NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Huh. Our public schools suck, but if you get to college, you are teh l33t :D

Thoughts?

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm


Not a whole load of European uni's there.

I am very suprised at this. I agree that some of the Ivy League schools do belong in the top echelon, alongside Cambridge and Oxford, I was suprized that there are so many American Public universities on the top 100 list.

Good to see my university is near the top :D

That said I think that the survey does favour the American system, which is very different to the English system of learning. It looks like they have named Harvard as the standard and everything else is graded (I think quite harshly - Americas number 2 scores only 71% of Harvards score) relative to harvard, which would favour American universities over English ones as the comparisons are much more direct.

However I can't say much about other European universities as my knowlege/experience is limited to UK and US.

The Problem is pretty much a lack of funding. Businesses have no interest in funding universities and at least our german state can't afford it because some irrational idea is still floating around that socialism is the key to everything.

More money would lead to more research capabilities which would attract more scholars and everyone's happy. But hey, c'est la vie. At least no one's stopping us from studying in the states.

Good to see my university is near the top :D

Yeah, well so is mine....sorta :D

What, Lisbon Law school nowhere to be seen? I´m appaled!!!

What you seem to forget is that there is no such thing as a European education system. They're all in different countries, run differently, funded differently etc.

What you seem to forget is that there is no such thing as a European education system. They're all in different countries, run differently, funded differently etc.

Nitpicking aside, they're still European schools even if they're in Germany or Spain.

Well *Shrug*. Any university that has the faculties of "Dental", "Medical", "Law", "Divinity" and "Arts and Sciences" loses a considerable deal of respect in my eyes.

EDIT: By which I mean that Arts and Sciences is a huge collection of absolutely enormous fields in their own right. Sorry to have to spell it out. <_<

Nitpicking aside, they're still European schools even if they're in Germany or Spain. According to The Economist, they're all still falling behind American and, pretty soon, Asian schools.
Well, it doesn't bother me. Where I come from still has one of the top education systems in the world (ranked way up in the top 5 IIRC), even if the top uni (and we only have two) is ranked at 230th in the world. We only have 1.5 million people here, so that's a very respectable position.

Well Manchester has the biggest University in Europe now, but we sadly dont seem to appear on this list *sobs* despite an excellent record and an ability to compete with Oxford and Cambridge in many fields. Correct if Im wrong and youve spotted us...

Eh, i'm heading for the 8th ranked University in the UK and 35th in the world, and at least I don't have to pay (Or more likely in America get a rich daddy to pay) thousands and thousands of pounds in fees because they are subsidised, unlike in America.

Eh, i'm heading for the 8th ranked University in the UK and 35th in the world, and at least I don't have to pay (Or more likely in America get a rich daddy to pay) thousands and thousands of pounds in fees because they are subsidised, unlike in America.

Where exactly are you going? We have to pay extortionate fees in England. You better not be Scottish and be bragging about how we pay for you with our taxes.

Where exactly are you going? We have to pay extortionate fees in England. You better not be Scottish and be bragging about how we pay for you with our taxes.
Why, how much do you pay?

The most anybody in an NI university pays is £1750 per year per family (so if you have two children at uni, it's that to cover the both of them), and the majority pay well less than that.

Well Manchester has the biggest University in Europe now, but we sadly dont seem to appear on this list *sobs* despite an excellent record and an ability to compete with Oxford and Cambridge in many fields. Correct if Im wrong and youve spotted us...*Prods*

Number 53.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the Scottish Higher Education system pays your fees for you, doesn't it?

Where exactly are you going? We have to pay extortionate fees in England. You better not be Scottish and be bragging about how we pay for you with our taxes.

Sheffield - and I missed the top up fees being introduced for a year, so i'm saving money. Even so - we don't pay an extortionate amount when compared to the US, I believe. I heard some people pay over $100,000 to go to the better universities - can anyone confirm this? It sounds ludicrious to me.

Most of the people who attend American universities are far from rich.

My former university is 99th in the world. Still, compared to many countries, I think the fact that Sweden has 4 in the top 100 (for only 9,5 million people) isn't bad!! In fact, taken by population the Nordic countries are very well represented in the top 100.... and generally speaking, our education systems are almost or totally free of elitist fees etc.

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm


Not a whole load of European uni's there.
Hey, my school's #90 on there. :D

Sheffield - and I missed the top up fees being introduced for a year, so i'm saving money. Even so - we don't pay an extortionate amount when compared to the US, I believe. I heard some people pay over $100,000 to go to the better universities - can anyone confirm this? It sounds ludicrious to me.
I've heard of people paying $30,000 USD a year for grad school.

Here they pay you to be a grad student.

