How Europe Fails Its Young

[John Uskglass]

How Europe fails its young
Sep 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition


The state of Europe's higher education is a long-term threat to its competitiveness

THOSE Europeans who are tempted, in the light of the dismal scenes in New Orleans this fortnight, to downgrade the American challenge should meditate on one word: universities. Five years ago in Lisbon European officials proclaimed their intention to become the world's premier “knowledge economy” by 2010. The thinking behind this grand declaration made sense of a sort: Europe's only chance of preserving its living standards lies in working smarter than its competitors rather than harder or cheaper. But Europe's failing higher-education system poses a lethal threat to this ambition.

Europe created the modern university. Scholars were gathering in Paris and Bologna before America was on the map. Oxford and Cambridge invented the residential university: the idea of a community of scholars living together to pursue higher learning. Germany created the research university. A century ago European universities were a magnet for scholars and a model for academic administrators the world over.

But, as our survey of higher education explains, since the second world war Europe has progressively surrendered its lead in higher education to the United States. America boasts 17 of the world's top 20 universities, according to a widely used global ranking by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. American universities currently employ 70% of the world's Nobel prize-winners, 30% of the world's output of articles on science and engineering, and 44% of the most frequently cited articles. No wonder developing countries now look to America rather than Europe for a model for higher education.

Why have European universities declined so precipitously in recent decades? And what can be done to restore them to their former glory? The answer to the first question lies in the role of the state. American universities get their funding from a variety of different sources, not just government but also philanthropists, businesses and, of course, the students themselves. European ones are largely state-funded. The constraints on state funding mean that European governments force universities to “process” more and more students without giving them the necessary cash—and respond to the universities' complaints by trying to micromanage them. Inevitably, quality has eroded. Yet, as the American model shows, people are prepared to pay for good higher education, because they know they will benefit from it: that's why America spends twice as much of its GDP on higher education as Europe does.

The answer to the second question is to set universities free from the state. Free universities to run their internal affairs: how can French universities, for example, compete for talent with their American rivals when professors are civil servants? And free them to charge fees for their services—including, most importantly, student fees.

Asia's learning

The standard European retort is that if people have to pay for higher education, it will become the monopoly of the rich. But spending on higher education in Europe is highly regressive (more middle-class students go to university than working-class ones). And higher education is hardly a monopoly of the rich in America: a third of undergraduates come from racial minorities, and about a quarter come from families with incomes below the poverty line. The government certainly has a responsibility to help students to borrow against their future incomes. But student fees offer the best chance of pumping more resources into higher education. They also offer the best chance of combining equity with excellence.

Europe still boasts some of the world's best universities, and there are some signs that policymakers have realised that their system is failing. Britain, the pacemaker in university reform in Europe, is raising fees. The Germans are trying to create a Teutonic Ivy League. European universities are aggressively wooing foreign students. Pan-European plans are encouraging student mobility and forcing the more eccentric European countries (notably Germany) to reform their degree structures. But the reforms have been too tentative.

America is not the only competition Europe faces in the knowledge economy. Emerging countries have cottoned on to the idea of working smarter as well as harder. Singapore is determined to turn itself into a “knowledge island”. India is sprucing up its institutes of technology. In the past decade China has doubled the size of its student population while pouring vast resources into elite universities. Forget about catching up with America; unless Europeans reform their universities, they will soon be left in the dust by Asia as well.

http://www.economist.com/displaySto...=5577062-460e58bc-b289-4141-b7fe-144e5bf6482c

Haha. Take that Sander, Kharn, Jebus and the rest of you Eurosexuals.

 

[frissy]

Don?t worry. I?ll still think yanks are stupid (and fat).
________
Justin Bieber Fan

 

[Brother None]

Interesting

Leiden Univ, the one I'll be going to, is regionally ranked #2 regional (#72 worldwide) (under Utrecht #41 worldwide)

Here's an alternative ranking, which equally puts the US at the top. Oddly enough it says the best Dutch uni is Erasmus, which is in my opinion...well...not. And Leiden is 131 under Eindhoven and Amsterdam!

