The Transformation of the Student Career: University Study in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden (Routledgefalmer Studies in Higher Education)

ROUTLEDGEFALMER STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Edited by

Philip G.Altbach Monan Professor of Higher Education Lynch School of Education, Boston College A ROUTLEDGEFALMER SERIES

ROUTLEDGEFALMER STUDIES IN HlGHER EDUCATION PHILIP G.ALTBACH, General Editor A DREAM DEFERRED? Examining the Degree Aspirations of African-American and White College Students Deborah Faye Carter STATE GOVERNMENTS AND RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES A Framework for a Renewed Partnership David J.Weerts FEDERALISM AND LÄNDER AUTONOMY The Higher Education Policy Network in the Federal Republic of Germany Cesare Onestini RESILIENT SPIRITS Disadvantaged Students Making it at an Elite University Latty Lee Goodwin I PREFER TO TEACH An International Comparison of Faculty Preference for Teaching over Research James JF Forest THE VIRTUAL DELIVERY AND VIRTUAL ORGANIZATION OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION Daniel M.Carchidi BARELY THERE, POWERFULLY PRESENT Thirty Years of U.S. Policy on International Higher Education Nancy L.Ruther A CALL TO PURPOSE Mission Centered Change at Three Liberal Arts Colleges Matthew Hartley A PROFILE OF THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROFESSORATE, 1975–2000 Charles Outcalt POWER AND POLITICS IN UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE Organization and Change at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Imanol Ordorika

UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION SINCE PERESTROIKA Olga B.Bain THE CALL FOR DIVERSITY Pressure, Expectation, and Organizational Response in the Postsecondary Setting David J.Siegel SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION IN AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES External Assistance and National Needs Damtew Teferra PHILANTHROPISTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Institutional, Biographical, and Religious Motivations for Giving Gregory L.Cascione THE RISE AND FALL OF FU REN UNIVERSITY, BEIJING Catholic Higher Education in China John Shujie Chen UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS IN MIT, CAMBRIDGE, AND TOKYO Storytelling across Boundaries Sachi Hatakenaka THE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT AND THE POLITICS OF CHANGE AT A WOMEN’S COLLEGE Jill Ker Conway at Smith, 1975–1985 David A.Greene ACTING ‘OTHERWISE’ The Institutionalization of Women’s/ Gender Studies in Taiwan’s Universities Peiying Chen TEACHING AND LEARNING IN DIVERSE CLASSROOMS Faculty Reflections on Their Experiences and Pedagogical Practices of Teaching Diverse Populations Carmelita Rosie Castañeda

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE STUDENT CAREER University Study in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden

Michael A.Nugent

NEW YORK & LONDON

Published in 2004 by RoutledgeFalmer 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.” Copyright © 2004 by RoutledgeFalmer All rights reserved. No part of this book may be printed or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including pho tocopying and recording, or any other information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nugent, Michael A. The transformation of the student career: university study in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden/Michael A.Nugent. p. cm.—(RoutledgeFalmer studies in higher education) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-94880-0 (hardback: alk. paper) 1. Education, Higher—Aims and objectives— Germany. 2. Education, Higher—Aims and objectives—Netherlands. 3. Education, Higher—Aims and objectives—Sweden. 4. Higher education and state—Germany. 5. Higher education and state—Netherlands. 6. Higher education and states—Sweden. 7. Comparative education. I. Title. II. Series: RoutledgeFalmer studies in higher education (Unnumbered) LA728.N84 2004 378.4– dc22 2004005119 ISBN 0-203-34036-1 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-415-94880-0 (Print Edition)

For Marie-Françoise Baker

Contents Preface Chapter One Introduction Chapter Two Cross-National Comparative Analysis Chapter Three The Establishment of the Personal Imperative

ix 1 8 16

Chapter Four Sweden

24

Chapter Five The Netherlands

51

Chapter Six Germany Chapter Seven The Transformation of the Student Career

75 114

Notes

133

Bibliography

157

Index

167

Preface Anyone who examines higher education policy in Europe cannot help but notice that, despite strong differences between traditions from one country to the next, there is one aspect that all systems have in common: the constant call for structural reform. My own interests in examining the change in the concept of university study came about through my experience as a student during the 1980s in Germany, France, and Spain. This experience, though limited, had an important impact on me. It provided me with lifetime friendships, partnerships, and professional relationships with fellow students at that time who now, when questioned about their university experience, look back on that time as the most defining period of their lives. I believe that the same can be said for today’s students. In spite of the rather dry and rationalistic portrayals of the study experience by many state and national governments in Europe, the student career rernains today an extraordinary opportunity for any person who has the fortune to participate in it. All of the work included in this book was undertaken as a personal endeavor and does not represent the opinions of the U.S. Department of Education where I am currently employed. This book is a reexamination of work undertaken during my time as a doctoral student at the Pennsylvania State University. I would like to extend a very special thanks to Roger Geiger, who helped initiate me into the study of comparative higher education research and then encouraged me to pursue it in spite of the scope and the odds. He saw my project through from start to finish and was always available for advice and continuing friendship over the years. Many thanks also are due to Robert Hendrickson, also at Penn State, whose strong encouragement, guidance, and support were always appreciated; to James Ratcliff, who got me involved early on in the international research effort at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, Penn State, and continued to encourage me to follow this path; and to Simon Duke, at the European Institute of Public Administration, whose in-depth knowledge of European policy issues past and present and whose uncanny ability to see and explain new policy trends and developments helped me formulate my thoughts and ideas. My appreciation also goes out to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for their generous support during my year-long stay in Germany and to the staff and friends at the Seminar für Soziologie, the University of Cologne, who offered me such wonderful hospitality and intellectual companionship while I was there. Thanks also to the Graduate School and the Office for International Programs, the Department of Education Policy Studies, the Center for the Study of Higher Education, and the Higher Education Program at Penn State University, as well as to Thorsten Nybom at the Swedish Council for Study in Higher Education for their generous assistance. I would also like to give special thanks to Roland Richter at the Wissenschaftliches Sekretariat für die Studienreform, Nordrhein-Westfalen, and his wife Karla, who both went out of their way to provide a home away from home and to assist me during my stay in Germany past and present. I also received help from many others including Phil Altbach, Kimberly

Guinta, Marianne Bauer, Riekele Bijleveld, Don Fischer, Trudi Haupt, Nils Runeby, Klaus Schnitzer, Crister Skoglund, and Frans van Vught. Finally I would like to extend heartfelt gratitude to my parents, Frank and Ann Nugent, who helped spawn my interest in the world of universities; to my wife, MarieFrançoise Baker, whose constant support and understanding helped me bring this project to an end; and to my children, Jean-Marc and Céline, who I hope in due course will be as fortunate as I to benefit from the student career. M.N. Bethesda, MD December 2003

Chapter One Introduction The “student career,” as Martin Trow1 has referred to it, has a long tradition and exists in some form in every advanced industrialized country. In the past, it was understood as a period of time during which a young individual takes leave from normal social responsibilities to pursue intellectual development, personal transformation, or certification of acquired knowledge at a university or similar institution of higher learning. Since the 1960s, the student career has undergone a transformation throughout Western Europe. This transformation has been both structural and ideological, as growth and expansion has been accompanied by changing beliefs and assumptions about what academic study should be—who should gain access to study, how it should be organized and structured, what one should learn, how long it should take, and what it should mean to both the individual and the greater society.2 As a result, the concept of university study has become one of the most important, yet difficult, socio-political issues in late twentieth-century Europe.3 This importance, and difficulty, is grounded in the fact that university study involves scientific research and knowledge production within the context of highly specialized labor markets and rapidly changing societies. University study has also served the function of selecting, educating, and certifying a once limited, but now increasing, proportion of a population for higher civil service and professional positions. Over the past 40 years, Western European governments have attempted to manipulate the terms of university study in order to increase its linkage with the production of human capital, the establishment of social equity, and the assurance of the productivity and economic welfare of a nation.4 This forty-year effort at the level of individual nations shifted rather abruptly towards a collective pan-European reform movement at the end of the last century. As a result, the transformation of the student career has become one of the most compelling and far-reaching policy initiatives for Europe in the new century. This book examines the transformation of the structure, function, and goals of university study in three countries—Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden—from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s and how this transformation set the stage for the shift toward the Europeanization of higher education at the beginning of the current century. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE STUDENT CAREER I have chosen to use the term “student career” to distinguish and limit the area of inquiry from the much broader term of “higher education.” As will be discussed in the following chapters, the use of the term “higher education” and its German, Swedish and Dutch translations (Hochschulausbildung, högre utbildning, and hoger onderwijs respectively) reflected a conscious effort on the part of state policy reformers in all three countries to redefine what they believed to be a less inclusive concept embodied in the term

The transormation of the student career

2

“university study.”5 The concept of “higher education,” therefore, has not been a neutral term in policy reformation. Instead, as will be discussed in this work, the term played an important political role. The Swedish government, for example, actively evoked the concept of “högre utbildning” to help redefine the entire realm of postsecondary education away from the concept of university study.6 Another reason for using the term “student career” to define the area of inquiry stems from the tricky problem of language and translation. As will be discussed in chapter six, German reforms have concerned themselves mainly with changing das Studium, or university study, which is reflected in the political imperative of bringing about Studienreform, or the reform of study.7 In addition, the traditional concept of university study in these three countries is based solidly on an ideal that does not translate well into the traditional American concept of “undergraduate education” or into the more disparate and all inclusive concept of “higher education.” The concept of study in all three cases has represented more of a unitary social stratum, which has been protected by special laws and privileges since the nineteenth century.8 Unlike the traditional American concept of undergraduate education, the concept of study in these three countries has been far less institutionally determined and defined. Until the early 1960s, student careers in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands retained similar structural and ideological features.9 In the 1950s and 1960s, governments in each country increasingly began to view the nineteenth-century tradition of Lernfreiheit (freedom of study) and Bildung (personal cultivation) as somewhat inefficient and not fully focused on the needs of society.10 Governments in each country developed centralized organizations with the intention of exerting stronger control over the planning and coordination of academic administration through a continual reform process that has become institutionalized over the years. The overall reform goal in all three countries was to increase access to a larger proportion of the population, redefine university study to make it more relevant to the vocational and technical needs of the national economy, and increase efficiency and productivity by reducing the long time to degrees and the high noncompletion rates. The resulting transformation of student careers in all three countries has been both structural and ideological. As student careers have increasingly come under pressure to become more directed and prescribed, a series of trade-offs has arisen between new criteria of efficiency and practicality on the one hand and the depth and quality of the individual educational experience on the other. As each state has shifted its emphasis away from a personally determined to a socially determined relevance of university study, the nature of study has also changed in content and form from a holistically and individually based learning experience to a discrete, outcome-oriented activity. This has been evident in the attempts to 1) determine a normative concept of study duration, 2) institute credit hours, 3) develop discrete and measurable “quality” indicators, 4) institute general study parameters, 5) differentiate a full-time student from a part-time student, 6) define and institute the concept of continuing education, 7) orient university study to the labor market, and finally, 8) create a “European dimension” to university study. These attempts to reshape the student career have been justified by frames of reference that have been surprisingly parallel in each country. As Guy Neave has shown, these frames of reference have helped shaped the reform discourse surrounding the concept of the student career and have supported successive attempts to make the student career at

Introduction

3

one period more socially relevant, at another more equitable, and still later more efficient and flexible to market forces.11 The most important shift followed the Second World War, when social relevance increasingly became the central ideological frame of reference challenging the nineteenth-century idealism that called for the protection of individual freedom through limited state action toward universities. The loose administrative structure of university study in each country was based on the neohumanistic concept of Lernfreiheit, which placed individual relevance of study above everything else. In the 1950s and 1960s, the governments in each country began to shift the orientation of the student career toward what each state defined as more socially relevant goals: projected needs of the labor market and the growing economy. As a result, these goals and projected needs based on demographic, economic, and manpower planning became important factors in determining the future of the student career in each country. The state emphasis on social relevance shifted gradually towards goals which stressed management efficiency. Reform commissions began to reconsider long durations of study as a result of an inherently inefficient study process grounded in the antiquated idealism of Lernfreiheit. Governments began to demand that the loose organization of the student career be restructured to allow for better use of student time. In an era of positive economic growth, each government believed that an expansion of the number of programs and graduates in post-secondary education would be beneficial to the growth of the economy. Any unnecessary time students spent studying was perceived as an economic burden to society because of the increased cost to the state and the loss in revenues from their delayed participation in the labor market. As a result, increased throughput, that is, increasing the rate and the level of successful completion of university study, became an imperative for industrial and economic competitiveness. In the mid- to late 1960s, there was a gradual shift towards an ideal of a just society, in which equal opportunity became an important new concept in the definition of the student career. The recognition of the student career as an engine for general social and economic change fueled criticisms of the traditional means of selection and access to study in each country. The question of equal opportunity not only affected the assumptions behind access to the traditional form of the student career but, more importantly, it also served to redefine the entire student career in each country by broadening the definition of “study” from just university or academic education to “higher education.” Reformers strengthened the argument that higher education should have a strong vocational and praxis-oriented dimension rather than just an academic one. In fact, increased throughput of students was viewed more as a matter of social equity than of economic efficiency. As a result, the traditional academic idealism of Lernfreiheit became portrayed by policy makers in each country as not only economically inefficient but also socially unjust. Since the mid-1980s, the reform discourse has increasingly mirrored the basic ideas of consumerism, portraying students as customers demanding “quality” and choice and institutions as service corporations concerned about the quality of their “product.” In this frame of reference, efficiency, productivity, output, and quality of the student career have been portrayed as measurable and subject to external controls. In a consumer framework, the student career must react to rapidly changing technologies and the labor market,

The transormation of the student career

4

rather than to long-term planning strategies. In other words, flexibility and differentiation within the student career are important to achieving the ends of a globalized economy. It is important to note that each successive shift from one ideological frame of reference to the next did not occur as part of a long range strategy, but rather gradually in accordance with emerging political and socioeconomic trends. Nor did these shifts necessarily eliminate the former frames of reference; rather they tended to superimpose themselves upon each other. The dominant ideals behind each of these shifts nevertheless helped to legitimize the reform discourse and policy imperative as well as changes in structure and definition. This is apparent in the reform discourse of the Europeanization of the student career. Almost all elements of the former reform movements are still present in current efforts to establish a European dimension of the student career. EXAMINING CHANGE This examination of the transformation of the student career compares how it has changed in three countries between the early 1960s and mid-1990s. It is based on the assumption that the concept of university study in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden is dynamic. Martin Trow the-orized in 1973 that unprecedented growth in student numbers would have an “impact on every form of activity and manifestation of higher education.”12 According to Trow, expansion signaled a transformation from elite to mass higher education in all systems of higher education. Trow’s theory, which was based on a series of OECD analyses of trends in higher education, predicted that expansion would particularly have “implications for the meaning of being a student.”13 In order to facilitate expansion of higher education, central governmental planning would have to take more control of the academic enterprise in order to diversify what was meant to be a student into a much broader and less elite concept. According to Trow, what was ultimately at stake was the balance between quality and equality.14 Trow’s analysis represented a succinct depiction of the trends in the rhetoric of higher education policy throughout Europe in the early 1970s. As evident in OECD country reports, government policy towards education was portrayed as a rational planning process following similar logical choices. Though at the time the policy rhetoric towards the reform of university study was quite similar cross-nationally, many systems were marked nevertheless by strong structural and ideological differences regarding what it meant to be a student. These differences were not only apparent between the European systems as a group and the United States system, but also among the different European systems. Trow’s concept of “elite,” for example, was largely based on the Oxbridge tradition: Elite institutions are commonly “communities” which range up to two to three thousand students in residence. If larger than three thousand they are substructured so that their component units, such as the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, tend to be relatively small…elite institutions are very sharply marked off from the surrounding society by clear and relatively impermeable boundaries, in the extreme case walls.15

Introduction

5

The Oxbridge tradition described above differs markedly from the Humboldtian tradition, which was more prevalent on the Northern European continent. As discussed in chapter three, the Humboldtian tradition purposely avoided defining university study as institutionally bound. Instead, it was viewed more as a philosophy and way of life that went well beyond the walls of the institutions. Within this tradition, there was no clear institutional differentiation between an elite and a mass approach to university study. This analysis of the transformation of the student career will focus on the structural and ideological factors upon which the reform efforts in all three countries have been based. It differs from Trow’s approach inasmuch as it is not based on the premise that expansion preceded all forms of change but rather on an analysis of how the ideology and rhetoric has undergirded the transformation of the concept of university study. As Burton Clark observed, examining the causation behind change within societies is particularly difficult: Change remains the most recalcitrant subjects in the social sciences … Those who search for the causes of specific changes in different institutions soon bog down in the complexities of history, perplexed by conditions and trends that converge and separate in seemingly accidental, unpredictable ways.16 This becomes equally true when one examines the transformation of the student career. Changes to the student career in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have been directly related to expansion to such a degree that it is difficult to determine which has influenced the other more.17 In the context of this study, change is placed in the context of structure, tradition, and reform. “Reform” in this context is different from the more neutral concept of change inasmuch as reform rests upon stated precepts and intentions of those who attempt to reshape policy. Luhmann and Schorr have noted that over the years a reform system has emerged which institutionalized “a sort of management idealism” in which a “constant appeal for change became an institution in itself.”18 It is important to note that the aim of reform has not been to direct change towards a single static rational goal in any of the three countries. Instead, various competing notions of reform have interacted with the traditional concepts and structures of university study. The central problem of this book is the consequences and trade-offs in-herent in three different paths taken by Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. It examines three historically similar systems in a comparative analysis of trends covering the past forty years. Cross-national comparison is effective in isolating the tacit assumptions about purpose, meaning, and function of the student career. Comparison is also effective in demonstrating that, in spite of repeated efforts towards reform, the student experience has shown a surprising level of resilience over the years. Chapter two discusses the complexities of cross-national comparative analyses and the different ways of approaching an analysis. One can construct a comparative work in successive chapters that reflect each of the separate cases that are under examination. One can also organize a comparative analysis in chapters based on the structural components as units of analysis, incorporating comparative analysis of the various cases in each of the chapters. This book combines both approaches. Chapter three discusses the historical development of the traditional ideology which has played such an important role in the formation of

The transormation of the student career

6

university study in all three countries. This is followed by three case analyses on how governments, based on changing ideologies and assumptions, attempted to reform as well as restructure the student career in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany respectively. The final chapter provides a summative comparative analysis of reform efforts in all three countries and how these reform efforts have set the stage for the reform discussions being proposed in a pan-European context. As will be discussed throughout the following chapters of this book, many of the roots of these assumptions came about gradually over the last half of the twentieth century, and were based increasingly on an idea that the student experience is something that can be compartmentalized by discrete units of time and function much like building blocks that can be taken apart and put back together again. The “constant appeal for change” refers to the idea that the student experience is continually recast to fit new as-sumptions. As result, the attempt to define definitively the student career will always be akin to chasing a moving target. For that reason, this work focuses on two key defining moments in order to provide a reasonable time frame for comparison. This book begins examining the student career at the period after the end of the Second World War when countries across Western Europe began to reformulate policy towards the student experience through national plans. The study concludes at the latter part of the 1990s, when national ministries began to call for a more European-wide policy in higher education.

Chapter Two Cross-National Comparative Analysis In the 1990s, an increase in the popularity of cross-national comparative research had been evident in the growing number of social science research projects involving the comparison between two or more countries.1 The renewed interest in comparative social science represents more than a cyclical academic trend. It is also a result of “external forces” in the form of rapid increases in the globalization of telecommunications, markets, production, training, as well as research and development.2 The renaissance in comparative social research in the late 1980s followed a period of almost three decades during which social science research had been dominated by methods of statistical and multivariate analysis.3 This domination of computer-based statistical analysis “led to research questions dealing more and more with facts and relationships within the boundaries of one society, one culture, or one social system, with the validity of findings or generalizations from such studies confined to the boundaries of one national state.”4 Despite the “spate of edited books on the logic, methods, and substance of comparative social research,”5 most areas of social science research are marked by a lack of cross-national comparison. As a result, the perspective of many researchers in the social sciences still tends to be limited to political structures or social phenomena familiar to them in their own culture. Concepts that are categorized semantically across national boundaries as similar phenomena, such as “student,” “professional,” or “university study” tend to be evaluated as equal units in large multi-country comparisons6. Research, which bases its analysis merely on semantic similarity, provides the illusion of like-comparison when in actuality the basic assumptions behind these concepts may be very different from one country to the next. Over the years, for example, research undertaken by political scientists, sociologists or economists which has examined the social concept of ‘profession’ has been largely based on the semantic meaning of the Anglo-American term ‘profession.’7 What is, however, considered a “professional” on the European continent is a far cry from Anglo-American professions, which gain their distinction and position in the marketplace less from the prestige of the institutions in which they were educated than from their training and identity as particular, corporately-organized occupations to which specialized knowledge, ethicality and importance to society are imputed and for which privilege is claimed.8 While there had been a “virtual absence of intercultural and international comparisons” in social research concerning the professions, many “sought to ground their understanding of professional work in the analysis of immediate interaction and the creation and maintenance of meanings mutually understood by teachers, practitioners, and clients.”9 Therefore, instead of drawing out interesting contrasts and differences that may have

Cross-national comparative analysis

9

shed light on the social, political, or economic characteristics of groups that may share similarities, such non-comparative research has tended to flatten these characteristics out of the analysis in order to create and adhere to a static, preconceived concept, The result has been the production “of a body of literature whose status has been vague and chaotic for too long.”10 COMPARATIVE METHOD The resurgence of interest in comparative research in the social sciences has brought with it a re-evaluation of the special role the comparative method plays in social science research as well as a reassertion of its importance alongside other standard methodologies. Part of the problem that comparative research has faced in its renaissance is that, unlike other research methods, it is not part of the standard training graduate students receive in the social sciences. As sociologist Charles Ragin remembers: I was trained, as are most American social scientists today, to use multivariate statistical techniques whenever possible. I often found, however, that these techniques were not well suited for answering some of the questions that interested me… Statistical methods encourage investigators to increase sample size and ignore or at least skirt issues of comparability. I found this bias frustrating because it discourages investigators from asking questions about historically, culturally, or geographically defined social phenomenon.11 Because of its marginal position in the social sciences, comparative research has also faced the problem of being misunderstood as a research method. This misunderstanding has been partially based on a lack of consensus of what the term ‘comparative’ means. Some social scientists claim that the term ‘comparative research’ is redundant, since any true scientific method is in itself inherently comparative,12 thereby making all social scientists comparative researchers.13 Though it is true that comparison is at the heart of all kinds of academic research, “the comparative method traditionally has been treated as the core method of comparative social science, the branch of social science concerned with cross-societal differences and similarities.”14 In addition, the comparative method of social research has been based on the comparison of “macro-social units” rather than variables across national or social borders.15 A second source of confusion has been that the term “comparative” has been used interchangeably with term “international” across the social science disciplines since the 1950s. Traditionally in the field of political science, for example, “comparative” meant any study outside the borders of the United States.16 This term, however, began to fall into disfavor among some social scientists, since they considered it “ethnocentric, confusing, and intellectually indefensible,”17 which “defines its concern according to the nationality of its practitioners.”18 According to Sigelman and Gadbois, though a large number of studies referred to as “comparative” tend to be single-nation studies, it does not seem to make sense to label a study of political parties in the United States as noncomparative and one in Italy comparative, just because Italy lies outside to borders of the

