Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
Connect With Us
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Find opportunities that are right for you to continue your education outside your home country.
Connect With Us
© 2025 Freedom Degree
Freedom Degree, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. © 2025 | Powered by Strapi
Sep 01, 2025
Sergei Guriev is one of the most successful contemporary Russian academics, having built a global career in both research and academic management. In this interview, he shares his personal experience, offers advice to young scholars, and reflects on the development of the education market.
You lived in Paris for many years, where you served as Provost of Sciences Po, and then moved to London to head the London Business School (LBS). How do you find it here? What are the main differences between London and Paris—for both life and academic work?
For me, London was not a surprise—I had already lived here before. But even by European standards, this city is unique. It has an extraordinary number of newcomers: about 40% of its residents were born outside the UK, and in the area where I live that figure is closer to 60%. That makes London a place where everyone feels at home. This sets it apart from Paris and most other European capitals. Moreover, London is both a business capital and an academic hub. It hosts world-class universities such as the London School of Economics, Imperial College, UCL, and the London Business School. In the US there are, of course, more strong universities, but they are scattered across the country, whereas in the UK their concentration in one city creates a unique environment. Also, the proportion of international students at leading US universities is lower. At Harvard, for example, it is about 30%, which by British standards is not very high.
For many Russian scholars, integrating into a new environment is difficult. With your name and academic reputation, how did you go through this period? Or did you also feel what is sometimes called the “resetting of social capital”?
In academia, this is felt differently. I am an economist, and economics is a very international discipline. All articles are written in English and published in the same journals—whether you are in Moscow, Paris, or San Francisco. From this perspective, a scholar remains a scholar anywhere in the world. But there is another side: economists often want to influence economic and social policy. That is easier where you understand the context, the cultural specifics, and where you have connections. So in France or the UK, my weight in policy discussions is smaller than it might have been in Russia. That is completely normal. Of course, some social capital is lost. But in terms of maintaining connections and networks, London and Paris now host many colleagues from Russia after 2022.
What was the most difficult part of this integration for you?
In France, it was necessary to learn French. When I was just a professor, it was possible to live without speaking French, since for a professor the ability to speak the language was not so critical. Although, for quality of life in Paris, it is better to know French—to buy food in a store, order at a restaurant, talk with parents or children’s friends, attend a parent–teacher meeting. But later I became the Provost of Sciences Po, and therefore was responsible for administration. In that role, of course, one needs to speak French, and that was very challenging.
Interestingly, there are also many French people in London. Before Brexit, it was even considered the second-largest French-speaking city in the world after Paris. France is the UK’s closest neighbor and a very important country, so French is a useful language in any case.
Speaking about academia: how does academic life in European universities differ?
The New Economic School in Russia, where I worked, was built on the same principles as American, British, and leading European universities. There were also other institutions in Russia that aspired to be part of the international academic community, and they operated according to the same standards.
The main difference lies in the student body. Even in the most international Russian universities, students were predominantly from Russia. By contrast, in Europe, the UK, and the US, many institutions—especially top universities such as Sciences Po, the Paris School of Economics, or Harvard—attract large numbers of international students. This international diversity in the classroom, on the one hand, makes the professor’s job more challenging, as it is harder to appeal to a shared cultural code. On the other hand, it provides students with richer opportunities to learn about the world. This makes the educational experience more diverse: students learn not only from the professor but also from one another.
How protected are scholars in Europe and the US compared to Russia — in terms of academic freedom and job security?
In the United States, there is a tenure system: once a professor receives it, it is almost impossible to dismiss them, including for their views. In the United Kingdom, it is the same—dismissing a professor is extremely difficult. At the New Economic School (NES) in Russia, we had a similar status—tenure track, tenure professor. However, in Russia, how should I put it, no one is truly protected from anything, even if many things are guaranteed on paper.
That is why, of course, the main protection for a professor is precisely the ability to leave. When I spoke with my colleagues in Russia, I always told them that the fact that we are scholars of international standing is what protects us from threats or from being forced to do things that go against our understanding of professional integrity. As long as there is international competition for academics, this serves as a safeguard for scholars, wherever they may be.
This probably applies more to scholars with an established international reputation. But how do you generally assess Russian professors who emigrate? How competitive are they on average?