Hey, my school's #90 on there. :D
Meh. My first college is at #23

..... which would be a little more impressive if they hadn't kicked me out on my arse without a degree. :(

Meh. My first college is at #23

..... which would be a little more impressive if they hadn't kicked me out on my arse without a degree. :(
Well, mine is #4 in Canada, apparantly.

I don't know what the hell kind of standards these are though, it seems to me like a Harvard grad just wanted to feel extra superior.

Good point. Here's (http://www.thes.co.uk/downloads/rankings/world-rankings-16pages.pdf) an alternative (scroll down).

Which puts the place where I got my Master's at #11. Hooray!

Harvard's still at #1, though. (Bastards!)

I got rejected by number 10! w00t!

Fucking written exam!

interesting. i've been accepted at various times into a school in the 101-152 block, a 153-202, a 203-300, and a 401-500. i've been wait-listed by #13 and #16. and way back when i first was going into college, harvard sent me an application in which they filled out everything but my signature for me.

and i once got drunk and stoned with some profs at #43

Well one day I'll be the leading authority in my field and when #10 comes crawling to my door begging me to consider a research position at their establishment I'll give them a god-damn written exam!

"Write 10,000 words regarding the inside of a golf ball. Show your working."

I got rejected by number 10! w00t!

Fucking written exam!

oh yeah?! well i got rejected by number 9. so there.

Ah, the good old Economist. Something wrong? Privatise it!

Now, children, can someone tell me why opening up, say, science departments to the private sector is a bad thing?

oh yeah?! well i got rejected by number 9. so there.

Number 2 pre-emptively rejected me before I'd even considered applying.

I rejected 53, 65 and 98 to go to a university that was better for my field of study. Aren't tables great?

Good point. Here's (http://www.thes.co.uk/downloads/rankings/world-rankings-16pages.pdf) an alternative (scroll down).

Which puts the place where I got my Master's at #11. Hooray!

Harvard's still at #1, though. (Bastards!)
According to that I go to number 185, and was accepted by (but didn't go to) number 70.

Sheffield - and I missed the top up fees being introduced for a year, so i'm saving money. Even so - we don't pay an extortionate amount when compared to the US, I believe. I heard some people pay over $100,000 to go to the better universities - can anyone confirm this? It sounds ludicrious to me.
I'm at one of the most expensive universities, paying around $40,000 a year (Boston Uni., numbers 80 and 75 on the lists respectively.)

I'm at one of the most expensive universities, paying around $40,000 a year (Boston Uni., numbers 80 and 75 on the lists respectively.)

That includes campus accomodation as well right? Oh, and my bad - Sheffield is at 65th not 35th in world ranking. I'm paying £1175 a year, plus another £3500 or so for catered accomodation - so about $10,000 a year.

How much is down to reputation? I attended the University of Leicester, which ranks 189th (28th in the UK) in the Times list. I notice that it scores astonishingly poorly in the 'peer review' category - anything to do with it not being a 'big name'?

Furthermore, are UK universities really failing? 30 in the top 200 is an impressive total, I would argue.

UK universities aren't failing, it's just that it's easier to condemn the whole of Europe and our scandalous ideas about 'equal opportunities' than account for exceptions.

I would just want to ask if you people know how this 500 list (referred in this thread) is done... Most of you do, obviously. Learned lot as you are.

The Shanghai Jiao Tong university in China does it every year. It's in the 400-500 category in its own study. That might mean the study is unbiased... or that the people doing it are incompetent. You decide.

The funny thing is, they themselves say it's only measuring the things they are interested in (I suggest you find the ranking criteria and weighs in their homepage here (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm) ) After reading that site, do you think small countries or small universities could get a good rank..? I myself find it highly unlikely.

Still, some American (USA) universities are on top whatever the methodology in these surveys is; they simply can lure the best teachers and lecturers. Good for them.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this though.

What you seem to forget is that there is no such thing as a European education system. They're all in different countries, run differently, funded differently etc.
However, there is no system in the US. Every state has their own university system, and there are several private universities controlled by their trustees. The success of American higher education is that it has no system. In fact, it was hurt by the first smattering of a federal government system. In the name of Homeland Security, foreign students had a harder time getting visas. Thus, less students studied in the US.

Now, I think that the root of this decline in European universities can be accredited to WWII, when all the scientists fled Europe for America. These scientists taught at universities back home, but ended up teaching in this country. They fell into neglect and unimportance, especially with the ressurection of heavy industry on the continent. That trend is still engrained in European thinker's heads today. For instance, Margaret Thatcher recently retired as Chancellor of William and Mary College in Virginia.

Now, children, can someone tell me why opening up, say, science departments to the private sector is a bad thing?