The transformation of the student career

10

United States.19 Kohn, however, makes a distinction between what he considers implicitly and explicitly comparative research.20 According to Kohn, some single-nation studies, such as de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, are implicitly comparative in nature since they have been written by a foreign observer whose reading audience was intended to span beyond the borders of the United States.21 Explicitly comparative research, which is the method of this work, is based on cross-national comparison of selected cases. COMPARATIVE RESEARCH: METHOD AND TECHNIQUE Despite its somewhat marginalized position in social science research, comparative research has enjoyed a long tradition in the social science disciplines. Comparative social science differs from other disciplinary sub-fields in that it defines itself as a sub-field methodologically instead of substantively.22 As a sub-field in political science, for example, the term comparative politics denotes how a political phenomenon will be examined rather than what political phenomenon is under study.23 For this reason, Lijphart suggests “a clear distinction should be made between method and technique when determining the approach to comparative politics.” Lijphart views the comparative method as “a broad-gauge, general method, not a narrow, specialized technique.”24 If comparison is the method, however, what is the technique? Charles Ragin observes that probably no other sub-field of the social sciences is more split by the qualitative and quantitative techniques than comparative social science.25 Ragin explains that such difference is attributable to two major approaches to comparative research: case-oriented and variable-oriented research.26 These two techniques of comparison have followed two separate paths, though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.27 Even variableoriented comparative research, for example, is based on the “the existence (or at least the presumption) of meaningful ‘cases.’”28 Of the two techniques, case-oriented comparative research has enjoyed a longer tradition than variable-oriented research.29 Case-oriented research tends to be historical in nature, since cases themselves are embedded in an historical time frame.30 Cases are framed by “distinct and singular entities (major events or periods in countries, world regions, cultures, or other macro-social units) that parallel each other in meaningful ways that motivates comparison.”31 Case-oriented research “attempts to account for specific historical outcomes or sets of comparable outcomes or processes chosen for study because of their significance for current institutional arrangement or for social life in general.”32 In contrast, variable-oriented comparative research focuses less on the analysis of specific macro-social cases and more on the cross-national comparison of specific variables.33 As with other disciplines and sub-fields in the social sciences, the variableoriented approach to comparative social science became increasingly popular in the early 1960s, when the “arrival…of sophisticated, but radically analytic techniques of data analysis shifted the balance away from cases and toward variables in many quarters, especially in comparative sociology and political science.”34 In contrast to case-oriented comparative research, variable-based multivariate analyses take an opposite approach to comparison in that they “desegregate cases into variables and distributions before analyzing them…” thus making “historical interpretative work very difficult, if not impossible.”35 An example of this can be seen in cross-national comparisons of student

Cross-national comparative analysis

11

participation rates by international organizations such as the OECD. Most modern industrialized countries have a wealth of data on students that can be used for multivariate analysis. The problem with an overly variable-oriented comparison lies in the fundamental assumption that the basic statistical unit, a “student,” is comparable between, for example, the United States, France, or Germany. In reality, the concept of “student” is embedded into a larger social and historical context. When undertaking a variable-based comparison, there is an implicit need to suppress any real differences between the chosen ‘variables’ whose surrounding definitional contexts may otherwise be of great interest.36 Just as comparative research can be too variable oriented, so can it be too case oriented.37 This happens when cases are presumed to be so different from each other that they cannot be compared. The result is an exaggerated focus on the individual cases themselves without any development of a comparative theoretical framework.38 Caseorientation, therefore, does not imply the exclusion of variables. Instead, it places different variables within a context of a meaningful whole—usually in the context of a historical case—and does not heavily rely on causal analysis. It is therefore important, in cross-national comparative research, to discuss the context of analysis.39 CONTEXT OF ANALYSIS Explicitly comparative research involving two or more countries differs from one study to the next based on the context and the intended level of analysis. Øyen notes, however, that the current terminology in comparative social sciences to indicate such differences is “redundant and not very precise,” consisting, for example, of terms such as “crosscountry, cross-national, cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-systemic, cross-institutional, as well as trans-national” just to mention a few.40 One problem is that researchers have tended to use these terms interchangeably without explanation.41 Kohn lists four types of cross-national research: “those in which nation is object of study, those in which nation is context of study, those in which nation is unit of analysis, and those that are transnational in character.”42 These types of research are not mutually exclusive since comparative research tends to progress from one contextual level to the next through the process of definition of each case. In the context of this work, for example, the case of “the student career” is on one level of observation a transnational one. Less like national systems of primary education, some dimensions of what defines higher learning has been rooted into a transnational system of disciplinary-based academic research.43 When the perspective of the researcher moves to the level of analysis of each country, however, distinct patterns and structures appear in each individual case: some shared among some national systems and some almost completely absent in others. At this level of analysis, the nation becomes the context of each individual case. THE COMPARATIVE METHOD: PROCEDURES Selecting the Cases

The transformation of the student career

12

Case-oriented, historical comparative research involves at the basic level the eventual selection of 1) the specific type of case, and 2) the number of cases to be compared. Selecting cases for cross-national study is important inasmuch as cases can be selected on the basis of their relative diversity and uniqueness or they can be selected on their similarity to one another. In undertaking the selection of cases, the level of comparison may begin at the worldwide or global level. At this level, an overall analysis can determine whether cases are somewhat heterogeneous or somewhat diverse. Based on a global analysis, one can isolate examples in the literature of cases that are based on similar historical and structural foundations relative to others, which have followed another path of development and therefore have different structural characteristics.44 When examining the transformation of the concept of university study crossnationally, one can find examples of cases that are based clearly on different historical and philosophical foundations. The selection of cases, therefore, need not be arbitrary. In the present study, the selected examples of national systems provide similar structural and historical traditions relative to other systems of higher education (see chapter three). Once this initial level of comparison is made, the level of comparison shifts to a level encompassing the three cases, at which point interesting differences also appear alongside the similarities. This conflict between diversity and heterogeneity is well documented in the literature45 and need not be a problem. In fact, as long as one takes into consideration the different levels of analysis, this tug of war between diversity and heterogeneity is what makes comparative research dynamic and informative and will ultimately be the defining factor of the study. Selecting the Number of Cases If one were to examine a frequency distribution of the total number of comparative research projects carried out over the past decades plotted by the number of cases used in their research, the resulting pattern would show many studies using three or fewer cases and many studies using forty or more case, with few studies in between. The reason for this is directly related to the type of comparative research being done. Those who undertake historical cross-national case studies chose a few, whereby those who undertake variable-oriented cross national research “rely on cross-national data compendia (such as those compiled by the World Bank and the United Nations) and take advantage of the substantial supply of information on virtually the universe of nations available in these handbooks.”46 This work examines three cases of a phenomenon—the change in the concept of university study—that is present in many different countries. As discussed in chapter one, this study is limited to three countries that share common structural and ideological traditions, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Setting up Contextual Boundaries: Structure and Beliefs Before undertaking a cross-national comparison of cases, it is first necessary to determine the overall context in which the cases are to be defined during the study. Setting the context of the cases, however, does not necessarily mean defining the cases. Clearly defining the case before undertaking the research, can be “counterproductive” in that

Cross-national comparative analysis

13

such “preconceptions are likely to hamper conceptual development” of the cases.47 Instead, the clear definition of the case should evolve during the research and be the final product of the comparative case study. For this reason, the analysis of the concept of the student career will therefore not begin with a static unchanging definition. Instead, the chief purpose of the entire work is to define the concept of the student career as a changing, non-static concept that manifests itself in different forms in different countries. The primary context of the student career in this study will be that of the national academic system as defined by Burton Clark.48 National academic systems differ not only in their structure, but also in their underlying ideology and academic beliefs.49 According to Burton Clark, national academic beliefs are “normative definitions characteristic of the whole and held, often unconsciously, by many factions in the many parts.”50 Academic beliefs both influence and define a system, giving it a particular character. Clark states that four underlying beliefs are particularly important to a system of higher education: “how accessible it should be, how specialized its training: to what occupations it should connect; and whether it should center on research.”51 These normative principles are variable and interact with the structural characteristics of the system. Whereas change in beliefs is constrained by the overall structure of the system, structural changes are also hindered by the underlying academic beliefs.52 The interaction between structure and belief is reflected in the transformation of student careers in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Ideological assumptions about the degree to which study should be self-determined or the degree to which it should be in the form or regulated vocationalization, for example, are also represented in the structural characteristics of the student career. Change to the student career—such as increased or differentiated access, diversification or integration of university study, vocationalization, the separation of theory and praxis, the establishment of normative durations of study—has been both an ideological and structural problem. SETTING UP A FRAMEWORK: ESTABLISHING THE COMPONENTS OF THE STUDENT CAREER This study is based on a general definitional framework of four components: 1) Ideological Assumptions; 2) Access and Selection; 3) Content and Goals; and 4) Administrative Structure. These components are meant neither to be mutually exclusive nor to represent every aspect of the student career, but rather have guided my investigation of the overall process of change in the structure and beliefs of the student career. Together, they represent important characteristics of the structure and beliefs of student careers in each country. Ideological Assumptions An examination of the academic assumptions behind the concept of the student career is an important component to the discussion and debate over university study in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.53 In all three countries, reforms of the nineteenth century brought with them the academic assumptions and related structures shaping academic

The transformation of the student career

14

study. These beliefs have been carried over into the twentieth century and are part of what Clark refers to as “national traditions in higher education.”54 The result is that the more traditional academic beliefs have interacted and sometimes conflicted with these new assumptions of social relevance. Many debates about reform—past and present— rest upon the tension between the traditional academic beliefs and the emerging new assumptions about the nature of university study. In this study, I hold that both the traditional and ‘modern’ academic assumptions and beliefs are ideologically based, that is, these beliefs represent “the implicit or explicit and often contradictory system of ideas, rituals and/or readiness for action, a system which gets its implications and meaning in a certain society with its classes, groups, institutions, traditions and contradictions.”55 Conflicts among incompatible assumptions and beliefs resound in the sometimes equally incompatible structural and administrative components of the student career. In order to understand better the concept of the student career, I have examined the formation of the assumptions and ideologies, which have helped underscore the concept of the student career in the nineteenth-century ideological roots in German neo-humanism. The analysis then focuses on the state directives, which framed the purpose and goals of university study in each country since the 1960s, when government-directed reform became increasingly important to the concept of study. Government reform has been accompanied by basic themes and frames of reference that help give context to the state goals of study. Over the years, these frames of reference have changed, superimposing themselves onto previous themes. These shifts in policy paradigms, as Guy Neave has noted, have occurred in very similar fashions throughout Western Europe.56 The interaction of new policy frames of reference with the older or more traditional academic beliefs produces a non-static, dynamic concept of university study, evident in the problem statements of a vast amount of policy research undertaken in each country. This work examines the main themes that have helped drive discussion or change to the student career; however, it does not claim to represent every underlying ideal or opinion within each country. Access and Selection How a student gains access to university study is an important structural determinant to the student career. Clark has shown that higher education systems “vary greatly in assumptions about breadth of access.”57 Assumptions about ‘open access’ towards university study differ from one system to another depending on whether one means “open to everyone” or “open to those who qualify.”58 Originally, access to student careers in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden was similar in that ‘open access’ was guaranteed to all who had successfully passed the academic secondary examinations. For the most part, students were free to select for themselves what area of study they wished to pursue. As the numbers of students began to expand, access became one of the most important issues of the debates surrounding reform in each country. Starting in the 1960s, concepts of egalitarianism began to change the underlying beliefs concerning access. The assumptions of ‘open access’ began to change slowly from ‘open to all of those who qualify’ to ‘open to everyone,’ though this change is less pronounced in the Netherlands and Germany and has been buffered considerably in all countries by the role of academic secondary schools.

Cross-national comparative analysis

15

Changing access away from the traditional paths by allowing, for example, work experience to qualify a student as ‘generally educated’ changes the overall dynamics of the student career. In addition to access, the ability of an institution or an academic program to select students from a pool of qualified applicants also changes the nature of the student career. Content and Goals According to Clark, higher education systems differ in regard to the underlying assumptions about the importance of general, theoretical, specialized, professional and vocational education.59 In the United States, for example, there has been a traditional assumption that structured general education is very important. Clark also observed that “[t]here are fundamental differences among national systems in what they believe is proper employment for graduates.”60 In Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, vocational and technical education was not originally considered university study. Over the past 40 years, however, reform has challenged the basic assumptions of what counts as university study and what kind of jobs university graduates should be prepared for. All three systems have diversified university study by raising some form of vocational and technical education up to the level of “higher education.” Sweden, for example, went farther by attempting to direct most of its university study towards occupational ends. The traditional bond between academic scholarship and teaching has been challenged, though the issue is far from resolved. In effect, ‘what counts as university study,’ has been put to question in all three countries. National goal setting provides another definitional characteristic to study in a crossnational setting. In all three countries, the state has played the chief role in defining goals and purposes of study throughout the nineteenth century and twentieth century. The legal definition of goals and purposes at the national level provides a definitional umbrella surrounding the concept of study at the national level. As will be discussed in chapter seven, forty years of national goal setting has given way to a trend towards supernational, European level goal setting that has been unprecedented in its scope. Administrative Structure of the Student Career The student career is also defined and affected by the administrative structure that surrounds it. Admissions procedures, matriculation and graduation requirements, for example, form the outer frame of university study. In addition, the existence or absence of grades, exam, course credits, and student transcripts also defines university study. Originally, administrative control mechanisms framing the student careers had little control over the student’s personal journey through university study. If the underlying belief is that students are mature adults who know best how to fulfill their goals, there is no reason for a strong corresponding administrative structure to be in place. On the other hand, if university study is understood increasingly as a policy apparatus of the state, it is natural to expect that the state should establish control mechanisms based on their assumptions of academic study to regulate and direct study towards the assumed needs of society.

Chapter Three The Establishment of the Personal Imperative Following the Second World War, the prevailing concept of university study in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands was still rooted in a tradition from the nineteenth century. In its most ideological sense, this tradition has been referred to by both scholars and the popular media in all three countries as the “neo-humanistic” or “Humboldtian Idea” of the University.1 Based on the concept of Bildung and Wissenschaft which espoused an exclusive commitment to individual freedom in the systematic pursuit of knowledge, this classical ideal of study has provided a resilient ideological frame of reference which has shaped the re-conceptualization of the structure and function of university study in all three countries since the 1950s.2 Referring to the reform debate in Germany over the role of the university, Ulrich Schreiterer observes that despite the diverse criticism of its factual contents, its social implications and theoretical foundations, despite well-known anachronisms and historically determined weaknesses, the neo-humanistic university concept…has always constructed the most important reference point for thematic conceptualization of the university, its self-evident truths, its work processes, and its production.3 Since the nineteenth century, the neo-humanistic ideal overshadowed more ‘mundane’ purposes and goals of university study, despite the fact that many of individuals who embarked on a student career did so for reasons of professional training or social mobility.4 This chapter discusses the ideas underlying the neo-humanistic concept of study and how these ideas in turn have influenced the legal and structural heritage of the student career, both in the past and present. This section will lay the foundation for an understanding of the twentieth-century challenge to reconstruct university study as an agent for social transformation based on the ideals of manpower planning, industrial competitiveness, social equity, and economic efficiency. THE INDIVIDUAL AS IDEAL In many ways, the neo-humanistic ideal of university study was a contradiction to its own time. Rooted in the German enlightenment, the neo-humanistic ideal was based partly on an ideological reaction within the classical intellectual culture to the imminent dangers of greater mechanization and specialization of European society.5 The rise of German neohumanistic idealism occurred during a time when England was undergoing industrialization and France was in the throes of major political and institutional reform under Napoleon.6

The establishment of the personal imperative

17

In the wake of the French Revolution, Napoleon had closed the ancient universities, which he considered to be key institutions of the ancien régime.7 The universities were replaced with the more state-directed and utilitarian elite training institutes, which later became collectively known as the grandes écoles. These institutes were founded to address specific state and social needs such as teacher training, managers for industry, and public administration, international relations and economics.8 Such developments in France brought about fears in the German intellectual community that similar state institutes would be erected to replace the universities, many of which had become obsolete by the end of the eighteenth century. Prussia’s defeat by France intensified these fears as Napoleon succeeded in closing some of the lesser universities and the Prussian state began to entertain the desire to emulate institutes similar to the French grandes écoles.9 In a clear reaction to these trends, a strong neo-humanistic opposition had formulated a reaffirmation of the idea of the university, and in particular, university study itself. At the most fundamental level, the neo-humanistic idea of study was tacitly based on the eighteenth century tradition of the Knight’s academy (Ritterakademie), which capitalized on the growing number of aristocratic youth who desired something more than a monastic and religious based training. Already in the late eighteenth century, education at Gottingen and Halle began to reflect the demand for “the full and harmonious training of the whole individual, the forming of aesthetically pleasing, ‘cultivated’ personalities.”10 Such an education “tacitly implied leisure, solid (and expensive schooling), and early exposure to a refined life-style.”11 The demand for such education came not only from the nobility, but from a growing educated class (Bildungsschicht) that defined its increasingly important status in society through a ‘refined’ educational experience.12 Fearing that a growth in the bureaucratic civil service would mean an increase in narrowly defined and specialized training, the chief neo-humanistic idealists Friedrich von Schelling, J.G Fichte, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Henrich Steffens, and Wilhelm von Humboldt published essays directly addressing the need for a new ideal for the university and university study.13 In 1802, Friedrich von Schelling published a series titled “Lectures Concerning the Method of Academic Studies” (Vorlesungen über die Methode des Akademischen Studiums)14 in which he countered the trends of industrialization and mechanization of European society by emphasizing the need to anchor academic study and research in a holistic, un-compartmentalized environment, free from external influence.15 Schelling stated that the only way to protect fragmentation of the academic pursuit into unrelated specialization was to place the individual at the center of the pursuit. Such an approach would also serve the purpose of providing an “antidote against one-sidedness in education.”16 This idea, put quite simply, was at the root of the neo-humanistic ideal of Bildung.17 According to Ralph Fiedler, the neo-humanistic concept of Bildung, was based on three inseparable and recursive principles: Individuality—Universality—Totality.18 The individual—rather than the society—was the center of reference in all aspects of life, in particular in the pursuit of knowledge. Individuality dominated in their thinking to the degree of an almost “irrational” denial of any kind of social reality. Thus, freedom of the individual from external social demands was the first imperative to Bildung. The individual imperative was not praised by the neo-humanists merely for the importance of

The transformation of the student career

18

the cultivation of the individual. More importantly, humanity demanded above all individuality.19 The individual was grounded in the universality of Bildung. Fiedler observed that “through a reciprocal reflection, a secret connection between the individual and the universe existed…” which ultimately “… resulted in the imperative for the optimal coupling between the individual and the world.”20 The individual must be free and unhindered to strive towards the universality of knowledge, rather than a high degree of specialization. Since knowledge consisted of a “never ending wealth of material,” specialization would in the end weaken the individual.21 The principal of universality demanded the development of a many-sided dimension of the individual. The individual’s striving towards the universality of knowledge is reflected in turn by the totality of the process back onto the individual.22 As Fiedler observed: If universality is determined through its many-sided relationships, then totality directs itself onto the individual; against the centrifugal powers of diffusion, totality guarantees the unity of personality and harmonious development in all of its constructions.23 Put more simply, the neo-humanists advocated Bildung as an insurance against the prevailing danger of one-sidedness of individual. Without a universality of a process towards knowledge, the individual would merely be a machine. Humboldt emphatically underlined the fact that man has it in his powers to avoid this one-sidedness, by attempting to unite the distinct and generally separately exercised faculties of his nature, by bringing into spontaneous cooperation, at each period of this life, the dying sparks of one activity, and those which the future will kindle, and endeavoring to increase and diversify the powers with which he works, by harmoniously combining them, instead of looking for a mere variety of objects for the separate exercise.24 Importance of Freedom The neo-humanistic concept of Bildung was predicated on a categorization of work into two basic forms: one which allowed an individual the freedom or leisure to voluntarily determine his or her own purpose and means of work, and another form of work which demands that the individual serve the needs of others.25 According to the neo-humanists, Bildung could not fall in the latter category. In order to protect Bildung in a society facing increased mechanization and industrialization, the neo-humanists envisioned a concept of university study based on a holistic concept of freedom, and the first and most important precursor of freedom was the emancipation from repetitive and menial labor.26 According to Humboldt, however, mere freedom from having to deal with the daily necessities was not enough in itself to bring about Bildung. Freedom needed to be accompanied by a variance of situations:

The establishment of the personal imperative

19

The true purpose of Man—not that which dictates transient desires but rather eternally enduring reason—is the highest and most harmonious cultivation (Bildung) of his powers to a totality. Freedom is the first and indispensable condition to this Bildung. Yet in addition to freedom the development of these human powers needs something else which is closely related to freedom: a variance of situations. Even the most free and independent man cultivates himself to an inferior degree when placed in a monotonous situation.27 Freedom as a basic concept of university study had a multitude of dimensions. The primary dimension of freedom in the context of university study was to provide a protected domain for academic pursuit. Freedom meant barring external pressures of the society into this domain. Any connection to an occupational goal had to be avoided, lest it encroach upon the unifying approach to university study. In order to achieve this, the state must ensure isolation of talent from other purposes.28 According to Schleiermacher, students should take up the life of university study for no other reason than for the pursuit of knowledge: “Nothing should matter at the academy except academic scholarship (Wissenschaft).”29 University study was conceptualized by the neo-humanists to be a way of life, rather than a compartmentalized daily task.30 Fichte envisioned academic study in a cloistered environment, set away from the rest of society. Humboldt, on the other hand, understood academic study to be a broader concept within society.31 According to Humboldt it was important that a young scholar devote an unspecified period of time after leaving school and before entering a profession in an environment which allowed for the unhindered academic pursuit of knowledge.32 Whether this period of study was cloistered or not, there was no conception of a part-time pursuit of academic study. The new idea of academic study was characterized by the neo-humanists as a total continuous process or pursuit. All efforts were made by these proponents to negate the tendency of specialization and the encroachment of the external environment on the total concept of university study. In order to achieve this goal in a practical sense, Humboldt underscored the importance of protecting university study from drifting towards the purposes of a secondary school, on the one hand, or towards the purpose of a specialized school, on the other.33 Schleiermacher considered students who were enrolled in university study for the explicit purpose of attaining a professional position to be Brotgelehrte or Brotstudenten: How often the universities send out of their schools such Brotgelehrte (“bread” scholars) back, who have splendidly learned everything in their subject that was available through teaching, who however, totally lack the judgment to pursue the specific within the context of the general. The living pursuit of Wissenschaft educates to perception; in perception the general and the specific is always one. The Brotgelehrte has in contrast no perception, he can not construct anything or synthesize on his own volition if the case arises, and since he can not, of course, learn to be prepared for all possible cases, he is forsaken by most of his knowledge.34

The transformation of the student career

20

Wissenschaft Alongside the neo-humanistic concept of Bildung was a second, but by no means less important, ideal: Wissenschaft. The neo-humanistic concept of Wissenschaft is as equally centered on the individual as Bildung is. Further, the meaning of both neo-humanistic concepts was mutually referential: Bildung implies Wissenschaft whereas Wissenschaft implies Bildung. Though Wissenschaft is often translated today into English as “science,” the neohumanistic meaning translates more broadly as ‘academic scholarship.’35 Both neohumanistic concepts, Bildung and Wissenschaft, were rooted firmly in the discipline of philosophy, which completed a self-referential circle of ideas: philosophy was both Bildung and Wissenschaft. Schelling believed that only philosophy could provide a basis for such a holistic and individual approach to the pursuit of knowledge. According to Schelling, philosophy was “the Wissenschaft of Wissenschaft.”36 Such “whole” knowledge must by all means precede any specialization in a single subject.37 Without Bildung, there would be no true philosophy and without philosophy, there would be no Bildung. Whereas Bildung is the formation of the self, Wissenschaft is the systematic pursuit of knowledge. Both concepts are, in the neo-humanistic ideal, inseparable from one another. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDY German neo-humanistic idealism laid the ideological foundation for the development of the concept of university study in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden during the nineteenth century.38 In Germany, the institutionalization of idealism first came in 1809, when Wilhelm von Humboldt was appointed director of cultural affairs at the Prussian Ministry of Interior.39 Though his tenure lasted only one year, his influence as both an idealist and state policy maker was responsible for the first state definition of “modern” academic study within the establishment of the University of Berlin, in 1810.40 Humboldt’s ideas of the university partly reflected his own personal experiences while a student at the University of Gottingen, as well as the ideas contained in the published lectures and writings of his early nineteenth- century contemporaries. At the core of ideas about academic study, however, were his political ideals outlined in the Limits of State Action.41 According to Humboldt, it was not the role of the state to initiate policy in the form of administrative regulations regarding the purpose and goals of university study. Instead, the state set fundamental organizational boundaries within which the concept of university study was defined. The lower boundary of definition set by the state through access. The higher boundary of definition set by the state, on the other hand, was embodied in the regulation of state examinations. The definition of the areas within these boundaries was to be left as much as possible to the self-determination of the individual student. Based on the idealism of Bildung durch Wissenschaft, Humboldt stressed three main themes of freedom: 1) Einsamkeit und Freiheit (autonomy and Freedom), which asserted the right of each scholar to pursue research uninhibited from external intervention; 2) Einheit der Forschung und Lehre (the unity of Research and Teaching), which described a direct and important link between an individual’s research and the quality of what was taught in the lectures; and 3) Lehr- und Lernfreiheit (the freedom of teaching and learning), which allowed professors to teach

