more than 10 percent per year. I do not recall the exact figure, but it is somewhere in the range of €35 to €40 per credit.

Do social sciences and humanities students work alongside their studies more than engineering or STEM students? Have there been any studies on this? As a humanities-oriented university, is yours struggling more in that respect?

It is possible that they work more, but I do not think it is directly related to being in the humanities. For example, all of our natural sciences students at the bachelor's level already work as schoolteachers. One hundred percent of those studying natural sciences at the master's level are working as teachers, which in itself is very positive.

We have created flexible study options. Our two-year master's curriculum has been extended to three years so that students do not incur penalty fees and can teach and study at the same time. Indeed, more than 85 percent of our master's students are working while they study.

So I do not think this is purely a field-specific issue. There are likely many other factors at play, including our location in Tallinn.

I'm asking because in the new administrative contracts, the ministry wants to tie funding more closely to on-time graduation. Is that a bigger concern for your university than for others?

In fact, that is already the case. University funding consists of several components and only 80 percent is so-called untied funding based on the previous year's allocation. It is not true that the ministry has no say at all. Seventeen percent is tied to performance indicators agreed upon with the ministry — one of which is the proportion of students graduating within the nominal period — and an additional 3 percent depends on fulfilling the administrative contract. So in reality, only 80 percent of funding is unconditional, while 20 percent is conditional.

On-time graduation is always a double-edged issue. On the one hand, of course we would like students to focus solely on their studies — that would be ideal and both you and I were once able to do exactly that. But life today is different. I believe one of the biggest shortcomings of the higher education reform at the time was that it did not sufficiently take real-life circumstances into account. We cannot expect students to study full time if we do not ensure adequate social support.

That is why on-time graduation is complicated. On the one hand, we want students to complete their degrees within the nominal period. On the other hand, it may mean they perform worse academically because they feel pressured to finish as quickly as possible. If they had a bit more time, they might achieve better results. Often it is not even within the student's control — they may want to graduate on time, but they cannot, because they have so many other obligations.

Has that also become an issue in the administrative contract negotiations?

I would not say so. I do not think it is a significant point of contention — certainly not. I believe we will reach common ground on that. We agree with the ministry on about 99 percent of the issues.

I also understand the ministry's position. If the state budget is adopted on a one-year basis, they cannot make firm commitments for three years ahead. Universities also have an interest in students graduating within the nominal period. We simply recognize that there are many different reasons why that does not always happen and the problem cannot be solved by imposing stricter requirements alone.

Let's talk about you personally. You have been part of Tallinn University's leadership for a long time. As rector, what would you reform — things you may have observed for decades and thought, "If I were rector, I would do this differently"? What are those things?

First, I will mention what was already my goal as vice rector for academic affairs, when I was responsible for organizing teaching at the university. I strongly wanted our studies to become more interdisciplinary, to give students more opportunities to choose courses across fields and to work together.

We introduced interdisciplinary innovation projects — known as ELU projects — where students from different disciplines come together to solve real-life problems. That is very important and these transferable skills are becoming increasingly valuable. If we speak about those all-powerful employers, they also place great emphasis on a person's ability to collaborate, express themselves and solve complex problems — not just to be a narrow specialist in one field.

As for what motivated me to run for rector — these are areas beyond the authority of a vice rector for academic affairs. Internally, one issue is the overall learning environment. I feel that our study environment is not sufficiently student-friendly. We lack spaces on campus where students can simply sit, discuss ideas and engage in informal learning. That is something we clearly need to develop.

Another issue is our academic work organization. I see that we are adding more and more rules that need to be followed, while offering less motivation and freedom for people to focus on what they are truly strongest at. The best results usually come when individuals are able to work in their areas of greatest strength.

Of course, we also face challenges common to all universities, particularly those related to artificial intelligence. AI is fundamentally transforming higher education, research and society as a whole. And finally, there is the question of how we can more directly realize our societal impact through cooperation with organizations outside the university. Those are certainly some of the key themes.

The president said yesterday that people are increasingly reluctant to express their opinions because angry backlash tends to follow. It seems to me that this is becoming more noticeable among researchers as well — they are hesitant to speak out on broader societal issues that are not directly related to their specific field. They are told, "Why are you commenting? This isn't your area." Is that a concern?

I do believe it is a concern — both when it comes to broader societal topics and to issues within one's own field. Our culture of public debate could be considerably more respectful. The media could also facilitate dialogue between different parties in a more constructive way.

No one should assume bad intentions on the part of others; more often, it is simply a matter of differing views. Disagreements do not have to become hostile or personal — they can remain within the bounds of civil discussion. I agree with the president that if we build our society on division, it may ultimately backfire in the long run. Many people who have something valuable to contribute choose not to speak out because they do not want to face personal criticism or negative emotions.

After Donald Trump came to power and developments began unfolding around American universities, there was talk — including from President Toomas Hendrik Ilves — about inviting those researchers to Estonia. Has Tallinn University sent any invitations or taken steps in that direction?

No, we have not. Estonian universities have discussed the matter at the level of the Rectors' Council and the key issue is resources — bringing researchers here is quite expensive. If there were a specific funding measure to support this, it might be more feasible.

For many years now, we have been operating under budget constraints. Rather than recruiting additional staff, we have often had to ask people to seek opportunities elsewhere. Of course, there is an interest in attracting talent from abroad, but we are not particularly competitive compared with other Western European countries.

Many people have pointed out that in Western universities, things have gotten out of hand in terms of freedom of expression — that certain viewpoints clearly dominate and are allegedly imposed on others. Is that really a problem?

That relates to academic freedom, and in my view, Estonian universities are doing very well in that respect.

What about Western universities? Are there institutions in the West where it could be said that there are problems with freedom of expression?

I would not say the issue is freedom of expression as such. Rather, in some places, institutions may attract or cluster people who hold broadly similar views. That can become problematic in itself.

That is precisely why it is important to have diverse educational institutions — including here in Estonia — so that there is intellectual variety and space for different perspectives.

Presumably, the biggest problem is among scholars in the humanities. It's a broader field — there are probably no major disputes among mathematicians, but among humanities scholars there are likely many more.

There have been very serious disputes and conflicts among mathematicians, physicists and other natural scientists as well. They may simply not escalate to the institutional level in the same way.

Just not on ideological grounds?

No, not on ideological grounds and not in a way that rises to the institutional level.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!