Could it be because they might actually get funding and contribute something good to the scientific community?

:D

Could it be because they might actually get funding and contribute something good to the scientific community?

:D
Maybe so, maybe so. And I should have used 'corporations', not 'private sector'.

But what of the potential for corruption, suppression of research? Of course, one could argue the same if substituting corporations with government. Ideally, neither would be in a position to influence research decisions, etc.

One thing about the ratings is that the criteria for rating affect only a tiny proportion of the people who pass through the university - Nobel Award winning Alumini and Staff - which as far as 99.99% of students are concrened is of little importance in terms of how it will affect their degree.

To me more important rating criteria would be:

Teaching Quality
University Standing with Employers
% of Students into relevent Employment and Further study within 6months/1year of graduating (i.e. maccas does not count unless youre an exec)
Graduate Salaries
Research

Number 2 pre-emptively rejected me before I'd even considered applying.What happened? I've never heard of anyone not even getting to the interview stage...

What happened? I've never heard of anyone not even getting to the interview stage...

I was joking. I wouldn't apply to both Cambridge and Oxford. That would be 2 wasted applications instead of just the one.

I was joking. I wouldn't apply to both Cambridge and Oxford. That would be 2 wasted applications instead of just the one.*Forehead slap*

Irony really doesn't translate well into text. <_<

Though I suppose you have a point. I quite like the deliberate non-competition thing that Oxbridge have going with regards to student applications. ^^

*Forehead slap*

Irony really doesn't translate well into text. <_<

Though I suppose you have a point. I quite like the deliberate non-competition thing that Oxbridge have going with regards to student applications. ^^

Some Universities will reject you purely for applying to Ox-bridge. It's against the rules but they still do it.

*cough*Nottingham*cough*

Well, look at that: Four swedish universities in the top 100. Relatively speaking, for the US to have the same amount per capita, they would have to have roughly 131.1 universities among the top 100.

Odd, aint it?

Some Universities will reject you purely for applying to Ox-bridge. It's against the rules but they still do it.

*cough*Nottingham*cough*Umm... how do they know? UCAS don't let other universities see where you've applied...

Woooo my uni's pretty damn high!


P.S its in England which is in.......Europe!

Well, look at that: Four swedish universities in the top 100. Relatively speaking, for the US to have the same amount per capita, they would have to have roughly 131.1 universities among the top 100.

Odd, aint it?

Good practical application of maths no wonder Swedish universities are doing well!

Umm... how do they know? UCAS don't let other universities see where you've applied...

The short answer is they cheat.

Good practical application of maths no wonder Swedish universities are doing well!
I take that as sarcasm? And I'm not studying at a university, so I doubt my calculations matter much to theirscore.

Ah, the good old Economist. Something wrong? Privatise it!


Reading the Economist does get rather monotonous very quickly, doesn't it? :D

Huh. Our public schools suck, but if you get to college, you are teh l33t :D

Thoughts?

europe and america...ones a fucking country the other is a continent...why dont we just compare say.... the entirety of asia to...wales..???????

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm


Not a whole load of European uni's there.

Do keep in mind that these ranking things are often subject to bias by the people giving the rankings. For example they don't say what their methods of ranking the schools were. I wouldn't pay it too much attention personally.

europe and america...ones a fucking country the other is a continent...why dont we just compare say.... the entirety of asia to...wales..???????

Actually America is a continent too. :)

That includes campus accomodation as well right? Oh, and my bad - Sheffield is at 65th not 35th in world ranking. I'm paying £1175 a year, plus another £3500 or so for catered accomodation - so about $10,000 a year.
yeah, that does include room and board. Books and other living expenses aren't included in that $40000 tho...books this semester ran me 498.45, and Boston is the most expensive city, so transportation and non-uni. food is expensive.

Well, look at that: Four swedish universities in the top 100. Relatively speaking, for the US to have the same amount per capita, they would have to have roughly 131.1 universities among the top 100.

Odd, aint it?

hey, good point.

top 100 universities per million people
us = .179 (though we clearly come out ahead on the top 20)
uk = .182
denmark = .185
finland = .191
norway = .218
switzerland = .400
sweden = .444

israel = .159
austria = .122
canada =. 122
netherlands = .122
australia = .100
france = .066
germany = .061
italy = .017
russia = .007

Do keep in mind that these ranking things are often subject to bias by the people giving the rankings. For example they don't say what their methods of ranking the schools were. I wouldn't pay it too much attention personally.

Why would a Chinese University be biased tward America. Especially one with a reputation as that?

Do keep in mind that these ranking things are often subject to bias by the people giving the rankings. For example they don't say what their methods of ranking the schools were.

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