The establishment of the personal imperative

21

whatever they wanted and the students to pursue only those topics which particularly interested them.42 Students were expected to shape their own intellectual development. Though lectures were the main conduit of knowledge from professor to students, the important organizational unit which took shape at the German university during the nineteenth century was the seminar. The early seminars were often held in professors’ homes or funded out of a professor’s own pocket due to lack of state financial support. These small seminars tended to follow the neo-humanistic tradition of Wissenschaft. As state sponsorship of scholarly work increased, however, profound changes developed in the manner in which research was carried out. As the number and size of seminars (and institutes) grew, increasing research specialization and methodology became a key issue. Organizationally, power was gained though specialization in the form of separate institutes and seminars. Such specialization occurred within each seminar too, as “early in his scholarly career, the young researcher was…introduced to habits of narrow thoroughness rather than the more universalistic drive characteristic of eighteenth-century writers.”43 The development of academic study in Sweden was based on the developments at the University of Berlin. As early as the late 18th century, Swedish intellectualism “was characterized by a heavy German influence… Goethe’s and Hölderlin’s poetry was imitated, German political ideas were introduced, and pedagogical ideas from the German-speaking world heavily influenced the school system at all levels.”44 This strong influence of the German neo-humanistic ideals of Bildung can be seen by the importation of the concept as Bildning into the Swedish language sometime around the end of the 18th century.45 The idea of Bildning originally referred to a broad social philosophy, despite the fact that Bildning—as Bildung—has experienced permutations of meaning and has been subjected to different interpretations over the past two centuries.46 As in Germany, many Swedish academics feared the consequences of mechanization and specialization on university education and incorporated the published lectures of Schelling, Fichte, Schleiermacher and Humboldt as into the Swedish academic ideal. Most importantly, the establishment of the University of Berlin in 1810 provided a concrete model for reform-minded Swedish academics, such as Carl Adolph Agardh. In the 1830s, Agardh had argued that all professional training should be located outside or at least at the periphery of the university, the chief educational task of which was to remain the free universal and undirected Bildung of its students.47 Debate over the purpose of study in Sweden led to the passing in 1852 of an important university statute “which corresponded fairly well” to the 1810 reforms in Germany.48 It was the first time that the Humboldtian concept of lärofrihet—Lehrfreiheit, or the freedom of teaching—was explicitly stipulated in Sweden.49 This law stated that the professors should not direct their lectures to the confining demands of the examinations but rather gear them towards their own independent academic pursuit.50 The Statute of 1852 established guidelines in order to keep lectures from only mirroring the content of the final examinations,51 and declared the lecture format to be “the only forrn of public instruction.”52 Until this time, research had played a secondary role to teaching.53

The transformation of the student career

22

In Sweden, the establishment of lärofrihet implied the establishment of its ideological corollary, studiefrihet,54 or the freedom of learning. Though not clearly articulated by the Swedish statute, the freedom of learning became an organizational reality which rested on the freedom of the professors.55 The idea that professors were free to lecture as they wish implied that they “should waken the students’ independence without leading them more directly.”56 Since there existed no attendance requirements for students, students could also choose the courses they wished study.57 In the Netherlands, the Official Resolution of 1815 stipulated the academic education to be the purpose of the universities for the first time at the national level.58 The Committee which drew up the decree had taken into account the reforms of universities occurring in the neighboring countries of Germany and France. As in Germany, the universities in the Netherlands had previously served as finishing schools, or Ritterakademies, for the nobility.59 Though the Committee of 1815 tried to avoid the shortcomings of these old universities, it also avoided following the French example of grandes écoles.60 Just as in Germany and Sweden, Humboldtian neo-humanism underscored the ideal of the new concept of university study in the Netherlands. Academic study was to be based upon the “principle of the unity of Wetenschap (Wissenschaft) and the inseparable tie between research and teaching.”61 The neo-humanistic influences from Germany assured the continuation of the structural and ideological characteristics of the eighteenth century academic culture. This preservation was chiefly in the ideal of studievrijheid, which was the Dutch equivalence of Lernfreiheit.62 Important to the university experience was the Dutch concept of academic vorming, the equivalent to the German concept of Bildung. Thus, the general structure and organization of Dutch university study was not to be something stipulated by the state. The 1815 Resolution in fact underlined the importance of a large amount of individual freedom in the pursuit of academic study as well as the freedom of professors to teach what they wish.63 The statute focused more on regulations involving examinations, which represented one aspect of external control by the state. As Foppen points out, at the time “one spoke a great deal about academic freedom:” The organization of higher education was characterized by the absence of an explicit structure at the time, it was not centralized by a curriculum (nor was it classical). Students were not held to follow a fixed sequence [of courses] lasting a fixed period of time, which really didn’t mean that there was no sequence in studies… Study guides were in fact not to be found.64 As in Germany and Sweden, academic study was reserved for a few select students to independently pursue the “cultivation and preparation towards independent practice of wetenschap” as well as the preparation for a position in the society for which academic training (wetenschappelijke opleiding) is required.65

The establishment of the personal imperative

23

THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF UNIVERSITY STUDY The loose organizational structure of university study in all three countries following the Second World War rested on academic idealism which developed in the nineteenth century. Though university study in all three countries had always been a domain of the state, the state in turn explicitly guaranteed the individual a large degree of freedom and responsibility to determine how his or her own course of study would develop. The traditional, neo-humanistic idea of study was rooted in a concept of emancipation—or leisure—from normal social and work functions. The concept was conceived chiefly with a bias toward the faculties of philosophy. It established a domain which, at least in theory, protected against the forces of society which might corrupt the individual to mold his or her needs towards a one-sided, utilitarian purpose. It was conceived as a holistic way of life, rather than a set of tasks to be fulfilled and it justified a rather loose administrative structure and the virtual lack of institutional control mechanisms over the individual students. Access to study was open in most faculties to those who completed an academic secondary examination. In all three countries, the Gymnasia, or classical academic secondary schools, had become the chief determinant for access to higher learning. During the course of the nineteenth century, these schools took over most of the general propaedeutic function of providing pupils with a strong foundation in the classics and humanities, thereby freeing university study to allow for more independent academic pursuits. As specialization of knowledge increasingly diversified disciplinary approaches in the latter part of the nineteenth century, common entrance requirements maintained by the secondary schools acted as a gate keeper to university study. Uniformity provided an illusion that all students, regardless of what they studied, shared a common experience, culture and background. Though the formal general education was relegated to the Gymnasia, the concept of general education existed informally in the students’ freedom to pursue self-cultivation unhindered by administrative restrictions. The combination of self-cultivation and free inquiry was the essence of the concepts of German Bildung, Swedish bildning, or Dutch vorming. Despite increasing specialization of the academic process in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, the neo-humanistic concept of study gave an illusion of a unified experience of the student career. As will be discussed in the following three chapters, this concept of university study provided a very strong context upon which the attempts to reshape and rationalize university study rested.

Chapter Four Sweden After the Second World War, the basic structural characteristics of academic study in Sweden were still strongly based on the ideals covered by the Statute of 1852 (chapter three). Students who studied at the university in Sweden were still required to first attend the academic preparatory school, the gymnasium, and pass the studentexam, the academic secondary examination. The purpose of the studentexam was established as a “shared set of cultural values which transcended disciplinary boundaries and set the students apart as a cultural elite1. Indeed, those students who entered the university “were few and privileged.”2 During the first half of the twentieth century, the gymnasium in Sweden was institutionally diversified based on specialization into three school forms: the general gymnasium (allmänna), the technical (tekniska) and the economic or commercial (handels) gymnasium. In 1953, the general gymnasium was further divided into three additional sub-tracks: a classical track (latinlinjen), a general or modern track (allmänna linjen) and the science track (reallinjen.)3 In addition, each of these tracks was divided into two separate branches.4 In the classical track one could learn in a purely classical branch or a semi-classical branch. In the modern or general track, one could chose between social studies or modern languages and the science branch split itself up into a choice between biology, mathematics, and technical branches. Specialization also existed in the technical gymnasium. In the second year, students selected from about twenty different branches and in the third, an additional choice of about 10 branches was added. Many of these “branches,” however, were chosen by few if any students: the most common in the technical track were the mechanical design, architectural design, and telecommunications among others.5 Of the three types of gymnasia, the general gymnasium supplied the most students. In 1957, of those who took the examination, around 75% had attended one of the three tracks in the general gymnasium (28% science, 25% Latin, and 22% modern).6 Following the Second World War, access to academic study in Sweden was characterized by a dichotomization between restricted (spärrade) access to high demand subjects such as medicine or dentistry and open access to the so-called free (fria) or philosophical faculties which comprised philosophy, humanities, social and natural sciences (see below). These free faculties comprised by far the largest sector of study. In 1957, for example, around 58% percent of the newly matriculated students were enrolled in the philosophical faculties. The so-called “prestige” areas of study such as medicine and dentistry, where admission was regulated, comprised on the other hand about 5% and 4% of the students respectively.7 As the numbers entering academic secondary school expanded the proportion of students in the population grew accordingly. Whereas in 1946, gymnasium students comprised only 8% of the secondary school age cohort, by 1963 the proportion had

Sweden

25

grown to 23%.8 Those who successfully passed the studentexamen grew from 9,425 in 1957 to 15,904 in 1962 and then almost doubled five years later (1967) to 31,253.9 Likewise, the number of students first matriculating into study increased. Whereas in 1957, 5,233 students matriculated into academic study, in 1962 this grew to 9,690 and then more than doubled by 1967 to 20,603. Most of this expansion was absorbed by the “free” faculties which had no access restrictions. Whereas in 1957, there were 3,010 new matriculants to the philosophical faculties, this number increased to 6,578 in 1962 and later to 15,762 in 1967. The proportion of all first university matriculants who enrolled in the philosophical faculty increased accordingly, from around 58% of the new matriculants in 1957 to 68% in 1962 and to 77% in 1967.10 ACADEMIC STUDY: TRADITIONAL STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS Just as in the nineteenth century, academlc study in Sweden after the Second World War was not framed by a fixed course structure or normative duration. There was no course preregistration.11 Students were free to take courses without charge and present themselves for examinations when they felt ready. Though it was not uncommon for some students to work during their studies to support themselves,12 studiefrihet obviated any distinction between a part-time or full-time student. The study of a subject was divided into marks, which represented work lasting one term. The Swedish first degree, the filosofi kandidaat, could be received after the accumulation of six marks of two or three related ‘subjects.’ The degree of filosofi magister was given to those who studied a certain combination of subjects deemed important for public service positions. Two or three years more of study and the submission of a minor thesis led to the filosofi licentiat and the filosofi doktor could be obtained after an additional two or three years and the submission of a major thesis.13 Within the free faculties, students were supposed to determine their own course of study, as there was essentially no form of guidance within the administrative structure informing students of what was required of them. Students chose freely to sit at lectures and essentially ‘read’ their topic quite independently.14 Reflecting back upon his own studies at the University of Lund, Professor Sven-Eric Liedmann describes his own personal experience with studiefrihet: When I started studying at the University of Lund 36 years ago, I was met by an academic reality, which was very different from that today. One did not have to apply in advance to begin studying a subject; one only came to the introductory session and found out a little about the course and lectures… All reasonable people warned of studying withm more than one discipline at a time. I myself would study in three or four sections alongside one another. I studied everything possible, from Russian to genetics. There were many loose threads and many unfulfilled study courses, but for the field which at last became mine and which I in those days, didn’t even know existed (history of ideas and learning), it was the right suitable preparation.15

The transformation of the student career

26

Thorsten Husén, a Swedish professor who had studied some twenty years earlier than Liedmann at the University of Lund, described his experience as a student in the 1930s as a “limitless intellectual Scandinavian smörgåsbord:” I venture to declare that university provided an almost euphoric experience of unlimited intellectual resources for those who wanted to increase their knowledge, broaden their perspectives, delve deeper into problems—not least for a nineteen-year-old in search of a philosophy of life … I did not at all feel that I had come to Lund to train for a profession, but rather to avail myself of a golden opportunity, entirely egotistically—and legitimately—of educating myself, of making use of the intellectual stimulation offered by the university environment.16 Before the 1960s, much of what constituted university study still reflected the ideals and structures of the nineteenth century, which placed a large degree of responsibility on the individual to choose a path of study, whether it reflected a professional or academic pursuit. For many students who were decidedly not studying for the purpose of entrance into a specific profession, the purpose and goals of study were not always clear from the beginning. As outlined in the two examples, the nature of the traditional structure of study placed strong emphasis on the individual’s learning for learning’s sake, rather than on teaching for the economic and social wellbeing of society. NEW PURPOSE OF UNIVERSITY STUDY In the mid 1950s, the general optimism in Sweden towards a new era of economic well being was also projected upon academic education and research. This optimism was mirrored in the policies and ideals of the Swedish government, which began to view university education as a potential engine for social change, rather than a remote and loosely controlled domain unto itself. Increased state interest in university education challenged the traditional structure and purpose of academic study and called for a stepped-up engagement of government policy makers and steering committees at the state-level into the daily matters of the universities.17 In 1955, a planning committee (U55) was established by Parliament whose purpose was to make recommendations for the redefinition of the structure and purpose of university study. The committee consisted of “experts” in the society, “professors, highly placed civil servants and the minister in the department of education.”18 U55 based its mission on an anticipated increase in the society’s need for technological development and skilled personnel in order for Sweden to remain economically competitive.19 U55 looked to the universities as the potential social foundations to meet the socio-economic needs of a modern industrialized country. The Commission of 1955 anticipated an increasing need over the next few decades for technology and skilled personnel and clearly viewed the universities as the place for social investment. Further, the state viewed rational planning based on efficiency as a means to create new resources.20 One of the most important influences U55 had on the reconceptualization of Swedish academic study came in the form of goal setting, which lay the foundation for the

Sweden

27

reforms, which were to come over the decades to follow. Lindensjö lists five main goals, which best outlined the philosophy of U55. First, academic education should bring about general progressive social change. Second, university study should enhance the understanding of basic democratic principles within society, so that they could become active participants. Third, university study should be restructured in order that it promotes social equality, rather than inequality. Fourth, university study should promote free educational and occupational choice within society. Fifth, university study should fit the needs of the labor market. This was to be done by planning and shaping university study based on projections of future demand for certain occupations and professions.21 THE PROBLEM OF THE “FREE FACULTIES” The free faculties posed a number of problems to the U55 Commission because they embodied characteristics which countered many of their goals. With the overall increasing university enrollments, the proportion of students within the free faculties was growing yearly, resulting in overcrowding and under-staffing. As more students enrolled in the free faculties, traditionally long durations of study, the non-chronological coursework pattern of individual students and the general high degree of individual student autonomy began to cause much concern among state policy makers interested in increasing efficiency.22 Criticism about the level of ineffectiveness of students, unnecessary study material lacking relevance to the labor market, antiquated curricula, and inadequate occupational direction arose repeatedly in one official report after the other.23 The inefficiency of the free faculties was particularly exemplified through a comparison sponsored by the U55 Commission with the medical faculty.24 First, whereas the medical faculties had a clear vocational and social purpose, the free faculties did not. Second, the free faculties had open access to all secondary school leavers, making it difficult to plan for a determined number of study places across the board. Third, the success rates of students in the free faculties were much worse than those of the students in the medical faculties.25 Comparison of graduation rates over a period of 15 semesters showed that, whereas completion rates of students in the restricted faculties (i.e. medicine) were around 75%, the completion rates of students in the free faculties hovered around 50 %.26 Despite the committee’s unfavorable attitude towards the traditional form of study in the free faculties, the U55 Commission recommended neither a reform of the traditional structure of study nor the implementation of access restrictions. The reason for this was that the goal of restricting access brought about the difficult dilemma between the goal to enhance individual free choice and the goal to implement centralized social planning. Further, since planning had not yet been implemented, leaving access unrestricted would allow for the free faculties to provide society with a supply of university trained individuals who could fulfill “unforeseen tasks” which might arise within the labor market.27

The transformation of the student career

28

CENTRALIZING CONTROL AND SEGREGATING PURPOSES In 1958, some of the U55 recommendations to enhance central steering were implemented by the government. The “most profound” centralizing reforms directly affected university study in general.28 Increased central administration of university study was embodied in two specific changes. The first centralized the allocation of resources to the free faculties based on student enrollment into what was called an “automatic system.” This essentially linked the number of students with the necessary educational resources meaning that as increasing numbers of students enrolled in study, the system would automatically allocate additional resources for them.29 Such automatization also meant that for the first time, student flows, cohort sizes and curricular matters fell under central regulation.30 The second reform instituted a new type of ‘lecturer’ position specifically designated for teaching. By removing the duty of research from this new position, the government hoped to be able to keep pace with the rapid increase in the numbers of students enrolling into university study.31 Lecturers were more efficient not only since they carried higher teaching loads, but also because they did not have to be trained at the state’s expense to be researchers as well. The intention of this change was to better clarify the purpose of study by strengthening both “basic” education (grundutbildning) and scientific research.32 This change set the stage for what would later become a clear split between teaching and research in the 1960s and 1970s.33 Another change brought about by the U55 recommendations was a shift in the state’s intended purpose of study towards the needs of the labor market, which “took over as the driving ideology of all levels of education in Sweden, from primary to tertiary and between. Even discussions of general education were framed by the needs of the labor market.”34 U63: CHALLENGE TO STUDIEFRIHET In 1963, the government set up a new committee called the 1963 års universiteits och högskolekommitté (U63) to evaluate different means of facilitating expansion.35 As with the 1955 Commission, the main concern of U63 was to increase the efficiency of university study, especially in the free faculties. Like U55, U63 was concerned “that students were spending a considerably longer time in higher education institutions than was necessary.”36 Similarly, U63 also focused on the two factors which they felt contributed to inefficiency of study within the free faculties: the loose administrative structure and open access.37 Fixed Study Courses The survival of studiefrihet from the first rounds of state reforms proved to be short lived. Daunted by increasing study durations and dropout rates, U63 attempted to remedy the loose organizational structure through the establishment of “fasta studiengångar,” (fixed study courses) within the philosophical faculties.38 The U63 commission believed that university study in academic subjects should be organized within a “fixed chronological order within a certain time frame.” 39 The underlying goal of U63’s plan was to increase

Sweden

29

the effectiveness of study within the philosophical faculties, “where the duration of studies was considered senselessly long.”40 The system of fixed study courses was meant to replace the overall ambiguous structure and purpose that characterized a large proportion of the student career by better regulating the students’ use of time and their choice of subjects. Study was broken down into a series of study points. One year equaled 40 points which corresponded to 40 weeks of study “that a full-time student should normally manage within one year of study.”41 Study was further broken down into separate years, requiring students to choose one of 17 possible subjects during their first year but giving them more possibilities in the second and a free choice of subjects in the third year.42 Each course carried a fixed number of points that represented a “calculated proportion of the semester’s work.”43 According to an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, breaking study down into required credits, courses, and subjects should make it possible to follow the progress of the individual student more effectively and to intervene if he is unable to keep up with the pace of study prescribed by the time-schedule. If the results prove clearly unsatisfactory, the student should as a last resort be denied continued university training… The fixed curricula system involves an earlier choice by the student of the goal to which his studies will lead. This is considered defensible from an educational point of view because of the rather late streaming at the preceding levels of education.44 The system of fixed study courses was implemented starting in the mid 1960s and by 1969 it had been completely established within the philosophical faculties. This reform was particularly important to the change in Swedish academic education because it later “became the pattern for the organization of study within all higher education in the reform of 1977.”45 In addition to proposing the fixed study courses, a commission on university research suggested strengthening the separation between research and teaching.46 The commission recommended that additional non research teaching staff be hired to teach more pragmatic and occupationally oriented courses within the free faculties.47 The result was that professors, who had already been quite removed from their teaching responsibilities, were further structurally separated from participating in the teaching process of students.48 The establishment of the fixed study courses coupled with an increase in the role of the non-research oriented teaching staff set the stage for additional radical vocationalization in the 1970s. In addition to the plans to establish fixed study courses, the U63 discussion also touched upon the desire to introduce at some point a more occupational orientation to study courses which had been traditionally very theoretical.49 The main goal underlying the establishment of the fixed study courses was to increase efficiency by increasing the throughput (genomströming) of students. Though throughput was originally proposed as a means of “saving large sums of money” through rationalization of the study process, over the course of the 1960s, the goal of increased throughput began to be influenced by more “social motives.”50 As the number of students was increasing during the 1960s, it was becoming increasingly apparent to policy makers that dropout rates and study durations were higher among students from lower

The transformation of the student career

30

socioeconomic backgrounds.51 By the mid 1960s, therefore, increased simplification and rationalization of the study process was justified on two major fronts: that it was important to increase both economic efficiency as well as social equity within society. Another important step towards increasing social equity came through the restructuring of student financial aid.52 In 1965, the financial aid system was changed, freeing students from means testing based on their economic status or income of their parents.53 This new regulation granted the right to practically all Swedish students to receive financial assistance to support the cost of living. The main purpose of these changes to financial aid was to “counteract social barriers” and “give the student an autonomous choice independent of family income—high or low.”54 Aid was given partially in the form of a grant, partially in the form of a loan. In 1965, the portion of aid in the form of a grant was 25%.55 Another important concern of U63 was the inefficiency of open access in the free faculties. Despite the desire to limit access, the Minister of Education in the end did not choose to do so because restriction had to be based on some kind of measurable criteria, such as the needs of the labor market.56 Since it was not clear how graduates from the free faculties fit into the labor market, restriction of access would require more planning and research. The Minister also pointed out that there were no criteria to go by to limit access of the secondary school leaders from the non-occupationally oriented gymnasium into the free faculties. Until this could be resolved, restriction of access, according to the Minister, would be very difficult.57 Another reason that access was not restricted at the free faculties was the fact that it ran counter to the goal of increasing free choice of the individual in society.58 Leaving access to the philosophical faculties open provided a means to absorb the rapidly expanding numbers of young graduates of academic secondary schools who exercised their free choice to undertake an academic education.59 Therefore, despite the growing perception that open access was inherently inefficient, the philosophical faculties escaped once again the restriction of access. According to Sven-Eric Liedmann, after the implementation of the U63 reforms in 1965, “one could no longer speak of the free faculties” in their original liberal arts meaning.60 After U63, the use of the term free faculty changed from one denoting the free and liberal pursuit of knowledge (studiefrihet) described by Thorsten Husén or Sven-Eric Liedmann above to one which merely denotes unrestricted access. With ‘fria fakulteter’ the 1963 official report on universities didn’t only mean the three offshoots of the old faculties of philosophy—the humanistic, the social science and the mathematics/natural sciences—but also the technological and law faculties. The opposite of ‘fri’ was ‘spärrad’ (restricted). A free faculty was a faculty where everyone could begin studies, provided that he or she was qualified through the studentexamen or the equivalent.61 U63’s virtual redefinition of the meaning of the free faculty to denote open admissions instead of free and unhindered pursuit of knowledge played well into the reform discourse at the time. Reporting on the dilemma of open and restricted access, one OECD report stated that the “Swedish Government has adopted a compromise solution: it has