Back on topic, that list puts the top 20 division to 11 to the US, 4 to the UK, one for Switzerland, one for Japan, one for Australia, one for China and one for Singapore. I suggest you read that article, in fact, it is of interest.

That said, US superiority in the academic level is an established fact, not something anyone is questioning and as hard to get by as the UK superiority in the European region.

Consider our experience with the line of thinking that shouts "Privatization = everything is solved!" I'm a bit doubtful as to how well privatization could "fix it all", tho'

PS: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005TOP500list.htm

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Haha lewl ur right!!11

Actually, you aren't. Quality of a university shouldn't be measured by the amount of founding it receives and the number of Nobel Prize winners it employs, but by the quality of its *students*. My university, which has but a fraction of the budget of an average American educational facility, boasts students who are among the finest and academically most accomplished in the world. For example, FER (the study I'm currently enrolled in) is currently 8th on TopCoder list of universities with best young programmers, which is a two-place drop compared to the 6th place we occupied last month. *That's* the real indicator of a university's quality.

 

[John Uskglass]

Uh, no, I don't think it is actually Ratty. That's literally impossible to measure, 'better students.' Might as well make up 'more ethical students' to try and defend your decrepid, diseased educational system. And it's not how much money the unviersity has alone, it's how many papers are cited, etc....you are grossly simplifying things.

Anyway, you are right Kharn, I don't think Privitization=t3h W3N here. Coming to America for schooling = t3h W3N.

 

[Brother None]

Universities aren't just there to teach students, Rats, they're also research facilities

Take a look at the methodology of that weirdname-univ:

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm#Meth1

Though it is interesting to note, then, that that study indeed is not so much about quality of education as student results are not factored in anywhere, just "how good is the staff" (50%, with only 10% for "quality of education"), the other 50% going to research and size

The Times article states the same doubts about using Nobel prizes as a measure of quality. Apart from that, it also notes those rankings measure heavily on "article published in Science and Nature", thus giving an emphasis to scientific studies (no wonder Utrecht is above Leiden). Times itself ranks by peer review, international faculty score, international student score, faculty/student score and citations/faculty score.

PS: actually, John, it's not that hard to measure better students, check the Times list, which has the London School of Economics with a 100/100 in international student score.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Uh, no, I don't think it is actually Ratty. That's literally impossible to measure, 'better students.'

As Kharn pointed out, it is very much possible.

Anyway, you are right Kharn, I don't think Privitization=t3h W3N here. Coming to America for schooling = t3h W3N.

Undergraduate and graduate engineering studies in America are pretty easy. I wouldn't mind going to USA to get post-graduate education, though, because it is superior to anything I have access to in Croatia.

Universities aren't just there to teach students, Rats, they're also research facilities

I know, I was pointing out that student accomplishments are another important factor that was (purposefully?) ignored in John's article. FER has always been the regional leader in terms of research, particularly in fields of cryptography, intelligent systems, pattern recognition and several other areas, though our scientific achievements have been relatively modest compared to what we *could* accomplish with better funding.

I miss communism.

 

[Jebus]

Hah, that article again.

It's funny how the entire academic world orgasms over some obscure and severely under-grounded study (dude, I know I completely translated that wrong. I meant they base themselves on woefully little sources and criteria, check their 'methodology' section) - by some obscure Chinese university called 'Shanghai Jiao Tong University,' and published on a saddingly amateuristic website.

But hey, don't we all love dumb statistics? Hey, Beligium has dropped two places to level 8 of best places to live! OH MY GOD LET'S DISSOLVE OUR GOVERNMENT


Anyway, let us - for a second - actually assume that study is worth cock shit. Then we get back to that age-old discussion that has been held so many times: America has 17 (apparenly) great universities, and almost all the rest are crap. Europe has tons of university, and while apparently scoring lower on the employs-ex-nobel-prize-winners scale, they are all of very reasonable quality - and therefore offer good higher education to more than only the elite.

