This post is a mixture of thoughts about university. It isn’t like there is one conclusion, more a bundle of thoughts shoved into the linear narrative of words. I put it in sections so it’s easier to follow.
1. Introduction
Being abroad means that I get to see a completely different university system, and as well as it being interesting to see how the Germans do it this means I can reflect back on the English system.
(I have only seen Bonn University and have not done thorough research about the entirety of Germany, apart from a chat with a Bavarian woman on a coach. But I’m aware of this and I’m trying to make sure that I’m not extrapolating too much.)
As in all introductions, people tend to ask where you’re from (alternatively, they notice my non-German accent, or I bring it up as something to talk about). “England? Oh cool, which city? Oxford? You study there? Cool.”. It’s useful to have somewhere people have heard of for them to relate to, but it’s not a huge deal. For an American girl I met, it was a slightly bigger deal: “Law at Oxford? Oh my God, isn’t that like, the dream?”. Then I blushed and she laughed at me.
The reason I tell this anecdote is because the different reactions from different people vary in part because of the perspective they come from and the system that they are used to. I find this idea of perspective really interesting: we have loads of preconceptions about all manner of things based on what we are used to and assume things about other countries (or something else, but here it’s countries) based on these. Another preconception one I noticed recently is that because we have juries in our legal system in England (and America, which we see lots of on TV), we don’t imagine that other countries don’t have them. Germany doesn’t have them, which surprised me a few years ago when I first noticed and surprised another friend when I told her last week. This surprise was followed by a realisation of “Oh, I guess, why should they?”. And in learning something new, we get to think about it differently – consider whether we should have a jury system, for example (but that isn’t to be discussed in this post!).
2. The system as a whole
So back to University. In England (and the rest of the UK, though I don’t know as much about non-England systems), as in America, there is a rough national hierarchy of universities and people move around the country to study. Sure, some people have preferences (I didn’t want to study in London; some people want to go further away from home and others stay closer; etc), but we do get scattered all over the country. Having a national hierarchy and the fact that people travel all over are linked: because people move more, the Universities are able to select more and so become more streamed (better in general) and specialised (in particular subjects); because the Universities vary more, people are happier to go further for better ones.
Germany doesn’t really have this. I would estimate that 90% of the German students at Bonn are from the same Bundesland (Nordrhein-Westfalen. Germany is a federal state with 16 “Bundesländer”, roughly similar to America). It is a fairly large Bundesland and Bonn is a good university, but I don’t think that affects it. Germans don’t travel all over the country for university in the same way that we do. Linked to this, they don’t have a national hierarchy to the same extent that we do in England. As well as empirical evidence of all the people I’ve met, I’m fairly sure they don’t have a national admissions procedure like we do and apply to universities individually (they also apply after they have results and their final year finishes in March to give them time to do this, then they have to wait half a year to start).
They don’t have two universities that stand a bit above the others*1 and then a rough hierarchy among the others in as linear a way as England does. Instead, it’s more like there is a hierarchy of bands of universities: there are the best however many (10 or so, not really sure. It’s more like there’s a hierarchy in each region, so the best in each region are nationally about equal), then the next best block, then a not-as-good-but-still-good block, and so on. The best ones of course have specialisms – Bonn as ex-capital is big on law, especially international law – but aren’t streamed to the extent they are in England. I’ve asked some people about this and one response I got said that for science, it’s pretty similar all over the place (science is science, it’s right or wrong, and at undergraduate level you all learn the same stuff), but people to move about a bit more for arts subjects like law, politics and economics where there can be more variation. This is of course linked to the fact that people travel less, and I think it’s more symbiotic (cause-and-effect both ways) instead of one causing the other. The reason for this is probably historic – Germany was divided West and East until 25 years ago, and Germany was only a whole country from the end of the 19th Century – and to do with its federal nature. England has been a whole country for a long time, so the universities adjust to this national structure. I’m not making a comment on whether the English system is better or worse than the German, just that it is different.
Linking back to the ‘perspective’ idea and anecdote about different reactions I get to Oxford, this different system might explain part of why the American gave a stronger reaction than the Germans. Americans are used to a national hierarchy and travelling all over the place, so are more likely to see Oxford as a bigger deal. Germans are used to their system, so Oxford, while being famous and known for being good, they don’t see it as big a deal.*2
So that’s a different university system covered.
3. Accommodation and atmosphere
Another difference I’ve noticed is in the accommodation. Again, I appreciate that I have only seen one University, and I am trying not to extrapolate too much. From what I’ve read and heard, Bonn isn’t abnormal, apart from being an expensive city with not as much space as others.
In England, we tend to live in halls accommodation, almost always for the first year and sometimes for more, and then at some point move into a house with friends on yearly contracts. In halls accommodation (Oxford colleges don’t differ much in this respect) you tend to live with people at the same part of their study as you – freshers with freshers, grads with grads. Some of the friends you make are organised around location, at least to begin with.
