o carte, o idee

metamorfoza valorilor românești a anului 2010 parcurge același drum ca în multe alte țări în anii 1960 - citat din Rezsohazy, Rudolf (2006) [2008]. Sociologia valorilor. Iași, Editura Institutul European. Traducere de Ioana Opaiț. pp.115-117 ”revoltele din campusurile americane, protestele împotriva războiului din Vietnam, Mai 1968 în Franța și în alte părți (în special în Germania) vizualizează brusc problemele care sunt în incubație și care stau la baza schimbărilor care aveau să urmeze. Sistemele de valori predominante sunt sfidate. În interacțiunea ”păstrătorilor” și a ”inovatorilor”, primii (puterile din politică, din întreprinderi, din școli, din familii) opun o rezistență care nu e foarte fermă, astfel încât inovatorii reușesc să răspândească modul lor de a gândi și de a se comporta. Dar care sunt problemele? În anii 60, o nouă generație, născută după război, ajunge la vârsta la care tinerii își pun întrebări (nu toți, desigur, ci cei care se exprimă, care dau tonul, care au inițiativa, care marchează evoluția). Aceasta nu a cunoscut războiul mondial, suferințele și lipsurile lui. Este invitat să intre într-o societate care se desfășoară ”normal” și care este în plină expansiune. Dar această societate nu îi propune niciun proiect colectiv mobilizator, așa cum pentru antemergătorii acestei generații fuseseră rezistența sau reconstrucția. Această societate este, în exprimarea lui Riesman, ”subsolicitată emoțional”. Nimeni și nimic nu îi solicită energiile. Or ea nu acceptă fără a proba propunerea de a își lua locul în ”sistem”, de a acționa ca mama și ca tata înaintea ei. Mulți părinți sunt dezorientați. Ei au obiceiuri, dar le lipsesc adesea convingerile. Nu sunt nici măcar în stare să explice motivația atitudinilor și valorilor lor. Criza educației constă de atunci în absența unei imagini sigure oferite de adulți. Aceștia nu își asumă un leadership credibil, ca înainte. Comunicare între generații se face plecând de la două experiențe total diferite: cea a părinților s-a acumulat în timpul războiului, cea a copiilor în plină societate de consum. De aici, neînțelegerile. Când părinții gândesc și judecă luându-și tinerețea ca punct de referință, când încep cu o frază cu ”pe vremea mea”, schimbul devine imposibil.” ”un refuz exprimat de tineri (...) un refuz al autorității, oriunde se manifestă aceasta: în familie, la școală, în politică (...) este refuzul sclerozei universitare, al birocrației și al ierarhiilor (...) al clasei politice. Este o contestare generală, o ”silă” universală, o revoltă împotriva monotoniei vieții, a faimoasei rutine ”servici-casă-somn. Dezvoltarea economică nu a dat un sens vieții. Formele democratice practicate nu au solicitat un sentiment intim al libertății. Dreptatea și egalitatea proclamate oficial contrazic realitatea. (...) Nu este interzis să credem că ruptura care dă la iveală problemele se produce între generații: valorile celor mai în vârstă nu mai trec la cei tineri. Tinerii aspiră la o altă viață, la alte moduri de a gândi, de a simți, de a se purta. Criza văzută în termeni macroeconomici conduce la o formulare asemănătoare: ruptura s-a produs, pe de-o parte, între capacitățile de producție ale economiei și ale societății de consum căreia i-a dat naștere (opera ”eroică” a celor mai în vârstă), și cultură, pe de altă parte, mai ales valorile și aspirațiile (dezvoltate de tiner). Miza care se conturează este cât se poate de generală: este vorba despre scopul și natura societății înseși” nu suntem noi aici? suntem noi aceștia? nu credem noi acestea? nu simțim noi acestea?

happiness and where to look for it

for romania's national day and the bday of one of my sisters-in-law , my family gathered. lots of noise, happiness (or maybe wanna-be feeling of happiness: we always think we should be happy if we are together, if we rationally decide it is a moment for being happy)food and ... searching :D coming back home to my eldest's brother house, i started thinking about me in 10 years. where will i be, what will i be doing, how will i be happy? i tried to understand if i see my life at least a bit similar to his. i realised the answer is rather negative, so again, i started asking why...why different? we come from the same family, we have more or less the same values etc, maybe the only thing that aparts us is the educational opportunities and the times we lived. so, are these two aspects so important that can produce two different lifestyles? i guess this question will find an answer in 12 years, when i'll be the age of my brother but anyways, coming back to happiness, because we all want to create that kind of life that makes us happy, many times we try to create contexts that we think can lead us to feeling good, feeling happy. we are deeply dissappointed when we find out this feeling doesn't appear, so we try again to look for happiness somewhere else, as, of course, it's always because of something that we're not happy...but what if we think of what exactly makes us happy when we experience the feeling? is it the new curtain? the great hotel room or the trip to lapland? or is it the enthusiasm, the intrinsic value of us being happy with ourselves, with our life and decisions that makes us increase the level of our happiness? is it the environment, or the way we connect with that environment - meaning place, people, ideas? where should i look for happiness when everything is tearing apart, when u find no solution and no hope? my answer? in myself and in my power to smile even though i'm in a way forcing myself to do it. and why is that smile authentic? because it comes from my justified wish to create a smiling network, a chain-reaction based on sincerity - an impulse to smile when someone else smiles at you, something that you cannot explain through more than saying "i smile cause he smiled". what is there more authentic than this relation? i guess i define this giving-back moment as the greatest one of authentic happiness and even though i'm tired and my back hurts, i send a huge smile to all those of you who are there to reach it