I think that those Russian professors who, even while in Russia, were already part of the international academic community, understand well how that community is organized and what rules it operates by. Universities here do not look at passports—they look at publications. If you have articles in international journals, you are competitive. If not, it is difficult—and this applies not only to Russians but also to French or German scholars.
The problem is that there are very few available positions. Unfortunately, there is also the issue of PhD overproduction, especially in Europe. Most graduate scholarships are funded by governments, and many countries simply produce far more PhDs than the number of new professorships created. Therefore, it is not surprising that such positions are very hard to obtain.
As you recall, in 2022 several programs and initiatives emerged, the largest of which was the Fyodor Stepun Scholarship Program, organized by the Zimin Foundation and the Boris Nemtsov Foundation. They brought together displaced scholars and helped them prepare grant applications, CVs, and publications. In other words, it was clear that this was not the strongest area for many Russian professors and researchers. In your view, how widespread is this problem among Russian academics, and how much has it hindered their international integration?
I remember those programs well—I also helped to build and participate in them. And I am very grateful to the donors who assisted people in leaving. But one must understand, as I have already said, that there are many different kinds of scholars and professors. For many, such support was unnecessary.
To be specific, Russia has a very large number of universities, and most of them, unfortunately, are not part of the international system. In 2013, Russia launched the “Top-100” initiative under the “Project 5-100” program to increase the global competitiveness of its leading universities. As far as I know, that goal was not achieved, and in 2020 the program was closed. Still, the level of ambition itself shows that the number of Russian universities of truly international standing can be counted on the fingers of one or two hands.
If we look at the entire universe of Russian higher education, the universities that operate by international standards and rules are actually very few. And how many people emigrated from those institutions, compared to how many left universities outside the international system, is hard to assess—and I don’t think anyone really knows.
If we return to the topic of PhD overproduction, does this occur in certain specific fields, or is it more of a general trend?
Indeed, it often occurs in the social sciences. However, I am not too concerned about it, because people with PhDs also go on to work in business, government, and NGOs. Although the process of writing a dissertation is costly for society, it provides very valuable experience that, one way or another, finds application.
Moreover, people sometimes exaggerate the number of candidates per professorship. For example, they may say: look, here’s a professorship that was announced, and 600 people applied. That is true. But one should remember that the same 600 people also applied for the second position, and the third, and the fourth, and so on. Applying today for positions such as Assistant Professor or Lecturer is very easy. All applications are online, and they cost nothing. The same applies to PhD programs themselves: you submit many applications at once. So the ratio is not really 600 to one, but something quite different. Nevertheless, there are still a great many candidates.
There is now frequent discussion in the media about how higher education no longer delivers the same returns in terms of quality of life and income as it once did—especially in the United States, where the cost of higher education is the highest. The situation has emerged where people in applied professions without university degrees can earn much more, without having to repay student loans. What do you think?
The wealthiest universities, however, often say: if you are a good student, we have the money for you. Truly talented students always have opportunities to secure scholarships. This applies to international students as well, including in the US, where tuition fees are far higher compared to Europe.
In America, higher education still remains an important marker of social and economic success. Your salary increases by about 10% for each year of study. In other words, after four years it will be 40–50% higher. In addition, your social status will be elevated, and your job more interesting. It is very expensive, but people still want to study.
There is a separate market where I am currently working: business education. Here the situation is indeed more difficult. In the past, an MBA degree would triple your salary; today, it merely doubles it, which makes the financial equation more problematic. Furthermore, with the rise of artificial intelligence, not all MBA graduates—even from top programs—are finding jobs. Last year was particularly tough. To give a rough idea: among graduates of Harvard’s MBA program, 77% found employment. At other leading schools such as ours at LBS or at Wharton, the figure is around 85–87%, whereas in the past it used to be above 90%.
We have touched upon global trends in education, but what is happening in Russia against this backdrop? What will happen to Russian science and to those who would like to integrate into the international academic community, given the changes of recent years? These changes include the abandonment of the Bologna system, the mass migration of faculty, and the designation of many foreign universities and educational institutions—including the British Council—as “undesirable.”
Well, you know, Russian students were able to enter foreign universities even before the Bologna system. However, when applying for a Master’s or PhD program, the most important factors are letters of recommendation and mentoring. It is much easier for a Russian student to gain admission when there is a professor in Russia who understands how these Western universities operate and can write a proper recommendation. Today, however, nearly all such professors have left, because if you want to be part of international academia, there is no place for you in Moscow. It is impossible to live in Russia now and continue to do competitive research. Professionally, it is a dead end. Only a handful remain in a few isolated universities.