Sweden

31

made a distinction between ‘restricted’ and ‘free’ faculties. The first include the faculties of medicine and dentistry and the technological faculties. The free faculties cover the arts, humanities, and sciences.”62 The U63 recommendations towards rationalization of the study process based on the development of economic and temporal control mechanisms could be argued both on a somewhat conservative basis—that it was economically efficient—and on a more social democratic level—that it decreased social barriers to members of lower socio-economic groups. TOWARDS COMPREHENSIVENESS The Comprehensive Grundskola Since an important goal of Swedish educational policy was to enhance equality through education, comprehensiveness, instead of stratification, became one of the main policy imperatives of the educational policy makers.63 At the basic level, the nine-year comprehensive grundskola was gradually implemented throughout the country.64 The establishment of the comprehensive school was based on the concept that all children in the country should have the same educational opportunities in terms of common elementary schooling with a national “core curriculum.”65 The comprehensive school was compulsory and was separated into three separate phases by age: 7–10, 10–13, and 13– 16.66 The comprehensive grundskola in 1962 was the first stage in a trend in Sweden towards comprehensiveness of the entire educational system. The purpose of the national curriculum was to ensure that schools kept “the individual class together, in the sense that permanent groupings with respect to talents or ambitions would be avoided.” 67 The next stage of reform towards comprehensiveness came with change to the upper secondary schools between 1965 and 1969.68 The third stage of comprehensiveness was implemented with the development of new, unified sector of ‘higher education’ between 1968 and 1977 (see below). The Amalgamation of Upper Secondary School The development of a comprehensive grundskola set the stage for a comprehensive upper secondary school. As the Swedish Ministry of Education points out The decision in 1968—implemented in 1970—to amalgamate the different types of upper secondary education into one school, gymnasieskolan, was a logical application of the principle of the comprehensive school also at the following educational stage.69 Students were no longer formally selected at the basic school for continuation in the upper secondary, making access to upper secondary school education a legal right for all young people in Sweden, though it was not compulsory. Changes in the labor market requiring increasing numbers of skilled members in the labor force “made it more or less

The transformation of the student career

32

necessary for young people to seek additional qualifications after completing the 9 year compulsory school.”70 In order to absorb the expanding numbers of secondary school students, the commercial gymnasium was extended from 2 years to 3 in 1961, giving it the same stature as the general gymnasium towards access to university study. As a result, the proportion of students entering the university from the commercial gymnasium grew from 5% in 1960 to 26% in 1964.71 In addition, the government expressed the wish to divert students from the general gymnasium to the commercial and technical gymnasia in order to reduce the 80–20 ratio of students in general to commercial and technical gymnasia to 60–40% by the end of the 1960s.72 In 1964, an additional type of post compulsory school was set up called the fackskola, which was a “para-professional continuation school.”73 Shortly thereafter, in 1966, the gymnasium was reformed to reflect 5 lines of study: humanities, social sciences, economics, natural sciences and technologies.74 It was also proposed at that time to amalgamate the three forms of gymnasia, general, commercial, and technical, into one integrated gymnasium. The integrated gymnasium would require that around 70% of the courses be taken by all students during the first year regardless of their chosen line of study. Differentiation of course requirements then would increase during the second and third years, giving students increased freedom of choice of courses.75 A further amalgamation of the secondary school system was instituted by creating a unified umbrella system to connect planning and funding of all three major types of secondary education: the newly integrated gymnasium, the fackskola and the strictly vocationally oriented ykresskola.76 Further vocationalization occurred in regard to the mission of the gymnasium when former vocational education tracks of agriculture, forestry and horticulture were added to the gymnasium.77 In 1968, the Swedish parliament decided to create one school out of all three different tracks and in 1971, a new school was created carrying “the traditional and honoured academic title” of gymnasium.78 These reforms were based on two not entirely contradictory goals. On one hand, the goal of the reforms was to increase equal opportunity by increasing free choice in education through the creation of a unified secondary school system. On the other hand, a persistent goal of the Swedish government was to divert students away from traditionally academic studies and subjects into more socially relevant vocational and occupational training.79 By elevating formerly vocational and technical training programs to the status of academic training, that is, to the gymnasium, these study lines would, at least in theory, increase in social prestige and, therefore, attract students who might have shunned them otherwise.80 Though the proportion of students who were “diverted” away from the more traditional and theoretical academic tracks into vocational secondary tracks did grow as a result of the redefinition of the secondary school sector, the policy of integration was more semantic than it was structural.81

Sweden

33

TOWARDS “TOTAL DIMENSIONING”: THE PHILOSOPHY OF U68 AND THE 1977 REFORMS The efforts of the Swedish government to integrate and unify secondary education set the stage for similar reforms to the universitles and other sectors of higher education. In 1968, a new Educational Commission, U68, was appointed by the then Minister of Education, Olaf Palme.82 U68 was charged with “working out an overall plan for the future of post-secondary education of the country, covering in particular its capacity, location and organization.”83 U68 was not intended to deal with research or research training.84 The Commission consisted of direct members and representatives of groups from the major political parties, the educational system, and the major labor market organizations.85 The 1968 Commission’s completed report was submitted in March, 1973 to the Minister of Education. The recommendations of U68 were based on the progression of reform goals and initiatives stemming from the late 1950s. The difference in U68 was its expressed intention to recreate higher learning as one unified administrative concept. Underlying the entire tenor of the report was a strong leaning towards the desire to rationally reorganize study towards occupational and professional training: The conclusion of the Commission, which was shared by Government and Parliament, was that, a limitation in total resource availability was necessary for creating a system in which labour market and resource questions on the one hand, and individual preferences on the other, could be weighed against each other over the whole field on a rational basis.86 During the late 1960s, Sweden had experience a slowdown in its economy, placing an emphasis on the rational use of state resources for education at all levels.87 In light of the fact that the recent school reforms had reduced the selective effects of secondary schooling, the policy of open access to higher education fell under more government scrutiny than ever before.88 Since the 1958 reforms had directly linked enrollments to resources, open access would put great stress on the system. U68 claimed that the choice is between having, as present, one free and one restricted sector of higher education, and introducing a limitation on admissions for basic higher education as a whole. The alternative of free admissions to all higher education is excluded simply by lack of resources. For the same reason it is obvious that a free sector could only cover, as at present, such education as demands few resources in the way of teaching staff, equipment, premise, traineeships etc.89 Though U68 claimed that the ideal situation would be to retain an open sector of higher learning, the necessary means to fulfill all the requirements of a well-designed sector of higher education, “would be difficult or impossible to implement as long as admission to certain higher studies is unrestricted.”90

The transformation of the student career

34

To add to the argument of scarce resources was the concern about academic employment of graduates from the free faculties. As the numbers of students grew in the humanities and social sciences, so did the concern about the kind of employment the graduates could attain. Resources spent on students in fields of study which were not clearly occupationally oriented took away from those areas of study which were more closely linked to the labor market.91 For these reasons, U68 proposed “that admission to all higher education be restricted.”92 The philosophy of U68 was realized as government policy over a period of about 7 years, culminating in the reform of higher education in 1977. Based on the philosophy of what the Swedish government called “total dimensioning,” the 1977 reform established a unified system of ‘higher education’ by “stipulating a total number of student places at the national level, these being distributed between educational areas or programmes and institutions as the result of a planning process.”93 The Importance of Quantitative Planning A key component of the U68’s concept of higher learning was based on Education Minister Olaf Palme’s confidence in the establishment of an overarching, centralized quantitative planning apparatus.94 The proposal for quantitative planning was based on “calculations on outflow and manpower needs.”95 U68 admitted that such planning was “based on a great number of assumptions, all surrounded by a greater or lesser margin of certainty.”96 The Commission nevertheless based its new unified system on the assumption that quantitative planning would allow for a “reasonable allocation of educational resources among the people and guarantee the national economy the knowledge and capabilities that it needed.”97 Most important, was the assumption that one such allocation should not be based on “unreasonable educational choices” of the individual.98 Broadening the Definition of Study: Higher Education A broadening of the concept of what was formerly university study was undertaken in the 1977 reforms both semantically and structurally. First, U68 recommended that all “post gymnasial education” be redefined as högre utbildning, or ‘higher education:’99 the task of U68 covers the capacity, location and organization of basic education in the sector customarily delineated by such terms as ‘postsecondary’ or ‘higher education.’ It covers more than what is currently denoted in the official statistics as ‘universities and equivalent institutions.’ The Commission proposes that the term higher education be used to designate this sector of education.100 U68’s main objective was to pull together the entire sector of post-secondary education to one uniform concept of “higher education” in order to facilitate better planning and administration.

Sweden

35

Higher education, which includes also research training, can be essentially characterized as publicly provided education based on a higher level of schooling than the 9-year comprehensive… Given its scope, higher education extends considerably beyond the administrative sphere of the Office of the Chancellor of the Swedish Universities, the colleges of agriculture, and other units currently termed colleges… In choosing the term higher education, the Commission has tried to delimit for overall planning a sector held together by uniformity in the main in respect of the age of students and rules of admission… The aim should be to achieve a more coherent organization, both locally and centrally, within which higher education can be treated as a unity with regard to quantitative planning, the location of facilities, and the development of new educational programmes.101 In 1977, practically all former distinctions between universities and specialized post secondary institutions were to be engulfed by the all-encompassing term högskola.102 Established academic institutions took over control of other formerly non-academic postsecondary training programs through a process of amalgamation, thereby upgrading the status of many programs.103 In addition to the change in the post secondary sectors, some secondary technical programs were promoted to the level of “higher education.”104 The reasons underlying the redefinition of the post secondary sector into one unified sector of higher education are very similar to those underlying the redefinition of all upper secondary sectors into one “gymnasium.” The Swedish Ministry hoped that by linking all post-secondary education together in a large web called higher education, the traditional borders between these areas would fall and positive interaction would occur between the sectors.105 More importantly, the Swedish policy makers wanted to reduce status differentiation by raising formerly vocational sectors to the same semantic status of traditional academic education. The leveling of the semantic differentiation in both the academic and vocational sectors was part of an underlying policy to divert students away from exercising their free choice to pursue traditional academic studies by attempting to control for status.106 Higher Education as Occupational Education Redefinition of all post secondary education to a unified concept of “higher education” was considered by U68 to have important structural “consequences for its capacity and organization, and to some extent, its location.”107 The single most important definitional factor to the U68 concept of higher education was that it “starts from the premise that higher education is to prepare students for subsequent occupational activities.”108 U68 did not concern itself directly with the function of research or research training, though they admitted that these activities would be affected by the Commission’s proposals on institutional organization. One of the functions of basic education, although this applies to a small

The transformation of the student career

36

proportion of students, is also to prepare for research training, and indirectly for professional activities as researchers.109 The U68 report states clearly that higher education should “prepare for” research training, rather than incorporate it. Academic training (vetenskap) was clearly avoided by U68 as a primary goal of the student career. Instead, academic training would constitute a separate goal for a “small pro portion” of students who continue on for further academic education. Building Occupational Training Sectors U68 proposed that higher education be subdivided into five basic occupational training sectors.110 In 1977, the government reconstructed university study based on U68’s proposal into a system of study lines (linjesystem) which was to be “the fundamental pattern for all forms of higher education:”111 • Education for the Technical Professions • Education for Administrative, Economic and Social Work Professions • Education for Medical and Para-medical Professions • Education for the Teaching Professions • Education for Information, Communication and Cultural Professions112 Students could choose from general, local or individual study programs as well as among specialized short cycle or separate courses.113 With the exception of health professions, the same courses were offered in almost every type of higher education institution. The larger institutions (the universities) would carry out research in addition to basic training.114 The general study courses covered more of the standard professions, such as training of lawyers and doctors, but also covered subjects such as natural and social sciences.115 The local study programs would tailor their training to the immediate needs of the region such as the specific managerial needs for a local manufacturer and the individual study programs could be set up by individual students.116 Study courses could be very specialized, offering training for a ship’s captain or opera singer.117 The study courses were not all structured separately from each other inasmuch as many were made up of a variety of different course options, which ultimately led to different types of certification.118 Dismantling the Free Faculties The 1977 reform called for central plans to be developed covering the content and goals of every general study program at the national level. Many of the traditional and theoretical study programs within the former free faculties were dismantled or redirected towards occupational goals.119 Students who had begun studies in the former philosophical faculties between the years 1974/75 and 1976/77 had a grace period to finish their studies under the old system until 1983.120 To counter the appearance of rigidity, U68 stressed the importance of maintaining a degree of flexibility and overlap between these sectors in order to accommodate trends and planning in the labor market.121 U68 proposed to allow for additional structural subdivisions of higher

Sweden

37

education into “different fundamental educational fields,” or “base fields.”122 The proposed base fields were: • Physics and chemistry • Chemistry and biology • Behavioral sciences • Social sciences • Mathematics and systems sciences • Linguistics • History, aesthetics, and science of religion123 Not surprisingly, most of these “base fields” were in the faculties of philosophy. These base fields were intended to provide courses and instruction to a wide variety of students, many of whom were studying in one of the occupational sectors. Students learning to be a teacher, for example, would take courses in the base field of linguistics as well.124 In addition, these base fields were intended to be the foundation upon which the basic unit of study would be built, the “single course.” The Safety Valve: Single Courses If the study lines represented a molecular structure of study, the basic single course was perceived to represent the more fundamental atomic structure. The concept of the single course was based on U68’s recognition and that “[n]ot all students in higher education intend to follow instruction in a complete educational programme.”125 To support their claim, U68 cited from the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics that had shown that of the students enrolled in the philosophical faculties in the late 1960s, only around 50% really intended to actually follow through to obtain a degree. Other U68 sponsored research had demonstrated that only around 25% of the students over the age of 24 indicated the intention of finishing a degree.126 In order to accommodate students who were not aiming towards a degree but nevertheless wished to further their knowledge, U68 proposed the designation of “single courses” which could be taken independently by individuals who had varied interests and needs. The emphasis on single courses supported a related policy interest of the U68 philosophy: recurrent education.127 According to U68, investment in single courses would provide the “fastest acting measure to promote recurrent education.” In addition, U68 emphasized that though the single courses would “often be occupationally geared,” single courses would best provide a means to meet the needs of unplanned demand for education by the general society.128 When the 1977 reform was implemented, around 75% of all the courses which counted as “single” or “free standing”129 consisted of courses traditionally offered in the philosophical faculty.130 The remaining 25 percent had an “interdisciplinary character” with or without a specialized occupational orientation.131 The duration of each single course varied greatly, from one week to one semester.132 Many of the courses which were designed to attract the non-traditional students outside of the regular study programs were often evening courses or intensive courses, some of which were taught off campus.133 Many of the courses within the former humanities and social science faculties had a “more lasting and general character” than shorter vocational courses and therefore

The transformation of the student career

38

provided many students an alternative to other structured occupational lines.134 Courses which fulfilled this function were, for example, history, social sciences and social geography.135 The 1977 reform followed the U68 philosophy that the primary goal of the single courses was to serve students with vocational experience by giving them an opportunity for recurrent education.136 However, students were also allowed to piece together courses to design their own degree. In 1979, this process became less certain, when the process of restricted access to the entire system of higher education—down to the individual course—was completely implemented. Students who planned ahead to string together a series of single courses to form a degree ran the risk of running into multiple restrictions of access if some of their planned courses were filled to capacity.137 Consequently, a student who wished to complete a study program in the most efficient way was wise to apply for entrance into one of the planned programs in the occupational study sectors. The structure of the single courses, nevertheless, acted as a safety valve to an otherwise highly-planned system. Though the intention of the program was to serve more nontraditional students who were seeking recurrent education, many of the students who signed up for single courses had 3 or 4 year secondary certificates, preparing them for entrance into normal study lines. In the 1981/82 academic year, 64% of the new entrants had some sort of gymnasium study, 40% of whom possessed a 3–4 year gymnasium study, and 11% of whom had even taken the traditional studentexam.138 In many ways, the single courses provided a very similar function as the former philosophical or free faculties had. The difference between the new system and the old was the modularized nature of the single courses. Though studiefrihet no longer existed in Sweden in the holistic sense of the past, the single courses offered, nevertheless, another degree of freedom in a more compartmentalized sense. Though the intention of U68 was to provide this type of freedom to encourage recurrent education, the single courses allowed traditional students a certain domain of choice and general bildning within an otherwise highly planned system. The Fundamental Elements: The Standardized Point System The U68 philosophy established a unified system of higher education based on the development of a standardized point system (poängsystem) tied closely to a new standardized system of evaluation.139 U68 believed that by establishing a standard number of points upon which each study program and single course would be based, this would in turn bring about a standardization of all training and education programs across Sweden, regardless of institution or faculty.140 The standardized point system was intended to be a sort of glue that unified an otherwise very diverse system of study programs and single courses. Based on the point system, the 1977 reform shaped the student career in Sweden into a highly modular form, consisting of a wide variety of study programs and other training programs that could be broken down to a series of individual building blocks. These modular blocks were in turn constructed out of course credits. Unlike the reforms in the Netherlands (see below), the 1977 reform intentionally avoided the institution of one overall normative time to degree to define the parameters of a unified student career. Though higher education was a unified concept, the duration of the student career was not. The temporal component of

Sweden

39

higher education in Sweden was determined chiefly by the accumulation of points. The expected time to degree varied from under two years to over five years. This varied within the five main sectors as well. Full time study for one week equaled 1 point, which then added up to 20 points for the entire semester. Duration of study, therefore, was based on points, for example, some courses required 40 points, or one year of study, whereas others required 220, or 5 1/2 years.141 Another aspect of modularization was that of part-time/full-time study. Unlike Germany (see below), where no formal distinction has existed between part-time and full-time study, the concept of part-time study in Sweden was so well defined, it prevailed over full-time study. The combination of all of these components led to different examination certificates and academic degrees, reflecting higher learning which lasts 40 points as well as higher learning which lasts 220 points. Students who completed a general study program, for example, were awarded a Certificate of Education stating the total number of courses and points as well as the grades received for each course.142 The introduction of the point system brought about, on the one hand, a diffraction of the traditional single concept of study to a multitude of shapes and sizes, durations and purposes. Because of such compartmentalization, fewer students had a consistent exposure to the process of research.143 On the other hand, this point system created at the same time an illusion of parity throughout the system of post secondary learning. Numerus Clausus and the 25/4 Reform In 1972, the Swedish Parliament followed the U68 recommendations and limited access to the entire system of higher education to a number set annually by Parliament.144 One of the main concerns of U68 had been to close the remaining window of open access to the free faculties. Instead of open access, sophisticated forecasting and planning would be employed to determine the precise number of places in each study line. Further, U68 stipulated that the access system based on labor market forecasting had to be balanced with the goal of establishing equal access to members of society hitherto excluded from higher learning. Instead of establishing a numerus clausus based solely on secondary school achievement, the government decision in 1972 also made provisions to expand the selection criteria to give high school graduates additional credit towards access if they had work experience.145 The main goal of the 1972 Parliamentary decision intended to reduce the strong relationship between educational tracks in the upper secondary with access to higher education. Aside from expanding the selection criteria to secondary school leavers, U68 recommended that a certain number of study places be left open for older (25+) nontraditional students who had at least 5 years of work experience. After a few years of experimentation, in 1977 the government implemented a modified version of this 25/5 recommendation, drop-ping the required number of years for work experience to 4 years.146 The 25/4 rule was intended to “compensate the generations that had not been able to profit from the build-up of secondary school” by placing “people of at least 25 years of age and with 4 more years of vocational experience… on equal footing, as regards general eligibility to the programme concerned in terms of knowledge corresponding to certain subjects and courses in the upper secondary school.”147

The transformation of the student career

40

The 25/4 rule was essentially based on two longstanding trends: one was the twentyyear goal to establish central control over the entire sector of higher learning. This goal, one of the most central of the reform ideology up until the late 1960s, was coupled with the goal to further social equality through a broadening of access. Broadening access had been a trend since the 1950s, starting with the elementary schools, moving on to the nineyear comprehensive secondary schools in the 1960s and then, by the 1970s, finally being instituted to higher education.148 Once justified by the assumed need for increased manpower and economic growth, the goal of broadened access shifted in the late 1960s towards an assumption based more on social equality.149 The Meaning of General Education U68’s philosophy behind the 25/4 reform was based on transformed assumption of what general propaedeutic education for higher education should be. Formerly provided by the academic secondary schools, the new concept of general education was broadened to include general knowledge and preparation gained in the workplace and through the process of maturing to adulthood.150 If, after all, higher education was to be vocational, should not job experience prepare students for higher education? The change in the definition of general education provided a means to emphasize social equality as an underlying belief in higher education not only for future students destined for higher learning but also for those students who had been selected out of the education system under the forrnerly stratified school system. Managing the Demand Despite the apparent technocratic rigidity of the system, the admissions policy was set up by the 1977 reform to keep a planned centralized system as liberal as possible, while allowing more stringent requirements to specific study programs.151 This was done by making a distinction between general and specific requirements. Specific requirements might apply to study courses requiring special prerequisites such as medicine, natural sciences or technical areas. 25/4 applicants who did not have these prerequisites would have to complete them within the realm of adult education.152 General requirements, on the other hand, apply to all study programs. The general requirements are related to two years of study in upper secondary school of subjects which students are all expected to have mastered, such as English and Swedish.153 Most single courses tended to have more general than specific admissions requirements.154 In order to balance applicants with the more classical general propaedeutic education and those with the newly instituted vocational/life experience oriented general education, the Swedish government set up a system of four different types of quotas to select students. Selection would occur if the number of applicants for a specific program exceeded the number of places determined by the legislature.155 Since the application procedure to higher learning was entirely centralized, those wishing to study would fill out a form listing a series of choices of the five occupational study lines they wished to take and ranking their 12 top choices of where they would like to study. Study programs admitted new applicants in January and August, though some programs admitted students only on a yearly basis.156

Sweden

41

Though the quota system was rather complex, some of the more aspiring students were able to exploit it to their own benefit. The quota system was broken down in a point system basically in the following manner: 1. Those possessing a studentexam from the three or four year upper-secondary school (gymnasieskola) get 5 points. 2. Those possessing a leaving certificate from a two year upper secondary school get 5 points. 3. Those possessing a leaving certificate from a folk high school get, depending upon their final grade average, between 1–4 points. 4. Those that are at least 25 years of age and have accumulated 4 years or more of work experience get, depending upon their score on a scholastic aptitude test, up to 2 points. In this category of applicant, half of the places are reserved for those who have no other choice but to apply under this category.157 The overall proportion of applicants between all four groups determined how many places were to be offered.158 Those applicants representing the more traditional students—those listed in groups 1 and 2—were able to increase their chances by adding work experience. When this provision was originally drawn up, applicants with high school leaving certificates could earn up to 2.5 extra points by working for a total of 15 months, 9 months of which had to be at the same job as well as volunteering at some public agency for more than two years.159 U68’S IDEAL AND THE 1977 REFORMS IN RETROSPECT The U68 philosophy and the 1977 reforms took a deliberate and highly rational approach to reconceptualizing university study as higher education. The 1977 reforms completed a long trend in the Swedish educational system of sharply reducing the strong relationship between type of secondary schooling and access to higher education. They also attempted to introduce a vocational orientation to the entire unified system of higher education by organizing study into a system of vocational lines. In the end, the reforms attempted to compartmentalize study so that it could be broken down into supposedly equal units based on points, courses, semesters, and lines. Lindensjö summarizes the U68’s philosophy as one that shifted a system of study based traditionally on a loose combination of the demands for higher education from the labor market and the individual to a system that focused on the state-projected and perceived needs of the labor market and individual.160 This “radical” and “fundamental redrafting” of the basis of study “unveiled a…bias in the technocratic planning strategy which came into practice” under the 1977 reforms.161 Unlike the more traditional system based on demands, the technocratic “application of data and forecasting methods did not lend themselves to giving any basis for decisions for a rational policy in terms of individuals or the labor market.”162

The transformation of the student career

42

Access and Social Equality Reevaluted The positive consequences of the compensatory access policies which pro vided working adults admission quotas and points for experience were offset by the negative effect it had on the ability for the Swedish educational system to recruit young people just leaving the upper secondary school.163 This was especially apparent in regard to young people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, who were displaced by adults.164 Having recognized this problem, the government made revisions in 1982 to the quota system by allowing a smaller proportion of the 25/4 students to enter and by changing the weight placed on work experience.165 Despite the reforms and despite the efforts to equalize the status of all forms of secondary schooling and post-secondary training, the traditional social class values and their related patterns of educational choice remained well intact.166 Students from working class backgrounds streamed into shorter vocational programs whereas those students from families with an academic background tended to enroll in the “longer and more prestigious programmes” such as medical studies.167 Changing the title of many vocational training programs to higher education did not seem to affect the traditional higher status of university or professional study. Though the reforms did serve to increase choice to young people and old people from working class backgrounds, “nothing could prevent those with an upper or middle class background from benefiting from the new opportunities and from using working-life experience to the same extent as those with a working class background.”168 Over time, the commitment to the ideal of equality in Sweden “gradually blurred, and in official documents, rhetoric seems to have displaced serious analysis of ends and means.”169 In the late 1980s, the government reformed the secondary schools by adding a year of additional general courses to the two-year vocationally-oriented track thereby making it a standard three years. This reform indicated a distancing from the policy to divert students away from entering into the traditional university study and towards vocational programs.170 Purpose and Content Reevaluated Following the implementation of the 1977 reforms, the shortfalls of the ability of the new unified system to function in sync became increasingly apparent to members of the academic community. Goals for increased social recruitment, increased relevancy of study to the labor market, and increased efficiency of the system were not met. Over time, the reorganization of study based on the 1977 reforms proved that “study lines with occupational-orientation were not suited for all higher learning.”171 As a 1993 report by the Swedish Ministry of Education and Science characterized it: This attempt to apply a vocational training concept within a field traditionally characterized by “free” combinations of courses was a subject of debate throughout the 80s—according to the critics it was a sign of a lack of understanding of the fundamental values of universities and university studies. Some of the new programmes had difficulty