Germany is different (you probably guessed that was coming as I am discussing differences). There are some accommodation blocks like halls, but this doesn’t cover everybody. International students tend to live in some of these too, but there isn’t space for all of us either. People who do live in these blocks aren’t put together in terms of first-years, second-years etc. I’m not sure who gets put in them or how, having only experienced two different ones. Instead, or alongside these, people live in Wohngemeischafts (literally, living-communities). It’s kind-of like renting a house with friends for a year, except that each room is rented separately on a rolling contract. A group of friends might start a WG and live together, but as some leave they get replaced until after a couple of years there is no connection between the people living there. They probably didn’t know each other before and will be different ages. Some won’t even be students. There are also different flavours of WG – some will be sociable party ones, others will be quieter individual ones (“purpose-WGs”) and they are advertised as such. Some Germans also live at home, either because they live nearby anyway and prefer to (cheaper, less hassle) or because they were unable to get any accommodation (because there aren’t halls for everyone and there is a shortage in Bonn) and so have to travel up to 1-2 hours each day.
An effect of this is that the atmosphere and life around university is different. Freshers’ week isn’t as big a deal, because everyone doesn’t live together and go clubbing to get to know their neighbours. Everything seems a bit more distant and less involved – instead of having masses of students involved in everything, halls going clubbing each week, etc, people have smaller groups of friends and have a bit more alone-time. (This is hard to gauge, as the corridor I’m on is almost exclusively Indian masters students but that’s the feel I get from everyone else and WGs I’ve seen, I’m not basing it on my corridor!) Friendship groups are a bit different because of this, being a bit smaller and more closely knit, and there are also more people from the same school and area at the same university.
4. Semesters
German university has two semesters each year, unlike our three terms. They run from late September/October until sometime in July with a 4-6 week break around Easter. There’s a shorter 2-week holiday for Christmas as well as a week break sometime in the summer Semester. Students study for a semester at a time instead of a year at a time – whereas I have to do a whole year abroad to restart at the beginning of the next year, they can just take a semester out.
5. Paying for university, specifically Oxford
Another part of the “Oh Oxford, cool” reaction is that I’m often asked “How much does that cost?”. The assumption seems to be that Oxford costs more than other universities, and I’m glad when I explain that this isn’t the case (Yeah, I didn’t pay my way in, and look how great our system is of not making universities into a capitalist system). I explain that I’m only paying £3.4k (or thereabouts; referred to as £3k from now on) each year, that it’s gone up to £9k each year now, but that they all cost the same still, and that we all get a loan from the government, so anybody can go to university, they just have to pay it back afterwards a bit like an income tax*3 (in that it isn’t a straightforward debt that you have to pay regardless of earning). To me, this sounds fairly cheap: international students can pay around £27k each year, and I think that’s around the same as American college costs. To Germans, whose University was free until recently and they now have to pay about £300 per semester, this is pretty expensive.
Paying for University is obviously a relatively big political issue. The fee increases a couple of years ago resulted in some protests (bring us out of our general apathy) and lots of political air, though they were very badly represented in the media – the repayment system could be considered in some ways fairer, and because the money is a loan to be later repaid it ought not be a barrier of entry to anybody, just the media spin of “£9k fees put poor people off” actually putting people off. It would appear the bigger problem was that the government funding decreased a lot, so the universities don’t actually have more money.
It’s come up again recently because of comments made by Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor (the guy who runs the university, though the Chancellor is higher he doesn’t do much as far as I can tell), saying that Oxford should be able to charge more*4. The response to this by OUSU, representing the student body, was to pass a motion and write a letter condemning (in general, though it did like the fact he was opening a discussion which needs to be had) his comments.
In my opinion, the OUSU response fell a bit short of what was necessary. I am broadly in agreement with it, but it seemed to me to be a bit too much of a knee-jerk reaction to protect self-interest (ie students not wanting to pay more) instead of discussing what is actually the best course of action. This condemnation by me probably comes across more strongly than I mean it – I agree with the OUSU view, but think it missed the mark slightly.
The problem with Oxford is that it costs around £16000 to educate us. In general, we get a pretty good education. The facilities we have are great, though I think I’ve heard that scientists get more spend on them than arts subjects (though I imagine the law faculty does spend a lot, history and english for example don’t need to spend as much). We pay £3000 (supplemented by government funding), and new students pay £9000 (with less government funding, though I don’t know the exact details I think they cut it by at least the amount extra we pay).
The Vice-Chancellor is correct in much of what he says: Oxford runs at a £7k deficit per student, though presumably they profit from international students (20% of the population) who pay ulotsp to £27k (again, not entirely sure on the details) and people who study at Oxford but not as Oxford students (mostly Americans paying for a month or a term or two terms). They also get donations, pay for it out of the money each college has (for example St John’s huge incomes from all the land it owns) and have some commercial sponsorship too (which isn’t necessarily good – I hate the corporate influence on the law faculty and there have been questions raised about the oil influence on some of the geology and other scientific departments; I’m sure there’s more I don’t know about too). But for most of us, Oxford teaches us at a deficit. The case needs to be strongly and clearly made why we deserve to have nearly half of our education for free.
The problem that this deficit is causing is that it means that Oxford cannot continue improving – if they don’t have enough money to educate all of us, they cannot expand and improve, so Oxford will find it hard to continue to be the great university that it is in the future.