This entire cliché is starting to bore me greatly. And anyone that argues that the average European is dumber than the average American, can still lick my little cornhole.

 

[Wooz]

This entire cliché is starting to bore me greatly.

Yeah. Along with all the complex-induced compensatory Justificating Arguments. Mechanically using economics and sociological studies to prove anything my imbecile brain has assumed as right!

As Koots once said on an entirely different debate, blocking out complications to a problem, an issue or a conflict is a direct consequence of wanting the world to be simple, and applying simplifications to it.

And anyone that argues that the average European is dumber than the average American, can still lick my little cornhole.

'S not what I'd call "little" anymore.

 

[John Uskglass]

Anyway, let us - for a second - actually assume that study is worth cock shit. Then we get back to that age-old discussion that has been held so many times: America has 17 (apparenly) great universities, and almost all the rest are crap. Europe has tons of university, and while apparently scoring lower on the employs-ex-nobel-prize-winners scale, they are all of very reasonable quality - and therefore offer good higher education to more than only the elite.

Uh...sorry, but that's actually not true at all. We have pleanty of good, not excellent, not hyper-expensive schools.

And anyone that argues that the average European is dumber than the average American, can still lick my little cornhole.

Your average Frenchman? Maybe not. Your average Serbian? Big 10-4. And I have no idea what the fuck you mean by dumber.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University is one of the top 5 Unis in China, IIRC, you're sound a little annoyingly Eurocentrist again Jebus.

 

[Briosafreak]

If the issue at hand is the failure of the Lisbon strategy and the way Europe has missed the front runners boat in R&D and how it has stayed behind on many fields that was supposed to be better, then i finally can agree with something CCR brings us, and we should drink to that .


If they are trying to say the average american uni is better than the average european uni, then sorry but that`s bollocks.

Having said that it`s time to invest more on the sciences departements and expand the Bologna declaration to allow better sinergies in the studying process in Europe, we have less obstacles regarding patents and IPs so we should profit more on that, and now that the space industry is decaying in the States and the companies are all moving to India and investing in Chinese research centers there´s a chance of passing the best american unversities and research centers, i wonder if there`s enough will to do it though.

On the non-tech areas we´re fine and dandy.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Your average Frenchman? Maybe not. Your average Serbian? Big 10-4. And I have no idea what the fuck you mean by dumber.

I don't know about Serbs, but Bosnia has 10% illiteracy rate. Bosnia = Somalia of Europe.

EDIT:

'S not what I'd call "little" anymore.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Maphusio]

Don´t worry. I´ll still think yanks are stupid (and fat).

I hate it when comments like that are oh so true.

 

[John Uskglass]

'S not what I'd call "little" anymore.

Your average American is just not that much fatter then your average European, so go fuck yourself.

 

[inane]

The sun never sets on my ASSHOLE not the British Empire and Universities are usually little more than paper factories...

As for Americans being fat? Who gives a fuck?! That's like stating there a lot of fags in San Francisco... no one should CARE why it is or even THAT it is outside of other homosexuals! Which raises the question, are you FAT Frissy?? Who cares?

Europe? Fuck em! Univerities? Fuck em! Fat people? Fuck em! Fags?........ er nevermind

 

[Maphusio]

So... we are sure that Frissy is an established European? You know there are many other countries in the world... I could be wrong on this... Let me pull up a map I bought in the store the other day... Now where did I put that??? Ahh yes here it is.

Yeah, im pretty sure there is no other countries out there. lol

 

[4too]

The Hidden Marketing Politics Of Funding

The Hidden Marketing Politics Of Funding



Thread leading article:

... American universities get their funding from a variety of different sources, not just government but also philanthropists, businesses and, of course, the students themselves. ...

My personal experience would include that ""uni's"" , badger and shamelessly enterprise, to 'shake down' their alumni. It's got a 'tax deductible 'HOOK on the lure, the 'come on', also.