Sweden

43

finding their identity. The programme system was soon blamed for one accelerating problem, namely declining recruitment to post-graduate studies. This was attributed to the fact that the new undergraduate programmes were structured in such a way that the students could not as easily as before embark upon deeper subject studies within the framework of their regular study path.172 What many students did do, however, was to embark on a course of study which consisted of freely stringing single courses together. In this way, the students circumvented the planned system by pursuing courses of their own desire. Thus, U68’s original intention to foster recurrent education through the single course was countered by the traditional students demand for self-edification and free choice. According to Sven-Eric Liedmann, however, this sort of freedom and self-cultivation was quite different from those he experienced during the 1950s. One who has the necessary intellectual preparation cannot throw him or herself in just any free study, cannot let him or herself be driven by the hunger of knowledge and interests without having to subject oneself to a pile of regulations, rules, admissions decisions, restrictions, reserved placement among other things. Well inside in the former free study come new regulations, all fitting for some external needs. The real preparatory studies for occupations—the fixed study lines—are regulated in detail. The remains, free courses and such, which includes most of the humanities, a great deal of the social sciences and all of the natural science studies, contains at least a large reciprocal freedom, so that one can combine one with the other according to one’s own choice (and provided that one clears the obstacles which surround every new course). But freedom implies only that one is able to lay blocks together—and the ‘free courses’ stand at most on the backup program.173 REFORMING THE REFORMS The growing disillusionment among policy makers, faculty and students in the results of the highly planned system increased throughout the 1980s. Over the years, many of the students had expressed the frustration from being treated like machines in the U68 system.174 In 1991, a new coalition was voted into power, giving Sweden the first conservative head of state in 63 years. The new Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, emphasized the necessity for a revitalization of higher education and research, and promised to dismantle parts of the highly-planned and bureaucratic unified system by moving decision-making away from Stockholm down to the individual universities and higher education institutes.175

The transformation of the student career

44

Emphasis on Freedom In 1992, the Swedish Minister of Education, Per Unckel, spelled out his new government’s educational philosophy in the preface of the government’s recommendations on policy towards higher education, Fria universitet och högskolor (free universities and higher education institutes).176 Unckel wrote that the new policy represented a “radical change, not only in the system of regulations, but also in the underlying, controlling set of values.”177 According to Unckel, the new “controlling set of values” was to be freedom, stating that “the aim of freedom for universities and higher institutes should be united with the overreaching goal for higher learning.”178 Scaling back the Goal of Social Relevance In an obvious departure from the values and philosophy of U68, the document emphasized that “higher learning should be clearly distinguishable from other education.”179 The fundamental goals of higher learning should, instead, focus more on the student’s pursuit of knowledge rather than on his or her future occupational activity: In the recommendation towards the formulation of goals, it is especially not mentioned that higher learning constitutes the foundations for a future occupational activity. It underlines among other things that the fundamental goal for higher education is that students should dedicate themselves to an active pursuit towards knowledge. It is through this that higher education can best prepare for different sorts of future occupational activities.180 In addition, the new document emphasized a clear move away from another U68 goal of the student career, equal opportunity: The general goal of democratic conduct, equality between men and women or between background characteristics should not be written in the higher education law. Such types of goals are found in other laws which also—in certain sections—are valid for activities at universities and institutes of higher learning. That which concerns itself with the content in education should also not be regulated in these respects by the powers of the state.181 The Reassertion of Research as a Goal of Study The new document expressed the concern that the separation of teaching and research brought about a lack of research skills among the Swedish students compared to other European countries.182 According to the recommendations, basic higher education should “give the students capabilities to make independent and critical judgments…ndently solve problems” and “pursue the development of knowledge within the field which the training requires. Education should also develop the students’ capabilities to exchange

Sweden

45

information at an academic and scientific (vetenskaplig) level.”183 Therefore, central to the new recommendations from the Ministry of Education was that research should play an important role in the fundamental principle of higher learning. According to paragraph 6 of the recommendations of the higher education law, research training shall build upon a basic higher education. The aim of research education is to train those who can independently produce new knowledge… Research training shall give the ability for critical examination, for the individual pursuit of new knowledge with scientific (vetenskapliga) methods together with a deepening knowledge within a specialized field.184 The new government stressed that a renewed freedom had to be inseparable to the interconnection between the academic pursuit (vetenskap) and higher learning. Similarly, any kind of studiefrihet was not desirable without the necessary interconnection with academic research (vetenskap): The most important task for higher education policy makers in Sweden today is therefore, in our opinion, to reestablish this connection and maintain the fundamental relationship between research and teaching.185 Questions of Individual or State Responsibility The philosophy behind the recommendations was based on a renewed emphasis on and trust in the “responsibility” of the students in choosing their own individual paths of study. The new official attitude towards higher learning was that the developments in the workplace, in society and in academic research happen far too quickly to make possible a narrowly centrally planned university study; the demands of the society and of the individual knowledge change constantly making it difficult to foresee needs too far in advance.186 An increase in the individual’s freedom needs to be instituted with an equal emphasis on the individual’s responsibility.187 Just as the individual student must be encouraged to undertake an independent pursuit of knowledge, so must the student “bear the responsibility to fulfill the education which he or she has chosen.”188 Return to Degrees Instead of micro-managing study within nationally determined vocational programs, the new government proposed dismantling the line system and orienting study towards centrally established examination regulations.189 According to the new plan, how higher education

The transformation of the student career

46

shall be organized within different study fields should be determined by every university or higher education institute. This will most probably lead to differences between universities and colleges as well as variations between different fields of study which should reflect students’ different dispositions. Variations can span from fixed study courses over recommended study courses to individual study programs which consist of freely chosen courses.190 The intention of the new government in orienting study towards examination was to allow students and individual programs more freedom and flexibility in designing the content and approach. The examinations would act as an external “quality control” device.191 A Call for Normative Durations of Study Moving away from the U68 idea of certifying attendance in almost every single course, the new government also recommended organizing study around a series of examen, or degrees. The government recommended dividing degree classifications into general qualifications and professional qualifications. Within the general degree offerings, study was eventually reorganized around three degree formats: the högskolexamen which required at least 80 credit points or two years of full time study, the kandidatexamen (equivalent to the bachelor’s degree) which required at least 3 years of full time study or 120 credits, 60 of which in a major study area and two types of master’s degrees: the magisterexamen with depth, which required 4 years of study or 160 credits of which 80 are in a major subject area and a independent research worth at least 20 credit points and the magister with breadth, which requires a general or professional degree of at least 120 credit points along with the 40 credit points of specialization including independent scholarship of at least 10 credit points.192 In order to ensure that students get a “deepened” knowledge in a specific subject, 60 points of the kandidatexamen and 80 points of the magisterexamen had to be in the major area. In addition, the government recommended that 10 points of the kandidatexamen and 20 points of the magisterexamen represent “independent work.”193 The other vocational or professional examinations included • dentistry examination • pharmacy examination • dental hygienists’ examination • day care examination • receptionists’ examination.

Sweden

47

THE MARKET METAPHOR From Access to Admissions The new recommendations called for a shift away from the long-standing policy based on centralized access to higher education to a policy based on institutionally-based admissions and selection.194 The new government believed that “quality” would increase by establishing market-like incentives allowing institutions to both attract and select students. Though central guidelines and standards would be established, the authority over admissions would be rooted in the institution instead of a central organization in Stockholm. Just as the new institutions would have the right to choose their own students, they would also have a responsibility to see to it that they were provided an efficient service once they were enrolled. In order to assure such “quality” service, the new recommendations established performance based financial incentives to the institutions.195 Market Incentives The new government proposed instituting an outcome-based system of financing which would be based on a series of performance indicators. The new system would base 40% of institutional financing on yearly per capital enrollments of students and 55% on how well the students achieve reaching a minimum number of credit points each year. The remaining 5% would be withheld based on the results of a quality assessment in a general account in Stockholm. A review committee would travel around to undertake assessment of the undergraduate education and then give a grading of the quality. If they did not do their job well, they would only get 1/2 of the 5% back. When the idea was first suggested by the Ministry, the only thing they were going to evaluate was the ability for departments to develop quality enhancement committees. This new system was based on an idea that market mechanisms would bring about increased output (or throughput). “Efficiency” and “quality” were redefined by the new government as a matter of how many students could be educated for what sum of money. According to its critics, it was an effective means for the government to cut back on its funding of higher education. If only 60% of the students actually graduate from a program, the program then effectively loses 40% of its funding. Programs such as Languages, in which many students take courses, but from which few graduate, would find themselves in financial trouble. The effect of this system was to place an entirely new type of pressure on the students and faculty. Risking the loss of funds, some students who may have otherwise failed, may have been pushed along in the system, thus causing grade inflation. Some feared that subject areas which did not attract many students but nevertheless enriched an academic environment by offering minor degrees would be forced to “sell themselves out” or be phased out of existence.196 Policy makers answered this concern with the acknowledgement that they needed to search for more “indicators of quality” to better determine fair funding measures.197

The transformation of the student career

48

Whereas departments were rewarded for increasing enrollment and throughput, students were threatened with the withdrawal of financial aid if they did not show good progress and had no excuses to explain their situation. As mentioned above, since 1965 Swedish financial aid had been based on a mixture of grants and loans to students regardless of family wealth and social status. The proportion of financial aid that came as a grant decreased steadily to around 6%. In 1989, the system was revised to increase the grant portion to 30% of financial aid.198 However, if students took on a job to help them pay for their education, they could lose the right to a portion or all of the grant, depending on how much they earned. This arrangement discouraged students from working and, as a result, encouraged them to take out larger loans.199 Since the balances of the loans were tied to the national rate of inflation, “many students are never able to pay offtheirloans.”200 COMPARTMENTALIZATION After the Second World War, policy makers in Sweden began to view higher education chiefly as the engine of social rather than personal change. Influenced by a new belief in the merits of planned social engineering, Swedish policy makers used new theories of applied psychology to the management of higher education in order to reform the structure, purpose and goals of higher learning. With the aid of newly developed computer technologies and their related statistical methods, educational policy makers were able for the first time to plan at the national level higher learning based on computer predicted forecasts of state determined needs of both the labor market and the individual.201 With the coming of the planned system of higher learning, the tension between the social and the personal came increasingly to the fore. Rational planning and forecasting was tied to an ideal of efficiency. Together, these new ideals to higher learning challenged the philosophical faculties as the keystone of the concept of university study in Sweden since the nineteenth century. Based on data derived from statistical forecasting of the labor market, students’ free choice to pursue study within the philosophical faculties appeared increasingly problematic. The state, however, was not sure as to how it should deal with the primacy of the philosophical faculties to higher learning. Since the majority of students were to be found in the philosophical faculties, restriction of access would contradict other important democratic goals. Instead, the state first implemented fixed study courses to restrict the traditional studiefrihet. Only later, when U68 redefined the entire realm of post-secondary education to a unified idea of the högskola were access restrictions placed on all aspects of higher learning. Semantic redefinition was accompanied by further structural compartmentalization of the process of study. Breaking academic study down into the modular units of the single course, which were in turn composed of credit points, represented a new assumption that knowledge could be broken down and learned by students in a piecemeal nature. Instead of the uninterrupted holistic endeavor that differentiated study from other pursuits at the end of the Second World War, higher learning had to be “studiable” with clear outcomes attached to the learning process. The intention of the reforms was to eradicate the longterm bias of the humanities in the concept of study and replace it with a more vocational

Sweden

49

orientation. The overall attempts to link the higher education system to the labor market, however, deregulated itself. The students voted with their feet and chose to pursue single courses which reflected their own personal demands rather than the perceived needs of the state.202 Despite their claim of “radical change,” the state reforms of 1993 had many of the same intentions of the 1977 reforms. Vocationalism remained a chief goal. The difference is that instead of centrally planning vocational lines, programs were supposed to be funded based on a combination of externally determined “quality indicators” as well as their relative marketability. By implementing such quality assurance mechanisms, university study becomes a marketplace for the student consumers. Input and output criteria become a quality indicator in that programs compete in a free market to attract a high input of students and work hard to ensure an equally high output of students. The centuries-old concept of the individual freedom to study is reasserted as individual consumer choice. The new market ideology was toned down when the Social Democrats regained power in September, 1994. The new Minister of Education spoke of his predecessor: Mr. Unckel was too impressed by consultants who told him that he could measure everything… How can you measure the quality of humanities? You can’t. Ultimately, the responsibility for deciding that part of the formula is forced on the government. We don’t want to say who is better at everything. We can’t—and shouldn’t.203 The most striking aspect of the 1993 reform in Sweden was how it so strongly contrasted and countered the assumptions of the U68 and 1977 reforms. One could see this from its title alone, with its call for “Freedom and Responsibility.” Many of the passages of the law are noteworthy in their repudiation of almost 30 years of a trend in reform in Sweden. One of the biggest problems that the 1977s reforms posed was how the Swedish system of higher education could possibly thrive in an increasingly internationalizing world with a structure of study that was tailor designed for the needs of the Swedish state. One of the main reasons that the Ministry so readily abandoned the “lines” system in favor of a degree system was that Sweden ran the risk of isolating itself precisely at a time that many believed that it had needed to be more internationally competitive in its higher education degree offerings.204 As with Germany and the Netherlands (see below), Sweden had increasingly begun to examine the relative attractiveness of its higher education system in an international and, eventually, a European context.

Chapter Five The Netherlands Following the Second World War, the Netherlands experienced rapid economic and industrial growth that expanded the demand for more professional and highly skilled labor. Political leaders expressed a concerted interest in modernizing the entire educational system as well as clarifying and redefining the role of academic study. At the time, the formal Dutch educational system consisted of compulsory basic education and higher education. There were otherwise few formal educational alternatives for those few who did not pass on to the academic preparatory schools (voorbereitend wetenschappelijk onderwijs—VWO), which consisted of the Gymnasium (classical language curriculum) and the Athenaeum (new language curriculum).1 As in Sweden and Germany, academic preparatory schools were the primary conduit to university study. Unlike Germany and Sweden, however, the VWO schools were not officially considered secondary education, since the Gymnasium and Athenaeum remained by law within the domain of “higher education” until 1960.2 Review of the Dutch educational system began with a 1946 reconstruction committee formed by the government to make recommendations for planning and change. The committee’s 1949 report criticized the entire system of education as being too “classical,” claiming that it was “too intellectually onesided” in its purpose to prepare young people for academic study.3 The report stated in addition that there was too little cooperation between the “relatively autonomous school types,” that the classical schools were “too one dimensional in character,” that it “did little to take the divergent talents of the pupils into account,” and that it was “too intellectual in character.”4 The educational system needed instead an increased practical orientation to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding economy. Despite the immediate post-war criticisms of the classical orientation of the academic preparatory schools, the “neo-humanistic vormingsideal nevertheless remained dominant,” evident in the fact that the Committee did not recommend the development of a more practical curriculum within the classical schools.5 Instead, the Committee recommended the development of a parallel, general secondary school (alegemene middelbare school—AMS) to educate young people for leadership positions in society that did not require an academic education. In order to facilitate transfer, the committee recommended that the first year of the general and academic schools not be too different from each other. In 1962, the government approved the first comprehensive law to deal specifically with secondary education, The Law for Advanced Education. One of the results of the law was to redefine the gymnasium and athenaeum into the domain of secondary schools, within the classification of VWO (preparatory academic education). What had been proposed earlier as the AMS (general secondary school) became the HAVO (hoger

The transformation of the student career

52

algemeen vortgezet onderwijs—higher general advanced education) which was intended to educate students for positions in middle management.6 UNIVERSITY STUDY Parallel to the recommendations to expand the advanced educational opportunities in the school system, the 1946 Committee also considered modernizing the concept of academic study. Similar to the Swedish U55 concerns (see chapter four), the Dutch reconstruction committee focused on what they perceived as a lack of social relevance in academic study. At the most fundamental level, the committee questioned why the primary goal of university study should be based on the neo-humanistic vormingsideal. The committee recommended that academic study should provide, beyond the personal intellectual concept of vorming, a different kind of vorming rooted in a sense of social responsibility.7 According to the committee, academic education needed to develop more socially and economically relevant skills of the graduates than what was provided by traditional academic study. Because of these concerns, a new ‘social’ concept of vorming was added to law in 1952 along side the more traditional concept of academic vorming.8 Following the Second World War, the numbers of students streaming into academic study began to increase steadily. Between 1945 and 1960, the numbers of students nearly doubled, from 21,800 to 40,700.9 Faced with these increases, leading members of the business community as well as policy makers in different branches of government began to consider the overall costs and benefits of academic study to the general society.10 By the late 1950s, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Education Culture and Science in the Netherlands had made the goal of increasing the efficiency of academic study one of its main concerns.11 As in Sweden, Dutch policy makers and industrial leaders defined the principal indicator of what they considered inefficiency to be the long duration of university study and the increasing numbers of students who were leaving study without completing a degree.12 In order to address the issue of study duration, a Commission on Industry and Higher Education published reports in June 1955 and May 1957 calling for the shortening of the duration of study so that students could enter the workplace by about the age of 24 or 25.13 Speaking before a assembly of the Academic Council in 1963, the director of the Commission on Industry and Higher Education, J.Meynen, noted that as increasing numbers of young people chose to study, not only did the average age of first entrance to the workplace increase, the number of practically trained personnel decreased. This caused problems in that the older the graduates were, the less capable they were of making the transition to the workplace. According to Meynen, long duration of study was a problem that not only affected industry, but also the society as a whole experienced disadvantages from such a late entrance. It is a two-edged sword; on the one hand, the investment of public resources increases with the lengthening of the duration of study, on the other, the shorter time of participation in the labor market harms the overall national income and with that prosperity.14

The Netherlands

53

External criticism from the business community focused on the increasing expenditures of public resources on students who were, on the average, taking longer to enter into the workforce and thus delaying their responsibility to become tax-paying members of the society. Because of these criticisms, the overall structure of university study was increasingly portrayed by policy makers and members of the business community as inefficient and potentially harmful to the future prosperity of the country. In light of the expanding numbers of students, Dutch policy makers and industrial leaders perceived structural and administrative changes to university study as imperative. As in Sweden, the government in the Netherlands called for the development of national educational planning to bring about a “coordinated scientific action,” incorporating “a continuous process” of “scientific analysis, forecasting, decision-making, implementation, and control.”15 A CHALLENGE TO STUDIEVRJJHEID During the first two decades after the Second World War, the perception that university study had become increasingly irrelevant to the needs of society grew among politicians, industrial leaders and some academics. Just as in Sweden, the core of the discussion rested on the merits of the strong legal and structural tradition of studievrijheid as a guiding principle in academic study. Despite the growing skepticism, just as in Sweden, many academics within the university culture in the Netherlands strongly defended studievrijheid because “it was highly valued that one had to seek one’s own way in areas of knowledge and methods of academic research. That was regarded as a cultivating effect of academic training.”16 Such “cultivating effects” of a loosely organized and highly individualized structure of study did not correspond well with the ideals of the Dutch government. In their periodic Reviews of National Policies for Education, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also portrayed the structure and ideals behind studievrijheid as archaic and outmoded for modern industrialized economies. In a mid-1960s report, the OECD described Dutch academic study as having too much individual privilege with too little corresponding responsibility: The student…enjoys a great deal of freedom. Much is left to his own choice and initiative. However, the opinion is gradually gaining ground that complete freedom requires a greater sense of responsibility than most students can be expected to possess; the freedom to study what and when a student wishes, it appears, is interpreted much too often as the freedom not to study at all.17 Alongside the perceived imbalance between the high degree of personal student privilege and a corresponding low level of social responsibility, critics focused on the lack of responsibility on the part of the university to help students follow their studies. Spurred by an ever-rising duration of studies in the mid 1960s, some critics called for a shift towards a model of study based more on interaction on the part of the university, since the

The transformation of the student career

54

the revered studievrijheid is…really an absolute detachment of the university from its students. It reaches no [helping] hand out precisely when they need it the most.18 As was the case in both Sweden and Germany (see below), decreasing the duration of studies in the Netherlands became a chief policy goal by the early 1960s. Reducing the duration of study required attention not only to the structural and administrative aspects of study, but also to the underlying academic belief in the importance of personal freedom, which had been a legally guaranteed component of academic study since 1876. To counter the traditional academic ideal, policy makers, academics, and leaders in industry who wished to shorten the duration of study placed emphasis on the social purpose of study: The university must be and remain an expression of life in society… When we therefore accept that the university undergo the influence of the continuously and ever faster developing society, it should become clear why now it is asked of you to reflect energetically upon structural change of academic education, which these times so clearly demand. The make up and duration of [university] study forms a portion of the problem.19 As in Sweden, the push by the reform-minded policy makers in the Netherlands to bring about increased efficiency of academic study went hand in hand with the goal of establishing increased social relevance. Critics of the traditional Humboldtian structure of study demanded that academic teaching and research become increasingly responsive to the technological and industrial developments in society. Though disciplinary-based academic research had become increasingly specialized in method and purpose,20 the critics pushing for study reform claimed that academic study was still unable to meet the changing needs of a modern society: The flood of technical and societal development has taken academic study out of its restful corner, in which it found itself before the war. We would be really missing the target if we left the development of academic research and training completely within the play of free powers.21 AN APPEAL TO NEW NORMS Though it had set an international standard during the nineteenth-century, the Humboldtian concept of the university found itself in a crisis of legitimization in the Netherlands. As in Sweden and Germany, the twentieth century American university provided policy makers in the Netherlands with a new model against which the more traditional systems of higher learning could be measured.22 In all three countries, study durations of 6 and 7 years were increasingly portrayed by the governments as abnormal in international comparison with the United States or Britain. Unlike in Europe, universities in the United States fulfilled a much broader spectrum of purposes and goals, evident in their abilities to effectively carry out atomic research while at the same time

The Netherlands

55

providing a strong social purpose through the absorption of nearly 1.5 million returning G.I.’s, effectively preventing them from increasing the ranks of the unemployed.23 Fixated on the apparent success of the shorter, American bachelor’s degree, industrialist and policy makers recommended creating a three-year, first-stage, vocational-oriented baccalaureaat, which would have a “fixed duration of study.”24 The baccalaureaat would provide basic academic education to all students, reserving more advanced academic work for a minority of students who wished to continue for graduate work. Critics of the proposed baccalaureaat, most of whom were members of the academic community, viewed the implementation of a shorter vocationally oriented degree as entirely impractical in the Dutch context. They claimed that the creation of a baccalaureaat degree would lead to a misguided attempt to import only partial components of an entire foreign educational system into a system for which they were entirely unsuited.25 According to these critics, based on the long-standing tradition of research and teaching, the university was not considered the proper place to institute shorter degrees. Further, for “sociological” and cultural reasons, the “structure and function” of academic study was not conducive to a more vocationally oriented role.26 Instead, some critics promoted the development of shorter more practical degrees outside the walls of the university in order to protect the traditional goals: …it is usually so, that people, who push for a better linkage of higher education to the needs of society, are thinking about tuning [academic education] to practical occupations… The recognition of the needs of society, however, does not really mean to me that it should be desirable to realize shorter training at the university… The university should greet the creation of short training courses outside its walls as the first step in the direction of a refinement of its mission. The pursuit of academic knowledge (wetenschapsbeoefening) should come more to the forefront.27 Thus, the problem of increasing the linkage of academic study to the labor market was not merely a matter of adding a first-tier baccalaureate degree. It rested more fundamentally on a choice between the integration and segregation of vocational and academic purposes. The choices seemed clear: either the student career could be reshaped to integrate vocational and academic education for all students, as in Sweden, or it could be redefined to incorporate separate domains of both academic and vocational study. Regardless of which of the two options were considered, the answer rested in a clear broadening of the definition of the student career. As was evident in the Swedish reforms, the difficulty of even asking such questions rests on the unclear assumptions as to what constitutes the difference between vocational education and academic study. Academic education had been characterized by an intentionally ambiguous and free structure clearly differentiating it from schooling or technical training. The purpose of academic education was to cultivate individual scholarship and research skills considered necessary for either academic scholarship and research or a position in society that demanded such skills. Despite the fact that the idea of the baccalaureaat promised to redefine both academic and vocational education in the Netherlands, in the end it did not take hold on a system-