As I said, the case needs to clearly be made. I agree that it should be funded, but I don’t think that this has been expressed adequately. We can’t simply say “we don’t want to pay more” as that doesn’t address the issue.
I don’t want to misrepresent OUSU – the motion does say that they should “demand greater public funding for higher education”, and this is correct – but I don’t think it came across strongly enough in the response in the letter. We need to make it clear that government funding should be increased, first and foremost, before we say we should not pay more – logically I think it necessary, as otherwise our first demand is “we should not pay more” which does not address the individual deficit, the public funding does.
We need to campaign about this as the politicians are potentially ruining our future.
As a side-point, there was lots of talk about access. I don’t want to get too into this. The Vice-Chancellor does cover this, saying that he would only have higher fees if “they are demonstrably not a barrier to student access“. In the OUSU meeting, access was discussed seemingly as the main reason we shouldn’t have higher fees, in that that was the focus of the discussion.
I think this is misguided. Oxford is doing a great job for people who can’t afford university, we run great schemes and give out great bursaries. We are the best university in the country for this (I haven’t got a citation but I’m fairly sure it’s true). The media gives a terrible account of us (and as I said earlier, the £9k fees in general). We should campaign and publicise how good we are for that, as that clearly isn’t well enough known (maybe suing the Daily Mail for defamation and/or writing a letter to all the newspapers about it and hope they actually print it – maybe the Guardian could be persuaded to do the right thing, even if it’s a less interesting story). We should decide about fees and funding based on what is right to do, not about the image it gives, because we already have enough substance to give us a good image and we are being misrepresented. I don’t think I’m explaining this point well: we should do the right thing about fees and make sure we are represented properly, not do a not-so-right thing because we might be misrepresented.
6. The Purpose of Education
This should only be a short point. A book I’m reading at the moment (Antifragile by Nassim Taleb, really good check it out) talked about education (in academic/university form) and I thought I should relate some comments and some thoughts.
Taleb says that “serious empirical evidence shows no evidence that raising the general level of education raises income at the level of a country.“. He also quotes another person, Alison Wolf, who says that: “The simple one-way relationship which so entrances our politicians and commentators – education spending in, economic growth out – simply doesn’t exist.“.
In terms of why the government supports public education funding, the current opinion of helping growth seems flawed (if the above is true). Taleb also says: “The idea of educating people to improve the economy is rather novel. The British government documents, as early as fifty years ago, an aim for education other than the one we have today: raising values, making good citizens, and “learning”, not economic growth“.
He isn’t saying that the government ought not support education, just that economic growth isn’t the reason why. Presumably if we have to pay £9k instead of £3k and therefore pay back more later, that takes money out of the economy in the future by spending it now, so that will actually work against it slightly too.
He also is only talking about the country level. For the individual, university is often very useful to get a better job (though not always necessary). And obviously there are some necessary things like scientific research too. But degrees which don’t directly feed into somebody’s profession (as Medicine etc, Law, science for people who then do research) and are just used to get an unrelated job (like getting a History degree and becoming a banker) are different. In this way, the degree is used to show that somebody is clever (by getting into university and doing their degree) and so, like grades from school exams, show that you are competent and cleverer than other people who applied for the job you got.
There is some self-selection in this: it isn’t just that people are made clever by doing the degree but also that only the clever ones were taken on to do the degree (in the university admissions), and I don’t think that this is recognised enough. The person who was clever enough to do History at Oxford is probably clever enough to be a banker, the degree is just a good way of showing it. Yes, they probably got cleverer in doing their degree, but they might also have got cleverer by doing three years of some other training for being a banker.
This isn’t meant to be a conclusion, just something I wanted to point out – I’m not taking a stance on whether education is good for the economy, just suggesting it might not be.
7. Conclusion
So I’ve talked about some differences between England and German universities and about funding.
To finish, I just wanted to remind people to make the most of their study! It costs £3/9k plus living costs (~£5k but could be more, just guessing), plus the amount that somebody that isn’t you is paying (the government or donor etc). University is a great opportunity that not everyone makes the most of: put the effort into the work (be efficient, don’t procrastinate, I think we all wish we were better at that) and do things outside work. There are loads of societies and causes that should be done – there are so many I wish I could do but don’t have time to (and I’m quite liking having more time in Bonn to do that!) and you’re unlikely to have as good an opportunity to do that again.
Now that you’ve read my view, I would love to hear back. I’m sure I’ve expressed some things badly and have opinions that could be improved, and with funding in particular, it would be great to have a discussion about how to solve the problem and what best we can do about it.
—–
*1 Not that I want to get into a debate about whether Oxford and Cambridge are really much better than other universities, there isn’t a big difference, but they are at least a bit better
*2 I hope this doesn’t come across as me being all “Oh look Oxford what a big deal aren’t I great”; I’m not trying to say whether it is or should be a big deal or not but comment on the actual reactions I get to it.
*3 http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5307
*4 http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/we-need-tuition-fees-of-up-to-16000-says-oxford-vicechancellor-professor-andrew-hamilton-8867323.html