U.S. Uni's are 'charitable institutions'.

Nostalgia mining the aging 'educated'.

And, it's the college sports entertainment industry, not always the self supporting cornucopia that it is touted' to be, that should convince even the frat's and 'cheer leaders' that IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.

It's all about MARKETING perceived assets, PARTY SCHOOLS, DRUNK'en COED HOOKERS, FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL BETTING POOLS! The 'goood' life.
The very best and brightest of Amerikan, pardon my spelling, American culture, [ as seen on TV, soon to be an HBO mini series!!].


Uni's are cash cows.


Hey sailors, psycho's, chickens, and Euro's want a 'goood' education?

Step right up.




4too

 

[Sander]

A few choice quotes:

The constraints on state funding mean that European governments force universities to “process” more and more students without giving them the necessary cash—and respond to the universities' complaints by trying to micromanage them. Inevitably, quality has eroded. Yet, as the American model shows, people are prepared to pay for good higher education, because they know they will benefit from it: that's why America spends twice as much of its GDP on higher education as Europe does.

And people here get a lot cheaper access to a university, it has nothing to do with better or worse, it's a different way of thinking about universities. As much as Europeans think it's horrible that you have to pay those insane amounts of money for a university, Americans feel they are getting better quality.
I don't actually know whether they are getting better quality, yes they are getting better scientists and researchers, but as anyone who has ever been taught by a couple of different researchers and scientists, there is no correlation between quality of research and quality of education. People may know a lot about their field, but that doesn't mean they can explain it.

The answer to the second question is to set universities free from the state. Free universities to run their internal affairs: how can French universities, for example, compete for talent with their American rivals when professors are civil servants? And free them to charge fees for their services—including, most importantly, student fees.

Again, we have a different ideology. Education available for everyone, regardless of income.

The standard European retort is that if people have to pay for higher education, it will become the monopoly of the rich. But spending on higher education in Europe is highly regressive (more middle-class students go to university than working-class ones).

But this, at least not here, has nothing to do with availability of funds. Everyone can afford to go to university, with little to no problems. Whether or not they do is a different matter, which would mean we'd have to look at sociological consequences as well.
Then again, my grandparents were farmers (on my mother's side) and owned a small trucking company, hence two generations back my family is working class. I'm in uni.
My girlfriends father is a brick-layer, yet she's in university as well. Two friends of mine have farmers as grand-parents too, and go to uni too, as did their parents.
As I said, everyone can afford it.

And higher education is hardly a monopoly of the rich in America: a third of undergraduates come from racial minorities, and about a quarter come from families with incomes below the poverty line.

I seem to recall that both the percentage of people from racial minorities and families with incomes below the poverty line are a lot higher in the USA, though.

Uh...sorry, but that's actually not true at all. We have pleanty of good, not excellent, not hyper-expensive schools.

Oh, of course, but they're not of the level of Harvard, are they? If two job applicants come up, one from Harvard the other from some other school, which one will get hired? Exactly.
And that's a lot less likely to happen in Europe.

Your average American is just not that much fatter then your average European, so go fuck yourself.

Dude, he was talking about Jebus' asshole. What the hell?

 

[Brother None]

And higher education is hardly a monopoly of the rich in America: a third of undergraduates come from racial minorities, and about a quarter come from families with incomes below the poverty line.

I seem to recall that both the percentage of people from racial minorities and families with incomes below the poverty line are a lot higher in the USA, though.

Not really;

Racial divisions in the USA; white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2% (2003 est.)
(that's 18.3% racial minorities, with 33% of those minorities being undergraduates)

Population below poverty line: 12% (2004 est.)
(12% with 25% in Uni)

I have a hard time believing those numbers on minorities and poverty-stricken people in the USA in unis is correct, though. Anyone have a source?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Dude, he was talking about Jebus' asshole. What the hell?

OH GOD, NO MORE!