The transformation of the student career

56

wide basis to provide a new model of the student career.28 The idea behind the baccalaureaat ran up against “dominant definition of higher education as academic education” and therefore “was not a suitable solution and was doomed to fail.”29 TWO PHASES OF ACADEMIC EDUCATION Though the baccalaureaat failed to redefine the student career during the first round of reforms, the idea of instituting two separate phases of academic study did not die out. Instead, it continued to be the dominant idea for a solution to the “problem” of academic study. In 1964, a new idea for restructuring academic study was proposed by the then Minister of Education JML. Th. (Jo) Cals. Cals proposed the implementation of a more structured five-year study program that would include a one-year propaedeutic or preparatory phase. Increased structure of the first phase would be complemented by increased resources and attention for a second, graduate, stage of study through the creation of research assistantships for those who chose to undertake advanced research.30 Though this idea rested on two phases, the concept was quite different from the original two phases suggested in the baccalaureaat degree. Instead of creating an entirely new degree, it would only shorten the original (academic) first degree (doctorandus), adding only a one-year preparatory stage to it. The second, graduate “phase” existed, though rarely in the form of structured coursework. The recommendation would enhance this stage while reducing the time and resources to the first. As with the baccalaureaat, the general academic community did not receive this twophase idea well. After receiving the recommendations, the Dutch Academic Council took four years to publish an “extremely reserved” reaction, which was characteristic of the position of the academic world in respect to all proposals that had been made towards the restructuring since then. One resisted against any change in the structure especially against a shortening of the duration of study.31 Given the financial pressures on the state, Dutch educational policy makers did not let up on the goal to introduce mechanisms to increase external control over the duration of study programs. Despite the negative reaction to the Cals recommendation in academic circles, the Minister of Education Posthumus, presented again in 1968 a similar structural recommendation, calling it a twee-fasen structuur, or twophase structure. According to the plan, the emphasis on the first phase of academic study would be more towards occupational goals and the second phase would emphasize academic research. Similar to the Cals idea, the duration of the first phase would be set to a total of four years, one-year propaedeutic, or basic preparatory studies, and three years for the standard Dutch academic degree, the doctoraal degree. The purpose of the year-long propaedeutic stage was to provide on the one hand, orientation to the students and on the other, an additional selection mechanism to ensure that the students who embark on a particular study program were prepared academically and motivationally. This would provide both the students and the institution the opportunity to reassess whether or not a different study program might be more appropriate.32

The Netherlands

57

This basic idea of a two-phase restructuring was first accepted by the parliament in 1975. Following the Posthumus recommendations, the idea called for a normative duration of 4 years for all study courses. The new regulation provided, however, an exceptional clause that allowed study courses an extra year if they could somehow justify the need. It was this exceptional clause that continued the status quo, as most programs opted to demonstrate their need for the five-year clause, virtually nullifying the legislation.33 In 1978, the government launched another attempt at implementing a fixed, four-year standard duration of study in the Netherlands. In a white paper entitled Higher Education for the Many34 the new Minister of Education, A.Pais, envisioned not only the necessary restructuring of academic study, but also an increased integration of vocational goals and purposes into the realm of the student career.35 According to Pais, vocational education should be expanded in a new separate sector of higher learning (see below). The plan for the restructuring of academic education did not differ much from the Two-Phase Structure outlined by Posthumus. One important difference that the Pais plan offered was to give students extra flexibility in finishing their study courses by allowing students a total of 5 years to finish their four-year study programs. Not unlike change to the student career in Sweden, the transformation of the student career in the Netherlands was marked by a structural and ideological compartmentalization of the study process over a period of years. In the Netherlands, the plans drawn up under Posthumus and Pais set the stage for the passing of key laws between 1981 and 1992. It was during this time that the student career was legally and structurally redefined to address both the question of increased vocationalism as well as the question of increased efficiency. Changes to the student career were brought about through two main reforms. The first was the development of a separate sector of vocational education. The second was to compartmentalize structurally and administratively what had always been known as academic study through the passing of the “Two Phase Law” in 1981, fully implemented in 1986. In 1992, both reform trends along with others dealing with the maintenance of quality36 were incorporated into on single law called the Wet op het Hoger Onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (WHW) (Law of Higher Education and Academic Education.)37 REDEFINING DOMAINS AND CATEGORIES A Separate Higher Vocational Sector As discussed in the previous chapter, vocationalism had played a key role in the redefinition of the entire Swedish student career. In the Netherlands, however, similar political demands for vocational baccalaureaat had been consistently rejected within the universities. Instead, vocational higher education developed into a separate sector of higher education, representing not only a new commitment to vocational higher education, but also an old commitment to what was considered academic education. The establishment of a new sector of higher vocational education followed a period of ambiguity as to where vocational education should find its niche in Dutch Society.

The transformation of the student career

58

Traditionally, the vast majority of young people between 17 and 25 who did not enter the universities had few options to pursue tertiary studies. However, expansion of the proportion of students coupled with an increased demand for higher education during the 1960s meant that by the “end of the 1960s the concept had been accepted that the 17 to 25 year old age cohort must be seen as one educational cadre, namely, that of higher or tertiary education.”38 As in Sweden, fulfilling this demand required a legal redefinition of what was considered the accepted domain of secondary education, and what would be the domain of tertiary education. The first step towards redefinition occurred in 1960, when propaedeutic academic education was removed from the legal domain of higher education, and placed into a new domain of secondary education.39 This move left only academic study within the do main of higher education. Despite having taken these initial changes, it was not clear to Dutch policy makers into which domain (secondary or higher education) vocational education should be placed. Should vocational education be a component of secondary or higher education, or both? In the 1960s, vocational education consisted of a few hundred small, mostly private, trade schools. Officially, these schools did not really belong to the domain of secondary or higher education. Though there was interest in the 1960s of integrating a component of vocational education into the first phase of university study, this path was rejected at the time. In 1968, however, the legal domain of many of these vocational schools was changed to secondary education when they were placed under the auspices of the Secondary Education Act. After 1968, vocational education was housed in around 350 separate training institutes. In the early 1970s, the government drew up a draft to increase the interaction between the traditional universities and the numerous (secondary level) vocational institutes. However, due to legal differences in the two domains of education as well as a change in government, the planned interaction between the higher academic and secondary vocational sectors did not occur.40 The need to develop vocational training at the level of higher education did not diminish during the 1970s. However, instead of a move towards a unified integration of vocational and academic education as in Sweden, “there was talk of a connected system of higher education which fulfilled differentiated needs.”41 Under the ideal of “higher education for the many,” the education Minister Pais called for a law providing for higher occupational education in 1978. The law was drawn up in 1981 and implemented in 1986. The 350 or so mostly private vocational training schools and institutes began a consolidation process into approximately 80, and then were upgraded to the status of HBOs (hogre beroepsonderwijs—higher vocational education), ensuring a separate vocational sector of higher education from academic education.42 Though the law officially upgraded these institutions to “higher education,” in practice it had “been customary since the beginning of the 1970s to refer to both sectors [academic and vocational] as higher education.”43 The Open University Despite the clear bifurcation of the system into vocational and academic, a safety valve to an otherwise highly stratified system was added in 1984 to allow for open admissions to

The Netherlands

59

“higher education:” The Open Universiteit. Founded in 1984, the Open University was designed to serve the need for distance learning.44 Unlike the universities or the HBOs, the goals of the Open University were quite integrative. They were to prepare students for independent practice of a profession, the use of research and scholarly skills, and foster personal development and social responsibility.45 The Open University was based on open access to students (no admissions requirements) and allowed students to design their own study courses at their own pace.46 In comparison to the Swedish attempts to provide open admissions to a broad category of study courses based on revised selection criteria, the Dutch Open University provided a different kind of ‘open’ admissions to a small part of the system of higher education. However, similar to the Swedish reforms, the Open University acted as a sort of safety valve to an otherwise highly stratified system, providing at the same time the political illusion of an open system. ‘EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT’ SECTORS OF THE STUDENT CAREER Unlike the Swedish U68 committee’s intentions of integration of academic and vocational education, the intention behind the creation in 1981 of a separate vocational sector of higher education in the Netherlands was to create an “equal but different” counterpart of the university sector.47 The separate, “equal but different” vocational and academic sectors of higher education were first reflected in the secondary schools that fed them. Following primary schools, children were separated into four separate tracks to prepare them academically, vocationally or generally. The sectoral stratification in the secondary stage was most clearly represented by the title of the finishing certificates students received. Upper secondary led to preparation for either vocational or academic higher education. Those who wished to enter into an academic (wetenschappelijk) study program at a university or related institution had to have a diploma in voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs (VWO), which meant ‘academic preparatory education.’ VWO schools were made up mainly of the traditional gymnasia (classical languages) and athenaeum (modern languages). Students destined to study at the newly created vocational hogeschool (HBO) had to have at least a diploma hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs, (HAVO), which meant ‘higher general secondary education.’ Students wishing to enter vocational higher education could also do so by obtaining a diploma in middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO), which meant ‘middle vocational education.’ As mentioned above, those students wishing to study at the Open University had no need to satisfy entrance requirements.48 Lower secondary schools are not intended to lead to access to either academic or vocational higher education. Lower secondary schools consisted of generally oriented and vocationally oriented schools.49 Since the development of this stratified secondary school system, bridging courses were put in place to allow for students to transfer up or down, depending on their abilities. Though both academic and vocational sectors of education held the title of “higher education,” these sectors differed in the secondary selection criteria for entrance as well as the stated legal goals and purpose of the education. Study at a university was intended to remain primarily wetenschappelijk (academic) in purpose whereas study at a HBO was intended to be chiefly beroepsonderwijs (vocationally oriented education). Despite the

The transformation of the student career

60

legal basis of the “equal but different” separation of academic and vocational education, the actual separation of the two sectors diminished during the 1980s. This trend reflected a similar tendency in Sweden to establish a means to manage and control the entire system of higher education. Outlined first in a 1985 white paper titled Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit, (“Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality),50 the Dutch government called for an increased integration of the regulatory process concerning the three new sectors of higher education: academic, vocational and open. As in Sweden, the Dutch white paper called for the need to establish common goals for ‘higher education’ in general, which “must be realized within the premise of higher education for the many.”51 These common goals of higher education were a. to deliver a preparation for the social function of individuals and to supply for the demand for the highly trained b. [to provide] individual development (ontplooiing) of the students. c. to make a contribution towards the development of science, technology, and occupational practice d. to fulfill a critical function within the society in the context of points a, b, and c52 Further, the 1985 White Paper recommended that the separate laws for academic, vocational and open sectors of higher education be brought under one law. In 1992, the Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek (WHW) (Law of Higher Education and Acadernic Education incorporated all three of these sectors based on the common goals outlined by the 1985 White paper.53 Article 1.1 of WHW differentiated the purpose of vocational and academic education: • Academic education: Education (onderwijs) that is oriented towards the preparation of the independent pursuit of academic scholarship and research (wetenschap) or the vocational application of academic knowledge. • Higher Vocational Education: Education (onderwijs) that is oriented towards the transference of theoretical knowledge and the development of skills in close relationship with vocational praxis.54 Despite the integration of the legal and regulatory framework, both of these separate tasks are institutionally differentiated by law. The 1992 law stated clearly that “universities have the task of providing for academic education and the execution of academic research,” whereas the “hogescholen (higher education institutes) have the task of providing for higher vocational education. They were allowed to undertake research in so far as it is related to the education at the institution.”55 Further, the different goals and purposes of academic and vocational education have also remained separated by a stratified secondary education system that mirrors the legal differentiation between the university and the vocational institutes.

The Netherlands

61

COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF ACADEMIC STUDY Though the separation of tasks between “academic” and “vocational” was the broadest change to the Dutch student career, other administrative restructuring occurred to what had traditionally been considered “academic” education. As discussed above, the most important law to bring about change in the structure of academic study was the Two Phase Law, passed in 1981 and fully implemented in 1986. The overall idea behind the Two Phase Law was to create a clearer distinction between what had always been considered academic study and doctoral studies. The changes brought about by the socalled Two Phase Law, however, were less dramatic in creating two phases as they were in restructuring and compartmentalizing the traditional academic study into prescribed four-year study programs. In a radical shift from the former concept of studievrijheid, the new concept of study was grounded solidly on normative study behavior established and prescribed by the state. Some of the structural reforms of academic study as a result of The Two Phase Law and other laws that were all incorporated into the 1992 Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek (WHW) are as follows. Centralized Regulation of Access One result of the reform of academic study in the Netherlands was that access to study has been restricted based on two forms of numerus clausus: manpower planning and capacity restrictions.56 Similar to what occurred in Sweden and in Germany (see chapters four and six), students in the Netherlands who wished to study in any academic program first had to register through a national central office, the Central Office for Higher Education Registration. The purpose of this office was to coordinate the registration of students to all academic programs at universities as well as provide information about registration, supply and trends in student demand for course programs for structural, financial and curricular planning.57 The total number of study places at all institutions was determined by this office on an annual basis. This was done based on an annual calculation of the number of students in all stages of particular study courses, including the propaedeutic stage, in order to make predictions of the present and future numbers of graduates in a particular field. If the Ministry calculated that the number of graduates in a particular field had exceeded the demand in the labor market, the Ministry was able to compare this information with the numbers of students enrolled in different stages of the degree and restrict admissions if needed.58 Increased student demand for access into a particular field of study such as medicine or dentistry could bring about increased restrictions as well. For those areas of study which found themselves with numerus clausus (numerus fixus), the selection procedure was undertaken through a lottery. Based on average examination results from academic high school education (VWO), students were given a lottery number by which they were selected.59 Though Dutch higher education had not had a tradition of institutional entrance examinations in the past,60 other selective demands were placed on applicants to study programs. Depending on the study program, students had certain subject requlrements that they were required to fulfill before gaining admission. The law allowed a certain

The transformation of the student career

62

degree of flexibility to program administrators in making decisions to wave specific requirements for students if they saw fit.61 Similar to the Swedish reforms, the Dutch allowed for life experience to count for students who entered into study at an older age. In the case of the Netherlands, students over 21 could be freed from the preparatory requirements if they could demonstrate satisfactorily, through a formal sitting with administrators, that they are capable of successfully following the course of studies.62 The Propaedeutic Stage The Two Phase Law further subdivided the academic study process by dividing the first phase of academic study into two additional stages: the one-year propaedeutic and the 3year doctoraal (= first degree) stages.63 The establishment of the propaedeutic phase was intended to not only provide an “insight over the contents of a study program” but also provide the “possibility for referral and selection at the end of the phase.”64 The chief function of the one-year propaedeutic phase, therefore, had been to act as a “weed out” mechanism of those students who did not demonstrate the capabilities required to continue studying in a particular study course. Further, following the first year of registration in the propaedeutic phase, all full-time students were required to seek advice as to whether they were allowed to continue study “within or outside of the study program.”65 Institutional administrators had a legal obligation to review students’ performance to see whether they had satisfactorily completed their course work. It was at that point that the administration had the power to make a decision as to whether the student should be barred from continuing his or her studies. Students were required to complete the first-year propaedeutic phase and satisfactorily pass the related examination before they could continue in one or more of the areas of study that were related to the propaedeutic phase.66 Credits Just as in Sweden and in Germany, since the end of the Second World War, much of the debate in the Netherlands has centered on the problem of the long duration of study. The way in which time was governed within the student career was mostly an individual matter inasmuch as no normative study regulations existed which allowed for a more prescriptive task allocation throughout the duration of a study program. Without a more detailed and compartmentalized use of time, it would be impossible to better regulate and control the study behavior of students—and the teaching personnel—in order to reduce the duration of study. In order to address the problem of study duration, the Dutch government instituted in 1986 studiepunten, or study points. Similar to those introduced by the U68 reforms in Sweden, study points served as the smallest normative administrative unit of time. Also similar to Sweden was that one study point in the Netherlands equaled 40 hours of instruction and learning oriented activities during what was considered a normal work week. If one multiplies 42 normal, non-vacation weeks by the legal four-year norm established for the duration of study, the result is a template of 1680 hours that represents a “normal” study load.67

The Netherlands

63

Study as a 9 to 5 Job As in Sweden, there had been a clear effort on the part of the Dutch government to redefine the process of study away from the classical ideal of a continuous and holistic process. In the place of the traditional ideal, a discrete and finite concept of a 40-hour a week ‘study activity emerged,’ which was based on an established norm for full-time employment in most Western industrialized societies. As the student guide from the University of Nijmegen defined it: Full-time study is an education which assumes a ‘day’s work.5 Lectures, practica and the like are given during the day and the study program is of such a character that you must in principle spend an entire workday at it. Part-time study programs are developed for those who have other activities during the day other than study but who still want to pursue study and get a degree.68 Total Registration Allotment The new law differentiated between the setting of norrns for degree completion, for example, 4 years for the first phase, and the setting of a total allotted time a student may remain registered at the university. According to the 1992 Law of Higher and Academic Education (WHW), students were allowed to remain registered in most programs for a total of 6 years to complete both the propaedeutic and “doctoraal” stages of the complete study course. This meant that though the norm was set at one year for the propaedeutic stage and three years for the remaining doctoraandus, students are allowed to devote a maximum of 2 years for the propaedeutic phase of the first phase and a maximum of 4 years for the second phase. Additional flexibility was built into the Dutch study programs that allowed students to shift the additional allotted time from one stage to the next: if a student finished the propaedeutic stage in one year, he or she would be able to take the remaining five years to complete the 3-year degree.69 Further, the 6-year time allotment could be interrupted for reasons of personal illness or family emergency, allowing even more flexibility to the student.70 Differentiation between Part Time and Full Time Within the traditional concept of academic study, the idea of part-time study was ideologically and structurally absent. An individual was either a student, or not a student, depending upon whether he or she was registered to study or not. How the time was spent while this individual was registered was the individual’s responsibility and had no bearing on whether he or she was going about studies in a part time fashion or in a full time fashion. There were no clear criteria or administrative mechanisms to differentiate among those who did very little towards degree completion, those who had a job while studying, or those who devoted practically every waking hour to the completion of coursework and the degree. Breaking down study to discrete units, or study points, allowed for the further differentiation of the student career between full and part-time study. When the concept of study was compartmentalized based on the amount of time a student was supposed to

The transformation of the student career

64

spend on specific tasks, it became possible to distinguish between what constituted fulltime or part-time study. As was discussed in chapter four, similar compartmentalization of time occurred in Sweden. The Swedish concept of part-time study, however, was designed to be flexible, allowing students to construct their study load based on their own needs. The Dutch idea of part-time studies, conversely, was tied to a standard study load as well as a maximum allotted registration time. In the Netherlands, a student was less able to move along at his or her own pace taking a course here and there while working full-time at a job. Like the full-time students, students who were enrolled part-time were tied to a maximum registration duration that was fixed, but proportionally longer than what the full-time students were allowed. Unlike their full-time counterparts, part-time students were not permitted to receive financial aid. The Dutch government defined part time students as based on a ratio of 2:3 to full-time students: 2 Years (24 months) of full-time registration=3 years (36 Months) parttime 1 year (12 months) part-time=8 months full-time 1 year (12 months) full-time=1.5 years (18 months) part-time71 The implementation of the concept of part time study cannot be divorced from structural mechanisms that permit its existence. In other words, the implementation of study points allowed for the division of the student career into full and part-time components, which was formerly not structurally—or ideologically—possible. The importance of the

Table 5.1 Example of the total Allotted time for Registration72 Study Program Load

Full-time

Part-time

168 Study Points (4 year program)

6 years

9 years

210 Study points (5 year program)

7 years

10 years

8 years

12 years

1 year

3 years

8 years +6 months

12 years +9 months

Dentistry Philosophy Some engineering programs 252 Study Points (6 year program) Medicine Veterinary Sciences Pharmacy 42 Study points (follows a 168 point study program) Teacher Training Theology

The Netherlands

65

structural mechanisms of part-time study in Sweden and the Netherlands can be better understood when compared to Germany, where the concept of part-time study emerged as a defining concept of the student career without the requisite structural and administrative mechanisms (see chapter six). Studiability The idea behind the establishment of a total allotment of study duration while compartmentalizing the study processes was to create a more efficient use of time within the student career. Requiring students to study faster and more efficiently, however, raised the question as to whether or not the average student, given his or her best effort and intentions, was able to actually navigate the demands of a given study program in a timely fashion to finish in four years.73 In other words, the question arose as to whether or not a given study program was studeerbaar, or “studiable.” Just as in Germany, as the demands on efficiency of time use increased, the question of “studiability” became more important. The concept of studiability first arose as a natural result of the normative compartmentalization of the study process in the Netherlands. It is predicated on the assumption that a legal definition of a ‘norm student, a ‘norm study load,’ a ‘norm lecture’ and a ‘norm study program’ could be determined by breaking down the study process into small behavioral units. Concerned that the norm student could be overburdened with expectations from individual courses or study programs, the Vereiningung Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU) produced in 1989 a report Studielast en Studeerbaarheid (Study Load and Studiability) defining studiability based on the following norms as well as outlining ways to determine whether a program was studiable or not. The Norm Student Unlike the traditional concept of academic study, the result of the reforms of the 1980s was a legal construct of a norm student. Though the basic unit of compartmentalization is a study point, the fundamental basis of the concept of studiability is that there exists a “norm-student,” who can successfully complete whatever the established requirements may be in a predetermined amount of time. According the VSNU, the normstudent is a legal construction; students of flesh and blood are allowed [to study] shorter or longer, within the margins of the permitted registration duration.74 The development of the idea of the normstudent in the Netherlands was based on the “dynamic development in the thinking about study load and study points” since the 1970s.75 Initially, it was not clear to government policy makers whether the idea of a norm student should be a student who fell on the statistical mean or a “model” student who was between “amply sufficient to good” in his or her capabilities of completing a degree. This was resolved by the government in 1981, when a normstudent was defined as “one who fell on the 50th percentile of the reference group.”76

The transformation of the student career

66

The VSNU determined that despite the different types of educational tasks and activities across study programs, it was “possible to make an estimate of how much time the average student needed in order to complete the requirements of a course.”77 The starting point is a course with a certain determined study load. All activities of the student therefore are considered within the available time to be executable. Extra tasks, not necessary for the attainment of the desired end level, are not taken into consideration. Students who are slower must invest extra effort and could be given help in the form of extra learning tasks. It is therefore important to have a clear picture of a desired end level.78 Normative and Prescriptive Study Loads Once the norm student is determined, it is then possible to determine the normative study load (studielast) of a given study program. Though students had a prescribed number of study points they had to complete (1 per 40 hours of learning), this did not control the amount of learning material—or load—that the student had to actually deal with in a particular course or throughout a particular semester. Based on the idea of studiability, a norm student had to have a designated and determined norm study load which was calculated based on a quantitative task analysis of the norm student’s instructional contact hours plus the corresponding number of preparatory hours the norm student had to spend for the planned contact hours. According to the VSNU, the study load should take “8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.”79 Therefore, according to the VSNU, based on a “detailed task analysis” of “how many hours the norm-student must spend” on each predetermined “task or sub-task,” one could determine “more or less the studiability of a certain program.”80 The VSNU report recommended that for a course with a nominal study load of 3 points, the following learning tasks should be calculated: • Learning materials The written study materials consist of a workbook, whose index spans 200 pages. The structure study time consists of 40 hours (5 pages per hour). The exercises, which are printed in the workbook, are separated into three subjects and are illustrative for the requirements of the mid-term quizzes and the final examination. Writing and controlling the exercises and the exam demands 4 times 12 hours, in total therefore 48 hours of self study. • Learning tasks study loads. Studying the texts and workbook:

40 hours

Completing and correcting the exercises:

48 hours

• Courses The course is a trimester course that lasts over 14 weeks. Each four weeks there is a quiz, thus in the fourth, the eighth and the twelfth week, and in the fourteenth week, there is a final examination. Per week, there are two lectures given, with the exception to when an exam is given. The number of lecture hours therefore

The Netherlands

67

amounts to nine times 2 hours, which is 18 hours. The mid-term exam take 2 hours plus an individual review each time. The final exam takes three hours plus 2 hours review in the lecture form. • Learning task study loads Conveyance (see section a.)