Imagine working at an international university and suddenly receiving applications from students in North Korea. You realize you have no idea how the educational system there is structured. Which institutions are actually good? Which professors truly know their subject? Since those professors do not publish in international journals, it is impossible to tell. That is now what Russia looks like. On the one hand, some universities may still carry a reputation, but on the other, their faculty have departed and the institutions themselves have begun teaching questionable material. In short, it has all become very complicated.
Just recently, the International Baccalaureate Foundation was declared an “undesirable” organization in Russia. This is highly significant. The International Baccalaureate (IB) operates at the school level, granting an additional international diploma alongside the local one, which enabled young people to apply directly to universities abroad, including in the UK, for bachelor’s programs. The IB exists not only in Russia but in over 5,000 schools across 150 countries. Now this will no longer be possible in Russia. In effect, the Russian authorities are committing an intellectual genocide of their young generation. And naturally, the same is happening at every stage of academic training. Each such blow that cuts Russian education and science off from the outside world undermines both the productive capacity of Russian scholars and the opportunities available to Russian students.
Can the situation be repaired if the political course changes fundamentally?
Restoration is, of course, possible, but it would require decades and strong political will. Germany, after Nazism, never regained its status as a scientific superpower, while China, on the contrary, managed to build world-class universities in just 30 years. We can also see how, in the Middle East, many countries are building top-tier universities from scratch. For example, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia is a high-level institution. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals is also a leading technological university. Their megagrant program has, overall, been quite successful.
We can also see how education systems have developed very rapidly in South Korea and Singapore. So, yes, it is possible to bring people back, but it is also possible to build anew. There are many such examples. What is needed are megagrants and programs that send young people to study at top universities in the West—such as the “Global Education for Russians” program, through which the state sent more than 700 people abroad, or Kazakhstan’s “Bolashak” program.
How much time, in your estimation, would Russia need for such transformations?
International experience shows that with sufficient funding it usually takes around 20 years, since time is needed not only to train personnel but also to build reputation.
Therefore, if the will exists, much can be achieved—and even relatively quickly. It is a large country. Many people have left, but some of them may want to return. However, as the plumber in a Soviet joke once said: “The whole system needs to be changed!”
Have you encountered discrimination against Russian scholars in Europe? At Freedom Degree, for example, we have received appeals from Russian PhD students applying to European institutions, where the rules around restrictions on foreign students in certain disciplines are less transparent than in the UK or the US. In such cases, we clearly see discrimination: students are rejected with a formal reference to sanctions when the university simply does not want to deal with the additional bureaucratic procedures required in these cases.
I personally have not faced this. I worked as Chief Economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), held academic positions, and my wife also received a professorship in France. No one ever questioned our appointments because of nationality. There are, of course, sanctions against certain institutions—for example, MIPT (Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology) came under sanctions even before 2022. But that is not really discrimination; it is a matter of compliance. Universities and banks are obliged to verify whether candidates are affiliated with sanctioned organizations. For public figures like myself, this sometimes requires additional clarifications, but it is part of the procedure, not prejudice. And there is nothing specifically Russian about it. In my place, it could just as well have been a Frenchman, a Chinese scholar, or someone from the Middle East, for instance.
What advice would you give to students applying for Master’s or PhD programs abroad?
I can’t speak for the disciplines with sensitive components related to sanctions, but in the social sciences the story is the same everywhere. It is very important to have research ideas for your dissertation and to convince the university and professors that you will be a strong candidate on the academic job market in a few years.
You need to be clear about what you want and not be shy. Admissions committees compete for talented students. Universities are interested in their graduates succeeding, since that strengthens their reputation. So you should not think of it as them doing you a favor. You need to demonstrate your strengths, and then the university will be ready to offer you a scholarship or tuition discount. Whether you come from Russia, China, or India is, frankly, a secondary factor—if a factor at all. If you can convince the admissions committee that the university needs you, then the university will be interested in you.
You should focus on the merits of your candidacy. And, of course, you must perform well on English proficiency exams and all standardized tests. If you do that, everything will work out.