In 2020, education systems around the world faced unprecedented challenges. In just a few weeks, 95% of students across the planet were forced to switch to a distance or blended learning format. Universities really got into an emergency. Barriers have arisen to implement the model that schools and universities have been operating for centuries. Even 30 years ago, this situation would have meant only one thing - the complete cessation of the work of universities. It is no coincidence that in the history of higher education situations of military action, floods, epidemics have so far led either to the closure or to the territorial movement (evacuation) of universities. To ease the pandemic, it would also be easiest to close universities for quarantine.

But Russian universities, like their counterparts in many countries around the world, decided to continue working, albeit on a limited scale, to help students continue their education and even complete their studies. This situation has become a real “stress test” for the higher education system. To analyze how the system coped with this test, we organized this study and conducted sociological surveys of teachers and students (at several stages of the situation unfolding), interviewed university leaders, analyzed university cases on forced changes in basic processes in universities.

The main question of this study was how to maintain and improve the quality of education in Russian universities in the new conditions, which involve the transition to a hybrid model of education. To do this, it is necessary to have data on the state of the quality of higher education at the moment, to identify and systematize the best practices and tools to improve the quality of education in the current conditions, to help universities experiencing difficulties to master new tools for assessing and managing the quality of education. The question of the proven quality of education in the new conditions is becoming a key issue for the development of higher education.

As part of the study, methodological recommendations were proposed. Among them are the topics of using tools to improve the quality of educational results, including methodological recommendations for developing students' professional skills in online formats; using feedback from students to manage the quality of education; the use of pedagogical design tools for the design of educational programs in the new conditions; new forms of interaction with employers; use of digital tools for analytics and education quality management, etc.

The study included the collection of a large empirical base. A series of sociological surveys conducted in 3 waves in 2020 and 2021. The main focus of surveys is quality of education. The sample included: • 36 000 students • 24 000 faculty • 5 000 PhD Students The study also included an analysis of specific management practices and case studies that universities have undertaken to change educational and scientific activities in a pandemic. The author's model of the internal quality management system of higher education in the condition of the COVID-19 crisis was developed.

Based on the surveys, the following main theses were formulated about the impact of the pandemic on the students and teachers in Russian universities. 1) Attitude towards distance learning is normalizing: • 70% of students think, that distance learning has helped them to study more effectively • 50% of students prefer blended learning, and every fifth student would’ve liked to study fully online • 70% of teaching staff feel that blended learning will soon become ingrained in everyday lives 2) Complete online learning does not allow to provide quality education • Only 7% of students believe, that they can get better quality of education while studying fully online • Fewer than 10% of instructors are ready to transfer 75% of their classes online • Disciplinary context is important 3) No qualitative change in the area of teaching techniques and instructional design • Only 35% of instructors use web-based materials prepared by other organizations • Passive learning continues to prevail • Nearly 60% of students didn’t participate in extracurricular activities 4) Psychological well-being and mental health of students is at risk • Almost three quarters of students show signs of psychological distress: of these, about 20% show signs of moderate or severe depression. Based on the data and case studies, key challenges have been proposed. A model of the internal quality management system for higher education in the context of covid was also developed. Key challenges • hybrid formats have become standard, but new quality management tools have yet to be invented • The extracurricular activities of students is one of the most vulnerable areas in the new conditions • Work with risk groups requires special attention: freshmen, students from low-income families, foreign students, • Additional focus should be on the development of support systems to ensure a productive educational experience

•Salmi J. Covid’s lessons for global higher education [Electronic resource]. – 2020. – •Clark M., Moreland N. Sense-making and ISO 9000 in educational organizations // Research in post-compulsory education. – 1997. - Vol. 2. - № 1. - P. 29-45. •Harvey L., Williams J. Fifteen years of quality in higher education // Quality in Higher Education. – 2010. - № 16. - P. 3-36. •Leisyte L., Westerheijden D. F. Stakeholders and quality assurance in higher education // Drivers and barriers to achieving quality in higher education. - 2014. - P. 83-97. •Stensaker B. Trance, transparency and transformation: the impact of external quality monitoring on higher education // Quality in higher education. - 2003. - Vol. 9. - № 2. - P. 151-159. •Dill, D. D. Designing academic audit: lessons learned in Europe and Asia // Quality in Higher Education. - 2000. - Vol. 6. - № 3. •Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area (ESG) [Electronic resource]. - 2015. •Mohty M., Melo J. One year into the COVID-19 pandemic // Clinical Hematology International. - 2021. •OECD. A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) // OECD Publishing. - 2020. •Doolan K. Student life during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown Europe-wide insights // European Students’ Union. - 2021. •Digital Promise. A National survey of Undergraduates during the Covid-19 pandemic [Electronic resource]. – 2020. •Viberg O., Hatakka M., Bälter O., Mavroudi A. The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education // Computers in Human Behavior. – 2018. - Vol. 89. - P. 98-110. •Tsang J. T. Y., So M. K., Chong A. C., Lam B. S., Chu A. M. Higher education during the pandemic: the predictive factors of learning effectiveness in COVID-19 online learning // Education Sciences. – 2021. - Vol. 11. - № 8. - P. 1-15. •Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O., Toepper M. Assessment of student learning progress in higher education – methodological approaches and results. 2021 •Abramov R., Terentev E. Pandemic Effects on Russian Higher Education: Force Majeure Notes // Higher Education in Russia and Beyond. - 2020. - No. 27. - P. 23-24. •Gruzdev I., Shmeleva E. et al. Suddenly Online: How Russian Students Switched to Distance Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic, in: Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during COVID-19: International Perspectives and Experiences. / Routledge, 2022. – 226 p.