88 hours

Attendance at lectures

18 hours

Execution and review of midterm quizzes.

9 hours

Execution and review of the final exam.

5 hours.81

The compartmentalization of the study process and the establishment of the concept of studiability set the stage for external program evaluation. As in Sweden, the establishment of norms and concepts of studiability allowed the VSNU to use them as indicators to measure the “quality” of particular study programs in the Netherlands (see below). Study Fees and Financial Assistance as a Control Mechanism In 1988, fees for both the academic and vocational institutions were “harmonized,” meaning that from that point on, students were required to pay a uniform amount of money for all study programs at universities and HBO’s.82 Though fees were harmonized across institutional type and educational program, fees nevertheless differed depending upon whether or not the individual was enrolled 1) as a full time or part time student, 2) as an auditor (had over run the maximum registration allotment) or 3) as an “extraneus” (registered for examinations.)83 Though all students were charged fees, financial aid had been provided to most if not all students to cover the fees outlined above as well as costs of living since the early 1960s. Beginning in 1986, all students have received regardless of parental income a direct basic grant that did not have to be paid back if study was completed within the maximum time for study prescribed. Alongside the basic grant, students could also receive government loans or additional grants depending on their income and cost of living. The level of assistance was determined on an individual basis.84 One of the most important control mechanisms in the Netherlands to ensure that students strived towards completion of their studies within the allotted time was provided by the relationship between fees and financial assistance. Threat of the loss of financial assistance to pay for fees was intended to provide students a strong economic incentive to undertake their studies as efficiently as possible. Students who did not wish to pay fees out of their own pocket had to be careful about planning their entire study program. Whether or not a student was able to receive financial assistance was dependent upon a few key restrictions: • Full-Time Enrollment Financial aid for study in the Netherlands was available only to students who were enrolled as full-time students. Further, students had to be “registered for an official day-time study” and indeed as a student: thus, registering as an auditor, an extraneus or registering as a part-time student had no right to financial aid.85

The transformation of the student career

68

• 5+2 Rule Financial aid was intricately tied to the total number of years allowed for registration. For most standard study programs, there was a standard 5 year maximum time allotment that students could receive financial aid. In addition, students could take out interest bearing loans for an additional period of 2 years. This rule was called the 5+2 Rule. Study programs with higher minimum study points (medicine) were lengthened accordingly to accommodate the time needs.86 Since students who overshot the allotted 5 +2 rule were required to pay a higher level of fees and could lose their right to loans, the financial assistance program of grants and loans provided a carrot and stick control mechanism that was, at the time, not found in Sweden or Germany. • Only One Allotment In some cases, students who finished a first degree at a HBO might wish to pursue an academic degree at a university. Those who wished to do so, however, “got nothing extra.”87 Under the 5+2 rule, if a student had already received the allotted 5 years of funding as well as one extra year of loans, the student could only make claim to the right of one more year of interest-bearing loans to study at the university.88 Students committed to an additional degree, therefore, were required to pay out of their own pocket fees and costs of living. • A 27-Year Age Limit The age limit for a student to receive financial assistance was reduced by law from 30 to 27. Students who had been registered as of July 1991 were on a grandfather clause, allowing them to continue receiving assistance until the age of 30.89 The Second Phase of Study As discussed above, the attempt to divide structurally the academic study process to serve separate educational functions had been debated for many years in the Netherlands, as well as in Germany and Sweden. Evident in its name, the “Two Phase Law” proposed to divide aspects of academic education into two stages designed to “reflect the original difference between the separate main goals of academic education.”90 At the time of the two phase reform, the two purposes stated in Dutch higher education law were: the education (vorming) towards independent practice of scholarship and research (wetenschap) and the preparation towards an occupation of a social position, for which the requirements of an academic training can be of service.91 One of the intentions of the Two Phase Law was to develop a more clearly-defined domain of advanced academic training in the second phase while at the same time deemphasizing its importance in the first phase. Until the mid 1980s, Dutch students pursuing advanced research degrees such as a doctorate were not required to follow a structured graduate curriculum before undertaking their own research.92 The Two Phase Law intended to implement a structured doctoral program through the development of

The Netherlands

69

departmental research assistantship positions called AIO’s, Assistenten in Opleiding, (Assistants in Training) who would participate together in a formal curriculum.93 After the implementation of the Two Phase Law, however, most AIO’s did not at the time follow a formal curriculum as was originally planned in the drafting of the law. Individual departments did not have enough AIO’s on hand to justify the establishment of a curriculum.94 Partly in order to solve this problem, around 24 research schools were established in 1992 that consolidated the curricula from various second phase programs throughout the country.95 As a result, AIO’s in the same field of study at different universities would be required sometimes to travel elsewhere in the country to participate in courses.96 The development of the second phase follows a trend to compartmentalize structure and function of the study process into more clearly defined domains. Just as the development of the separate domain for vocational higher education (HBO’s) was intended to purify the overall purpose of academic education, so was the development of a second phase intended to clarify the two purposes of academic education defined by Dutch law. Despite the emphasis on advanced academic training, the second phase of study was also designed to provide advanced vocational training for occupations in teaching, medicine and engineering.97 Titles of Dutch Graduates The attempt to separate and compartmentalize the study process was also reflected in the myriad titles granted to graduates of Dutch higher vocational and academic education. Since 1960, students who successfully fulfill the requirements of study courses were awarded titles guaranteed by law.98 As of 1992, the titles of Dutch graduates of “first phase” of higher education at the universities and higher vocational institutes were stipulated by law as such: a. the title of engineer, shortened to ir., in which the academic education pertains to the area of agriculture and the natural environment or to the technical areas; b. the title engineer, shortened to ing., in which the higher vocational education pertains to an area of agriculture and the natural environment or to the technical areas; c. The title meester, shortened to mr., in which the academic education pertains to area of law; d. the title of doctorandus, shortened to drs., in which the academic education pertains to that which is not applicable to sections a and c; e. the title of baccalaureus, shortened to bc, in which the higher vocational education pertains to that which is not applicable to section b.99 Titles were clearly segregated at the first degree level as either academic or higher vocational. Therefore Ir., Mr. and Drs. indicated the completion of academic first degrees, whereas ing. and bc. indicated the completion of vocational first degrees. In an international context, the Dutch titles have been somewhat problematic in that they have been and can be confused with more well-recognized academic and social titles in the Anglo-Saxon cultures. Thus, mr. can be confused as the Anglo-Saxon Mr. (the usage of which is not, incidentally, consistent between the American and British cultures), and drs., is often misinterpreted as a plural of dr.100 The problem has been apparent to Dutch

The transformation of the student career

70

policy makers at least since the passing of the 1960s law, during which time the suggestion was made that the title of drs. (doctorandus) be replaced with the title “magister,” used in Germany. This idea was dropped, because, as Groen points out, the abbreviation of mgr. conflicted with the “standing title within the Catholic Church.”101 This long-standing problem was not resolved completely by the passing of the Two Phase Law. Because of the fact that Dutch academics themselves admit to the confusion between degree titles abroad,102 the Dutch may substitute the title of Master for the completion of all academic oriented educational programs in the university and the title of Bachelor’s for the successful completion of all vocational oriented programs in the HBOs.103 As will be discussed in the following chapter, like in Germany, policy makers in the Netherlands ensured legal differentiation between the titles of students finishing first degrees in the academic sector (universities) from those who finished in the vocational sector (HBO’s). Students wishing to undertake study in the second phase of study could apply from both the HBO sector as well as from the university sector. To increase confusion, this phase was called “post-doctorale” training, and led to the title of doctor, shortened to dr.104

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE STUDENT CAREER: COMPARTMENTALIZATION, ‘QUALITY’ AND ‘STUDIABILITY’ As in Sweden, the reforms of the 1980s in the Netherlands represented an attempt to redefine the student career to accommodate three main goals: 1) to increase access to a larger constituency of the population, 2) to introduce a vocational component and, perhaps most importantly, 3) to increase the economic efficiency of the academic student career. However, unlike the Swedish U68 reforms of integration and comprehensiveness, the Dutch reforms of the 1980s were based on a clear legal and institutional separation between the goals and purposes of academic and vocational higher education. As in Germany (see chapter six), the bifurcation of the student career into vocational and academic sectors, however, was based on the assumption of the existence of a clear differentiation between academic and vocational higher education—something that was, at least in theory, negated in Sweden. Bifurcation was also predicated on the assumption that such assumed differences would remain static over time. The idea of separate sectors was also based on an assumption that the two sectors, academic and vocational, were “equal” in social status. Despite the law, there is little evidence to prove equality of social status, quite the contrary. According to an OECD evaluation, There is clearly no equality in economic status. There is full acceptance of the fact that a graduate from HBO can anticipate making a substantially lower initial salary than a university graduate in a cognate field (engineering, etc.), and this differential is likely to persist throughout the individual’s work life.105

The Netherlands

71

The status differences between these sectors not only reflect very different entrance standards, they are built upon the hierarchical and highly stratified system of secondary schools which, despite the evidence that it “reinforces social inequality,” any kind of move towards a more comprehensive secondary school system does not have much popular support.106 Though the traditional academic education, the doctorandus, was structurally and legally sheltered from incorporating a “vocational” dimension, the Two Phase Law altered the administrative structure of academic study in many ways similar to what occurred in Sweden. Despite the title, the Two Phase Law did not in fact create two new phases out of the traditional study pattern per se. The law did not, that is, split academic study into a general bachelor’s and a more advanced master’s type degree as was recommended in the 1960s. Instead, the law instituted structural and administrative control mechanisms over the established first degree (doctorandus) while at the same time initiating the establishment of a more structured doctoral study. As a result, the first university degree, the doctorandus, prevailed over early attempts in the 1960s to institute an across the board general vocational bachelor’s degree. Even after the 1982 Two Phase Law and the subsequent 1992 law of higher education (WWO) the ‘academic’ doctorandus maintained its monopoly over what was to be considered the proper first degree at the university. Since vocational education was relegated to a separate ‘equal but different’ institution, the traditional form of the student career in the Netherlands was protected from a “radical vocationalization” that characterized the U68 reform philosophy in Sweden. Despite the effort to protect the particular academic nature of university education, the Two Phase Law also brought about a profound change to it. Perhaps the most notable outcome of the two-phase reform was that it had been successful in decreasing the overall time to the first degree from 7.2 to 5.4 years.107 However, the restructuring of academic study to be rigidly defined by fixed temporal norms and administrative controls removed much of what used to be the chief defining factor of ‘academic’ study: studievrijheid. Since students were expected to get through their studies as fast as possible in the most rational fashion, some academics and government policy advisors began to fear in the mid 1990s that the reforms of the 1980s might have endangered the ‘academic’ character of university education.108 According to an OECD review panel, University representatives and employers alike complain that the new degree is of lower quality than under the old model. Whether or not this is true, it seems likely that the quality of the experience of students who rush through a largely unrevised curriculum is diminished.109 Quality, however, is in the eyes of the beholder. Since publication in 1985 of a white paper Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit (Higher Education: Quality and Autonomy)110 the government has emphasized ‘quality improvement’ in the sense of increased efficiency and output of the student career. As in Sweden, the compartmentalization of the study process set the stage for a growing state apparatus for “quality control.” Breaking the study process down into set norms based on hourly units, quantitatively normalized study loads, and the statistically-determined norm-student behavior permitted the rise of external quality control. In this context, quality was based

The transformation of the student career

72

on new criteria of what was normal and abnormal concerning study behavior. Compartmentalization of the study process had therefore made it possible for the establishment of indicators to measure the ‘quality’ of a study program based on collective normative data on, for example, persistence and attrition rates and study loads. Collective data on student persistence and attrition rates, graduation rates, could not only be used as indicators of efficiency, but also to measure the quality—that is, studiability— of the educational program or the institution.111 Quality Control In the latter half of the 1980s, the Vereiningung Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU) and the HBO-Council took on the primary role of establishing a system of quality evaluation for the universities and the HBOs respectively through peer review.112 Much like the longstanding tradition of accreditation review in the United States, the review committees were composed of academic experts within a particular field. The committees were designed to visit every 6 years or so individual study programs within faculties to evaluate, among other aspects the ‘studiability’ of each of the programs. Before the committee arrived to evaluate a faculty, each individual study program was required to undertake its own “self study” or written evaluation of the organizational structure, quantitative information about student participation and persistence, goals of the individual study programs, the organization, management and process of teaching, as well as a profile of the graduates.113 The visitation committees spent about 2 days interviewing members of the faculty and gathering information, which was then included in a written report of recommendations.114 These written reports were meant only as recommendations for improvement and therefore did not hold the individual programs accountable to the changes suggested by the visitation committees.115 Given the high expense of carrying out visitation committees, some officials criticized the lack power to apply sanctions, incentives or follow-up to make peer review more effective in bringing about change.116 During the first phase that the VSNU was undertaking visitations, the Dutch government had increased its emphasis on the measurement and ex-ecution of this method of quality control. It called for a strengthening of the evaluation process of academic study based on standard measurements and norms. Study programs for example, were to be evaluated as to how they defined and adhered to clear goals relevant to both the academic disciplines and the labor market.117 More importantly, the government increasingly stressed that the quality of a program be evaluated based on its overall productivity and output, which was quite simply a calculation based on the number of graduates and dropouts in a given program. Studiability As a result of the government’s interest in productivity and output, the concept of studiability became a central issue in the early 1990s. In 1993, the government launched a new effort to economize the student career, claiming that “higher education must get ‘better,’ it must become more ‘efficient,’ and more ‘studiable,’ it must produce more ‘output’ and be organized more ‘managerially.’”118 Despite the fact that the Two Phase

The Netherlands

73

Law had barely enough time to take hold as the new pattern of study,119 and despite the fact it had been nevertheless successful in shortening the overall time to degree by nearly two years, the government was set on shortening the overall time to degree to three years. Plans to implement additional reductions in the overall time to degree began to be proposed by the government in the summer of 1994. Behind the main idea of restructuring was to resurrect the decades-old idea of the gerieral propaedeutic bachelor’s degree that would provide all students with a three-year general qualification. The Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Jo Ritzen, stressed that higher education had to be “better and cheaper for the taxpayers…but not via the blunt axe.” He stated that by shortening the average duration of time students took for their degrees, there would be “more money per student” meaning that the “quality of education is not reduced, but rather quite the contrary.”120 The idea of the bachelor’s degree was not only supported by the government, but also by some members of the academic community. A February 1995 report ‘Higher Education in Phases’ published by the Academic Council for Government Policy (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid) claimed that the most pressing problem of ‘quality’ was the “disappearance of the specifically academic character of academic (wetenschappelijk) education through the shortening of studies to four years in 1982 and through increasing specialization.”121 In order to “rescue academic vorming” the council recommended developing a three-year “general academic bachelor’s” for all students which would be followed by a two year second tier of studies, the doctorandus (master’s), for a select 50 percent of the students.122 Thus, according to its proponents, the bachelor’s degree would solve two ‘quality’ problems. On the one hand, it would increase quality by economizing the entire system by shortening the duration of studies to three years instead of four. On the other, it would save what was left of the traditional ‘academic’ quality of the doctorandus. As happened almost thirty years before, the idea of a bachelor’s degree received a negative reaction from other members of the academic community. Despite the claims by the proponents that the bachelor’s degree would represent a first-stage, socially relevant degree, critics claimed that “the society [was] not making it a valid phase of study—that [was] being done by the government.”123 Since the bachelor’s degree had not proved itself to be relevant to the labor market or society in general in the 1960s, critics asked why it should prove itself to be relevant in the 1990s.124 In the face of a “storm of protest,” against the “AngloSaxon” pattern of study, the government backed away from the three-year plan and instead sponsored a nation-wide discussion to bring about a solution. As a result, discussion shifted away from the unpopular three-year degree towards a “desire for differentiation” through the creation of “different lengths from the average study duration.”125 Also a fundamental philosophy of the Swedish U68 reforms, varied lengths in degree duration allow, in theory, for greater flexibility for the students and the academic programs. By allowing some students to receive a degree after 3, 4 or 5 years would lessen the likelihood of a great number of students entering the labor market defined as a dropout.126 Critics of the government’s concerns about improved ‘quality’ claimed that the government was hiding behind the definition of quality improvement as “more value for less money” in order to legitimize additional proposed retrenchment of funds by about one sixth of the annual appropriations (300 million dollars.)127 The rector of the

The transformation of the student career

74

University of Limberg, M.Cohen, pointed out that “despite the years of successive reduction in expenses, despite years of increaslng productivity in the areas of research and education, despite the enormous growth in student numbers, despite the importance of higher education and research to the society,” the universities were being forced to take additional cuts.128 Cohen blamed the problem on a fundamental “difference in perceptions from the society and the academic world over how the universities carry out their business.”129 Critics of the government’s fixation on quality claimed that the whole idea of ‘studiability’ was unclear: what was “quality” in the context of academic study? What was an average student? What was a normative study load?130 Like “quality” in the late 1980s, studiability had become the magic word of higher education by the mid 1990s. Some faculties, interested in improving the studiability of their programs, drew up contracts with students committing them to do their best to fulfill the requirements of the course (visiting the lectures weekly, etc). In return, the faculties were committed by contract to maintain their study programs as “studiable” as possible, defining study loads and learning tasks down to the last detail. This process also meant that some students would hold professors to the norms of “studiability.” As one professor at Rotterdam experienced, “‘lt was claimed that three study points equaled the reading of 350 pages. As I then asked them to read 420 pages, they asked me which 70 pages should be skipped?’”131 This trend left the students in an interesting position in the debate over the course of the student career. While they demanded for more “studiability,” they contradicted their desire at the same time to retain as much study freedom as they could. According to the former rector of the Catholic University of Barbant and member of the VSNU, professor De Moor, “‘students should not stare blankly when they get more commitment and education becomes less free.’”132 As a result of compartmentalization, therefore, the transformation of the student career in the Netherlands meant that much of the onus for change had been placed squarely on the study behavior of the students. Clearly moving away from the traditional calls for freedom for the pursuit of knowledge, students in the Netherlands were asked to give up much of their freedom in exchange for increased efficiency in the educational process. By the mid 1990s, Europe had begun to play a bigger role in the minds of policy makers. Just as in Sweden, policy makers began to think of Dutch higher education institutions in the context of whether or not they might attract students from beyond their borders. As will be discussed in chapter seven, in many ways the Dutch led the way towards establishing the context of European dimension of the student career.

Chapter Six Germany Underlying the questions about purpose and structure of university study in Germany following the Second World War was the specter of the university during the National Socialist regime. The “indisputable political and moral betrayal of the German universities and academics during the NAZI regime provoked numerous questions about the ethical and political values of university study and academic and scholarly work.”1 As a result of the war, many of the universities in Germany lay in ruin. Years of control by the National Socialists had left a void of academic personnel, many of whom had been driven into exile or executed. The failure and demise of the German university under the Hitler regime fostered an active reform discussion among leaders of the occupying forces and academic personnel during the period of reconstruction after the Second World War.2 Against the backdrop of rapid economic growth and industrial renewal, there existed a general feeling in the academic community that the German university had to catch up with the rest of world.3 Though the main academic concern was the reconstruction of the universities, the principal leitmotif behind the push for university reform was “modernization.” As in the Netherlands and Sweden, modernization “was understood above all as rationalization,”4 and was supposed to help bring about growth and competition in economic and technological areas.5 Though the main idea behind modernization was economic, the concept of modernization also meant the establishment of equal opportunity “for groups, which up to that point had been hindered in a broad sense based on the perception of their rights as citizens (children of the working class, Catholics, some members of the provincial population, women).”6 Terms such as “‘securing economic growth,’ ‘maintaining international competitiveness,’ ‘equality of educational opportunity,’ [and] ‘occupational mobility’” became standard in the discourse surrounding the purpose of study.7 The reconstruction of the universities in Germany was accompanied by an expansion of the numbers of students that came in the wake of a broadened access to academic secondary schools.8 Whereas fewer than 4% of the 18–19 year old population had successfully earned an academic secondary degree (Abitur) in the early 1950s, by the early 1960s this number had doubled to almost 8%.9 The demand for access to university study coupled with a climbing standard of living during the 1950s caused the number of students entering the universities to almost double, from 32,908 in 1950 to 60,062 in 1960.10 At the same time, university study became increasingly a “cherished consumer item”11 among the budding new middle class striving for increased chances through access to study.12 In concert with this growth in students, the labor market became increasingly “academicized,” with an increasing number of positions being filled by or requiring academically trained personnel.

The transformation of the student career

76

Control of Education On May 23, 1949, the German Basic Law was signed into power, forming the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Basic Law stipulated that the control of education would be divided in a balance between the Federal government and the 11 Länder13 (state) Governments.14 Unlike Sweden and the Netherlands, the newly founded Federal Republic of Germany avoided strong central control over education on account of the extreme centralized control of education under the National Socialist Dictatorship. Whereas the Länder were given a primary responsibility for basic and higher education, the Federal Government was to have control over the advancement of scientific research as well as some forms of non-institutionally based vocational education.15 Despite the lack of a strong Federal control over the universities, university study in Germany remained a unified concept across the Federal Republic with regard to access (through secondary preparatory education), the overall content and goals, and the granting of final degrees. The strong uniformity of university study was based on the century-old traditional emphasis on the idea of the German university as having a single standard across institutions. Quality, therefore, was to be determined by equality of standards, rather than competitive differentiation. The unified standard of equality was held in place by the historically strong role of the primary and secondary schools in selecting out those who merited the right to access to the universities.16 Access to study Selection to university study occurred first through the separation of pupils based on their performance in primary school into three separate secondary tracks: the Hauptschule, intended for vocational and industrial training, the Realschule, intended for the higher vocations and the Gymnasium, intended for academic study. 17 The three-way division of the German secondary schools tracked pupils into essentially three social and occupational strata, the highest being the academic. Immediately following the war, this educational structure was criticized as elitist and undemocratic by George F. Zook, president of the American Council on Education, who headed a commission in 1946 to survey the status of German education.18 In the post war climate, ‘denazification,’ ‘reeducation,’ and ‘democratization’ were central issues when discussing public education. According to the Commission, in reconstructing the schools system, all citizens should have the same rights for education and employment. In spite of these strong recommendations, the unification of all three schools into an integrated secondary school did not happen at this time. In the face of an urgent need to train more teachers and construct schools, traditionalism prevailed with the aid and influence of powerful stakeholders: academics, academically-based professions, and the churches. Similar to the Netherlands, traditionalism was also reflected in the purpose and the content of the Gymnasium in that it rejected pragmatism and grounded itself once again in the humanities and philosophy.19 In the 1960s, the focus of concern shifted to the lack of academically-oriented high school graduates (Abiturienten) in international comparison and on the need to increase the numbers. Critics claimed that the lack of Abiturienten reflected a potential weakness in the country’s ability to compete on an international basis.20

Germany

77

Successful completion of the academic finishing examination at the Gymnasium came when a student passed the Abitur, which was the primary selection mechanism granting the students’ legal right to study. The Abitur meant that the students had attainted the Hochschulreife, or “maturity for study,” and therefore had the right in principle to study at whichever university they chose and whatever subject they wished.21 This system of access was based on the assumption that on account of the Abitur, a system-wide equal standard of university students would be ensured. For this reason, the secondary schools set the lower definitional boundary for the German concept of study, as universities had no means of additionally selecting their own students.