what about tomorrow?

the story of how to build tomorrow wisely

in the last two days I've been participating in a very interesting and challenging conference and I'd like to put down some ideas for fear of losing them and, if possible, for getting some input. yesterday's topic referred to finding a strategy for increasing competitiveness among romanian students, debate which involved stakeholders from the public, private and non-profit arenas. here are some issues that caught my attention or were simply raised in/by my mind:

• it's said that we have lots more students in university today compared to 10-20 years ago. however, the big number of graduates is a "fake"one, as it is produced by an assessment process guided by the idea that we need to keep all or almost all the students in the university in order to make it a sustainable system. the result? very low quality of the graduates, of the labor force, of the future teachers, professors and leaders. not only that we are easy in the selection for entering the university (aspect that could be solved by a strict and demanding system once one got in), but it goes on until the student finishes, moment when the university is trying to persuade him/her to remain inside the organisation for continuing the studies. why? because if the number of less competent students give up, there will be fewer paying the taxes, therefore the system dies...result? higher education for mass, double or triple degree, overspecialization and unemployment due to the high amount of young "fake"professionals. the problem of opportunity for all is one that most of the ones present agreed on, but I believe this does not oppose to the quality. promote higher education among all, set it as a value, but education should be understood as knowledge, competence and attitude... solution? invest in inclusion and equality of opportunity projects AND rebuild the colleges!

• startinternship.ro

• how much should we direct the university programmes and the curricula towards the market's demand? what are the risks and the opportunities? what is the national context and the evolution in the last 20 years? what is the role of the state in setting the educational agenda? is it the market, the state, the student or all these actors together that should be involved in forming the curricula? I believe that if it is only the market that has a word in this it could become too adventurous, unequal, centered on profit-making activities and consumerism. However, once the capitalism paradigm moves towards a less profit-oriented and a more lack-of-poverty type, encouraging Muhammad Yunus' model of social business, I trust the market will be able to have a fair and moral negociation with the university. Until then, the state should facilitate the conversation between the university and the private sector for increasing the stability and sustenability of the programmes, while the students should have a wide variety of courses to choose as optionals. This way, you also empower the student and make him/her aware of the responsibility for their own future. solutions? negotiations with the private sector- involve it in the university senate, guvernmental facilitation regarding the trends and the objectives based on research, greater course offer for the students.

• autonomy does not imply lack of respect for the student! if university X promised a programme or a course, keep your promise! do not make changes during the year, do not dissappoint the students, as you represent the first institution following the family that builds the individual and forms his/her values!

• quality can not be measured from the inside; do not hire your own graduates as teachers! if you want to measure your results get them free and see where are they able to fly!

• we keep saying that we don't do and don't have as many internship offers as we should have...check how did the internship market looked like 15 years ago and please stop complaining! yes, we don't have enough internships for all the students today..but maybe we do not need so many students, but only the best ones! equality of opportunity included! :)

• sometimes, the medium is more important than the content...

today's subject consisted in reestablishing the vision, the mission and the strategic objectives of the organisation. here are some conclusions that I reached during the discussions:

• early education matters! we still need to learn to repects ourselves and the others and we need to do it today! - pay attention to reactions, giving time for others to express their ideas and accept them, respect the timetable etc.

• we still need to learn working as a team, to harmonise our actions and "walk" in the same direction

• we need to learn how to start an organisation: vision, mission (which involves the target group), strategy (long, medium and short term), division of departments and setting the short and medium term agenda with concrete projects/programmes; more importantly, start acting today!

• more than talking about huge projects, we need to start doing the small ones that will lead us to the huge one one day...but have always in mind your goal!

• what do we need in Romania today? I believe we don't really lack the initiative, but we need more long-time acting on each problem. I believe we need innovative methods and sustainable moves (see social business). We also need a national civic symbol that could get the vote one day and this could only be done through civic action and networking. My soution? structured, simultaneous movements that share the same vision and follow three stages: development from below, development from above (that is based on the support of the previous) and development from outside (diaspora) - what can diaspora do for the country? start social businesses for developing the country overall, finance the above movement that focuses on advocacy, networking, dissemination and facilitates the communication with romanians abroad. build a long term strategy and gain the power based on your results!