ACADEMIC STUDY: STRUCTURE, CONTENT AND GOALS Whereas the lower definitional boundary of the student career was within the domain of the secondary schools, the upper boundary was the final university degree. Following the Second World War, the internal structure of university study in Germany was characterized by a loose organizational structure, providing a relatively high degree of freedom to students to choose where and what they wished to study. As in Sweden and the Netherlands, in many of the study courses there were no study regulations in the sense of having occupational demands, training goals, proof of curricular efficiency and choices in the makeup of study well enough coordinated with each other in order to determine a reasonably challenging study plan in a temporal sequence within the framework of a representative study duration.22 Similarly, the responsibility of planning and executing a course of study was placed almost entirely on the student. Few study guidelines existed in Germany and those that did were brief. No concept of a normative study duration existed. Students themselves were to determine themselves when they were ready to take their exam, or, in some cases, leave study and undertake something else more suitable.23 During the 1950s, the traditional unified nature of academic study throughout Germany was strengthened by the formation of cooperative Federal and Länder commissions under the auspices of groups such as the Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz (West German Rectors Conference) and the Wissenschaftsrat (German Science Council). The Wissenschaftsrat was founded in 1957 based on an agreement between the Federal government and the Länder. The members consisted of academics that had been nominated from scientific associations, as well as “recognised public figures and representatives of the Federal Government and Länder governments.”24 It was a mixture of representatives from the universities, the public sphere, the federal government, as well as one member from each of the 11 states.25 The Wissenschaftsrat was designed as a bridging organization between the states and the federal government and was intended to present yearly priority programs and suggestions for change.26 Though the original purpose of the Wissenschaftsrat was to provide a central body to make recommendations on the development of scientific research, it soon

The transformation of the student career

78

directed its attention toward the “quantitative, structural, and organizational development of the higher education system.”27 Post War Reform Efforts Following the war, alternative structural reforms to the German university were recommended in some cases by the administrators of the British and American occupying forces.28 Despite the apparent need for change, however, any real attempt at radical reform at the national level (such as in the case of Sweden in the 1950s) ran against the aversion to overly centralized state control.29 One area of reform that did get support was the student financial aid system. The dire economic situation in which most students found themselves in postwar Germany threatened to force students to work while trying to carry out their studies. In order to alleviate the external economic pressures on students, the Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz and the Standigen Konferenz der Kultusminister30 mapped out a new plan for student financial aid at a higher education conference at Bad Honnef in 1955. The conference delegates noted that after having lost the Second World War, the student need became so great, that an effective form of [student] aid must be implemented, so that the German student should not be destroyed by the contradictory demands of university study and employment.31 The conference members stated that student aid had been cumbersome and difficult to understand because of its “fragmentation and multiplicity of conditions” across institutions and Länder.32 The conference brought about a new reform of students aid based on the “Honnefer Model,” which created a more unified support system for students throughout the newly founded Federal Republic. There were numerous other reform recommendations following the Second World War that, according to the Wissenschaftsrat, could be broken down into three main groups: 1) those that foresaw the need to break university study into two tiers based on the American pattern of higher education; 2) those who wanted to create “elite” training schools based on the French grandes écoles; and 3) those who wanted to create separate research institutes leaving the universities to concentrate on teaching.33 As discussed in the preceding chapters, many of these recommendations were similar to those made in Sweden and in the Netherlands. Two Tiers of Study The recommendation of breaking study into two separate tiers or phases of study was based on the idea that the Humboldtian Ideal of Forschung und Lehre (research and teaching) can not exist in a mass university. As proposed in the Netherlands, the solution to the massification of higher learning would be to divide academic study in two. The first three or four years would be intended to educate the normally talented students. The second tier would be intended for about 50% of the graduating students and would be, as in the United States, more research intensive. Those who proposed this reform idea saw

Germany

79

the two-tiered approach as the only way of rescuing the Humboldtian ideal of Forschung und Lehre from the effects of massification while at the same time still catering to a larger group of students.34 As in Sweden and the Netherlands, this reform ideal had been present in Germany since the end of the Second World War. These ideas were modeled after the American two-tiered undergraduate/graduate study pattern (an idea that would resurface later in the German reform discussions of the late 1980s). The Wissenschaftsrat rejected this first idea of the division of German university study in two separate phases based on “foreign patterns.”35 They believed at the time that such a division would endanger the university either by isolating the selective research function, or by creating a situation by which the entire university would suffer from a sort of downward drift, bringing all institutions of higher education down to the level of mere “training institutes: The Wissenschaftsrat therefore has not spoken out for a division of the study courses in our universities based on foreign patterns, but rather recommended that the problem of massification be met through the establishment of additional professorial chairs, through the strengthening of the administrative personnel and through the founding of new universities. These measures should make it possible again to allow for the different interests and talents of the students and to recognize and care for unusual abilities.36 Elite Training Schools Another solution to overcrowding prevalent in the German reform discussions after the War was to establish “elite” training schools based on the French grandes écoles. As in France, these schools would be oriented towards the intensive training of highly skilled engineers and civil servants and less on individual research. The universities would continue to provide research and teaching as before.37 The Wissenschaftsrat rejected this concept as well for three basic reasons. The first was that “the German university traditions, above all the connection between research and teaching, and the freedom of a self-determined study have benefited up until today especially the talented students and their possibilities to develop.”38 The second reason was that the Wissenschaftsrat believed that universities would run into danger of falling into the second rung after the newly founded elite training schools: “the best among the professors and students would push to get in” the elite schools leaving the remaining professors at the universities “robbed of the stimulating effect” that the high quality students and professors have.39 Lastly, the Wissenschaftsrat believed that if the training institutes developed also into elite research centers, the judgment of research work on the universities would fall increasingly into the public sphere, thereby endangering the financial resources of the universities.40 Separate Research Institutes The third group of thought, according to the Wissenschaftsrat, supported the development of additional institutes with fewer faculties and specialized research areas. Though the

The transformation of the student career

80

Wissenschaftsrat admitted that such a format had worked in the field of medicine, “it should, however, not be expanded without pressing reasons, since a specialist center is not the ideal of German university training.”41 According to the Wissenschaftsrat, the problem of overcrowding of the university was based neither on the structure nor the purpose of university study, but rather on the fact that facilities and personnel had not kept pace with the expansion of the numbers of students. Student ratios could therefore be best held down by increasing the numbers of teaching personnel. Expansion of the Same Despite the plethora of innovative ideas, none of these ideas ever came close to implementation. Instead, in the rather hectic political climate of reconstruction, expansion, and economic growth, the academic community looked back to the university ideal of the early nineteenth century with renewed reverence.42 The Humboldtian ideal became a sort of default in the system, the result being that despite the climate of modernization in the overall society, traditionalism prevailed in education policy in Germany.43 Part of the reason for this was that any kind of strong state centralized reform policy concerning the universities was not only undesirable following the Second World War, but also difficult given the diffused power of the Länder over educational policy.44 Further, despite the need for major structural reform, it would have threatened to soak up the fiscal resources that might be better used to expand teaching and research staff.45 Consequently, the reaction from the new Federal and Länder Governments and their related advisory panels to the rapid expansion of student numbers was cautious. The Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz (WRK) represented the most conservative reaction to expansion, resisting even the idea of building new universities to accommodate the growing number of students. The WRK even rejected the promotion of the engineering schools to the status of “higher education.”46 As in the Netherlands, the neo-humanistic concept of Wissenschaft (discussed in chapter three) was underlined by most if not all interest groups to be the only criteria that should determine academic study. The fact that traditionalism prevailed not only on account of the recommendations of the Wissenschaftsrat or the WRK but also “on all of the old fronts,”47 “led…to demands for a stricter safeguard of academic freedom which eventually was incorporated in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.”48 As expansion became the main vehicle to accommodate the increasing numbers of students, the university had been deemed by policy commissions to be im Kern gesund (healthy to the core).49

1960S: A SHIFT TOWARDS STUDY REFORM The Federal Republic of Germany’s decision for more of the same resulted in an expansion of university facilities based partly on the 1960 recommendations of the Wissenschaftsrat.50 Despite the expansion of the facilities and teaching staff, the universities had not been able to accommodate the expansion of students as originally planned.51 Even though the traditional structure of university study had survived the first round of criticism that it was inefficient or anachronistic, by the mid 1960s the “crisis” of

Germany

81

the overcrowded and inefficient universities was well documented by academics and the popular press. Just as in Sweden and the Netherlands, long study durations and climbing dropout rates in Germany provided an “alarm signal” calling again for a discussion about substantive structural changes.52 Through the administrative “rationalization” of the study process in Germany, the average time it took students to finish their studies could be decreased, thereby solving the overcrowding of the universities as well.53 Structural Differentiation of the Universities In 1965, the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf published a book titled Bildung ist Bürgerrecht, (education is a civil right)54 which stated that German society was in imminent need for an “active educational policy” to reshape university study. Dahrendorf pointed out that in order to maintain the principle of quality while emphasizing an increase in quantity, it was necessary to bring about differentiation of the unified structure of study: It’s called structural differentiation (Gliederung): we must transform the university into Clark Kerr’s idea of the ‘multiversity.’55 Dahrendorf predicted that short of such “radical reform” expansion of the German university would be in vain: If our higher education system is to withstand the planned and approaching expansion, [the system] must be changed in its entirety as well in the structure of its single universities from the bottom up—and only this makes such an upheaval likely…56 What Dahrendorf proposed was a schism between teaching-oriented undergraduate study for the many with a strengthening of research-oriented graduate programs. In this way, German university study could maintain a strong research orientation while at the same time establishing an orientation towards teaching and learning more in the fashion of the British first degree. Dahrendorf suggested that along with a structural differentiation, administrative changes needed to be made within each study course to increase organizational efficiency. These inner structural changes, however, could not be brought about without a mechanism to limit access to the individual university.57 Demands for increased access should be met with planned expansion of universities and facilities, rather than increasing numbers of students. Alongside his proposals for structural changes, Dahrendorf challenged the traditional principles which had been re-embraced following the Second World War and which provided the ideological basis for teaching and learning: ‘Einsamkeit und Freiheit’ (individuality and freedom) are very problematic points of orientation for a general education (allgemeine Ausbildung), as much as they may represent the conditions of research in many disciplines; Wissenschaft is also a concept that is all too gladly used

The transformation of the student career

82

as an alibi for many sins. It will be necessary to acknowledge that our universities, as high-flown as they might be, are to a great part really schools, places of teaching…58 Dahrendorf elaborated on his ideas for structural differentiation in a 1967 publication by the Ministry of Education and Culture of BadenWiirttemberg known after him as the “Dahrendorf Plan.”59 As chair of a reform committee for the Land Baden-Württemberg, Dahrendorf outlined a “differentiated comprehensive” model of university study that was based on his earlier ideas.60 According to the Dahrendorf plan, university study would be separated into two paths: the traditional research-oriented long-term programs and shorter-term, three-year courses ending in a Bakkalaureus. Similar to the idea proposed at the same time period in the Netherlands both in principle and title, the short term courses would emphasize teaching and vocational training and would offer transfer possibilities to the longer term study.61 Ideally, both types of courses would be found in the same institution, thus the term “differentiated comprehensive” university (Gesamthochschule).62 According to Dahrendorf, the plan was to help avoid what he saw as an otherwise inevitable “inversion of the educational pyramid” in which the majority of students entering higher education would be in longer, in-depth research oriented programs and the minority would be in shorter, praxis-orientated courses.63 The ideas outlined in the Dahrendorf Plan were echoed one year later by the Wissenschaftsrat who, only a few years before, had declared that academic education was in need of expansion rather than structural change. Similar to the Dahrendorf plan, the leading principle outlined by the Wissenschaftsrat’s Recommendations for the Reorganization of University Study was “the differentiation of educational goals into stratified study programs.”64 The Wissenschaftsrat believed that any “structural transformation” of the universities must be ultimately grounded in the change of the concept of academic study and therefore made the statement that “a question of educational goals was the central problem.”65 What the Wissenschaftsrat proposed was to separate university study into three separate subdivisions: a “Studium (university study), for all students, which would end with an exam that confirms their occupational capabilities;” 2) an Aufbaustudium (advanced university study) for students, “who are interested and capable of research;” and 3) a Kontaktstudium (contact study), which was intended to provide the possibility to graduates in the labor market who wished to “freshen up” their academic education.66 The first stage, das Studium, was to be further divided into two phases by a sort of qualifying examination (Zwischenprüfung67). The purpose of the Zwischenprüfung would be to facilitate the “steering of unqualified students who have chosen a certain discipline to other [educational] tracks” as well as to provide a much more structured environment to help students get their bearings before being allowed to study in the second, “freer phase of study.”68 The doctoral stage of study, Aufbaustudium, was intended to serve those who proved themselves especially capable to realize the “hitherto valid goal of academic study, which would give the students the possibility to carry out independent research.”69 Perhaps the most important recommendation was that the first stage of study be limited to only four years. In order to ensure compliance to a four-year degree, the Wissenschaftsrat recommended that

Germany

83

the limitation of the duration of study has the consequences that students can be matriculated only for the duration of the study period and the final examination and that for a four-year study duration the matriculation runs out after 4 and 1/2 years.70 The reactions to the plan put forth by the Wissenschaftsrat were at first positive among student groups (German National Union of Students) and the Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz (WRK).71 The Conference of Ministers of Education proclaimed that the recommendations of the Wissenschaftsrat needed to be implemented “as soon as possible.”72 The following year, however, the support of the WRK turned to opposition as increasing numbers of professors—especially in the arts and humanities faculties—began to protest the proposed government attacks on Lernfreiheit.73 The WRK began to realize that the recommendations to institute administrative control mechanisms on the study behavior of the students ran against the traditional principles of research and teaching. The proposed controls also acted as a “detonator” of the student movement.74 Though the political-administrative views of the students and the WRK were very different concerning the university at large, both camps fought against any administrative change to the structure or administration of university study itself. In the end, the WRK saw the Wissenschaftsrat’s recommendations of a two-phase study system as too hasty, calling for reflection before change.75 Just as the Wissenschaftsrat itself had argued several years earlier, the WRK claimed that such a move would bring about an overall loss of quality.76 The WRK was fundamentally interested in “preserving some sacred tradition against the modern onslaught of spoon-feeding, specialization and vocationally-oriented instruction.”77 The representatives of the student movement, on the other hand, saw the Wissenschaftsrat’s idea as the creation of elite and mass sectors of study and therefore ultimately rejected them.78 “University reform” according to the student groups, should not mean increased administrative control of student study behavior, but rather a fundamental change to the old oligarchical political decision-making system within the university. The students’ interest in political-administrative reform shifted the emphasis on university reform in Germany to one more focused on “democratizing” decision making. Traditionally, decision making had been the sole role of the Ordinarien, or professorial Chair holders. Student groups emphasized a more democratic tripartite control over decision making, dividing equally power among the professors, the students and academic staff and the non-academic staff. As a result of the student movement, the debate over democratization of the administration of the university dominated the discourse about university re form until the beginning of the 1970s.79 Cooperative Federalism: Unified Standards At the same time that the public reform discourse was focused on the administrative control of universities during the latter part of the 1960s, important changes were taking place at the federal level to establish a “better guarantee for uniformity in the university system” through “greater rationalization in university planning.”80 Whereas the Basic Law of 1949 supported regional and cultural diversity throughout West Germany by guaranteeing the Länder control of educational planning, the same law also stressed the

The transformation of the student career

84

Federal role maintaining a uniform standard of education among the Länder.81 More specifically, the 1949 Basic Law stressed that all citizens have the fundamental rights to educational and occupational choice as well as the right to move to and live anywhere within West Germany.82 In order to ensure the maintenance of a uniform standard of living throughout the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Basic Law was amended in 1969 to include a number of Gemeinschaftsaufgaben, or common tasks, between the Federal government and the Länder on many basic policy issues. These issues included areas such as economic, transportation and education policies.83 This amendment set the stage for enhanced Federal coordination and planning of the entire higher education system, an example of which can be seen in the increased Federal role towards student financial aid which was outlined with the passing of the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz, (Federal Financial Aid Law for Education, popularly know by its acronym, BAföG. This law has been updated frequently over the years).84 The Federal policies related to higher education were largely oriented at first towards joint planning for expansion of universities. However, the Federal government also gained the authorization to develop a comprehensive set of regulations that were to “frame” the German system of higher education.85 This authorization allowed for the drafting and development of the Federal Higher Education Framework Law (Hochschulrahmengesetz, HRG), which was intended to be a centralizing mechanism to maintain system-wide standards across the Länder. The HRG was first passed into law in 1976.

THE DECADE OF STUDY REFORM The perception of “crisis” of the German university continued unabated into the decade of the 1970s, bringing about renewed cries for change. Despite the traditionalism that characterized the discourse towards reform in the 1950s and 60s, by the early 1970s many of the issues that had surrounded study reform a decade earlier in Sweden (see chapter four) had become part of the reform discourse in Germany. The basic tenor of the discussion surrounding reform in Germany was decidedly against the principle of the nineteenth-century ideal of an individually oriented pursuit of knowledge. Instead, the traditional university ideal had been pronounced “dead,” evident in an OECD examiners report of 1972: Many experts on all levels have told us that the old university is dead. On the whole, with some notable exceptions, this seems true. But the new university is not yet established, and there is some question as to how it will be able to fulfill the essential functions of the old university. We are told that German universities are in a period of transition. Some of us think that they are in a period of crisis, with no certainty concerning how they will emerge from the upheaval.86 At issue—again—was the traditional Lernfreiheit built into the structure of university study, though now it was under attack on multiple fronts. Though in the 1960s, the basic

Germany

85

tenets of Lernfreiheit had been criticized by the Wissenschaftsrat as economically inefficient for a modern society, in the 1970s, Lernfreiheit began to also fall under the criticism that it “might have served an educational elite…and reinforce disadvantages for new students.”87 Just as the concepts of studiefrihet and studievrijheid in Sweden and the Netherlands were challenged respectively, critics in Germany began to charge that the loose structure of study was not organizationally conducive to the large number of new students entering the university representing a broader socio-economic background than before. Moving decidedly away from the reform discussion of the late 1950s, “intensive guidance and detailed structuring of course programmes were deemed more efficient and socially just.”88 As in Sweden, the assumption behind the formulating reform movement was that occupational relevance, economic efficiency and equal opportunity were all complementary goals and that these goals would be achieved through the strengthening and promotion of Studienreform, or study reform.89 The new emphasis on “study reform” was evident in a report by the Wissenschaftsrat, which intentionally placed increased emphasis on study reform rather than Hochschul-reform to steer the debate away from the discussions of political and democratic control of university administration and policy which had dominated the public discourse on reform since the mid to late 1960s. Building upon their 1966 recommendations for a reorganization of study, the Wissenschaftsrat published a new set of recommendations in the 1970s stating that whereas study reform was generally accepted and emphasized, the disputes over the organization of the universities repressed the central questions of concrete study reform… Only within the framework of concrete study courses can educational policy goals be realized. The center of higher education reform, which is intended to realize educational policy aims, must therefore be questions of [university] study and study reform.90 The Wissenschaftsrat’s ideas for “sensible organizational solutions” were on track with their suggestions made four years before: it focused on the “future structural makeup of study courses in higher education.”91 However, unlike the ‘radical’ changes planned around the same time in Sweden by the U68 Commission, the reform ideas were still cautiously traditional. The idea was to change university study within its traditional boundaries: to rationalize it and make it more efficient; however, this had to be done without disrupting the underlying Wissenschaftliche character of university study which needed “regeneration while at the same time freeing university study from antiquated material through structural changes.”92 Just as before, the reforms faced strong opposition from both students and professors on both sides of the political spectrum. Just as before, “critics argued that studies would become too ‘school-like’ and that an academic education could not be obtained in three years.”93 Despite the resistance to internal change to university study, however, German university study did undergo key changes during the 1970s. These changes came in the form of 1) a national regulation of the ability to restrict access to study programs (numerus clausus); 2) the development of a praxis-oriented sector of higher education, Fachhochschulen, (similar to the Dutch HBO’s); 3) the development of a limited number

The transformation of the student career

86

of integrated comprehensive universities (Gesamthochschulen), which were intended to represent the new model into which all universities and Fachhochschulen eventually would be incorporated; 4) the establishment of the Hochschulrahmengesetz, Federal Higher Education Framework Law which, at least in theory, was to provide guidelines for the Länder; and 5) the institutionalization of the concept of “study reform” into that law. According to Ulrich Schreiterer, the goal of the “study reform” movement was based on three basic assumptions: the first was that university study must be fundamentally “wissenschaftlich” in character. The second was that university study must be oriented towards “exactly definable qualifications needed in the labor market,” and the third was that these two first goals could be realized “through a newly planned and organized learning process.”94 These tensions between the insistence on the one hand to maintain the strong theoretical orientation of Wissenschaft and on the other to increase the praxisorientation were not new. Nevertheless, many reform debates rested on the assumptions that a clear differentiation between praxis and theoretical orientation could be established and structural reform could be set up to both reflect these differences and integrate them into a new unifying purpose. Study reform in Germany was characterized by two somewhat incompatible trends. The first trend was intended to increase institutional and programmatic innovation in study. The second was to reform study at the system level to ensure sameness and equality of programs across the country. Restricted Fields of Study: Numerus Clausus Based on the constitutional right for free choice of occupation, all citizens with an Abitur had enjoyed the right to a free choice to study in whatever field they wished. Until the early 1970s, therefore, Germany had no uniform restrictions (numerus clausus) on the access to study programs. Because of the extreme demand for medical school admissions at some of the large universities in the early 1970s, some individual universities began to limit the number of entrants. This practice was struck down, however, in 1972, when the German constitutional court ruled that “limitations on admission to university were ‘virtually unconstitutional.’”95 What this meant was that the only way that a student could be turned away from the right to study medicine was if it could be proved that an institution had reached capacity and that there were no places free in all of the German medical programs throughout West Germany.96 This ruling had a major impact on the German student career inasmuch as it set a precedent for the establishment of centralized control of certain study programs in order to ensure nation-wide co-ordination.97 First, compliance with the ruling called for centralized allocation of study places to ensure fairness. In 1972, the Central Agency for the Allocation of Study Places (Zentralstelle für die Vergabe von Studienpläzen-ZVS) was established in Dortmund. Second, up until that point in time, it was impossible to know whether or not the capacity of a particular study program had been reached throughout the Federal Republic of Germany. In keeping with the loose administrative structures of the traditional German university, individual institutions did not manage the matriculation of students in any consistent or organized manner. This made the determination of capacity for German medical studies practically impossible. As a result,

Germany

87

in 1974, increased centralization of the control of study programs was established when the Länder governments developed a detailed nation-wide capacity decree. The establishment of the ZVS and the capacity degree “had a major directive impact on content, modes of teaching and learning, in those fields where numerus clausus applied.”99 For the first time, selected fields of academic study were subjected to a centralized and quantified bureaucratic control in Germany.100 The regulations defined and designated over 30 different types of teaching activities, and assigned them a numeric value. The regulations assigned values from 0.1 to 1.0, giving larger values to the lecture format and less value to the seminars and practical courses that catered to fewer student numbers. The heavier weight placed on the lecture format resulted in “promoting the monologue of the classical one-man lecture” which countered the modern innovative teaching methods which had arisen as a result of the interest in study reform.101 As a former President of the University of Munich pointed out, all this induced a thoroughgoing uniformity both of German universities and their professors…students could no longer decide which university they would attend; they were allocated all over Germany by a central computer located at Dortmund… Students had to stick to thoroughly legalized curricula and examination requirements. To change subject or university, or to study another subject after one had completed work for a degree, though not prohibited, was clearly discouraged.102 Numerus clausus had other unintended effects. In order to bring balance to the admissions process to restricted fields of study, the Central Agency for the Allocation of Study Places (ZVS) placed around 60 percent of the admissions criteria on secondary school achievement and around 40 percent on the amount of time an applicant waited for a place to study. Many students, who had to wait for a place to study medicine, chose to enroll in related fields such as chemistry to “park” (as it was commonly called) until they were accepted as medical students. Other high demand fields, such as architecture, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary sciences and business economics were also included in this national distribution scheme. As a result, there was a rise in the phenomenon of Parkstudenten, who enrolled in and taxed the capacity of fields of study in which they had no desire to finish a degree. As a result of this behavior, a sort of domino effect developed, where increasing numbers of study programs were subjected to numerus clausus.103 Further, some feared that the ruling would fundamentally change the meaning of the Gymnasium and Abitur, which held a constitutional monopoly over the access to academic study.104 The result was to uncouple further the relationship between the secondary experience and the student career. Concerns were also expressed in the media about the effect it would have on the secondary school experience, where grades would become overly important in the educational experience. Some felt that imposing a numerus clausus would select students for professions for the wrong reasons: One can become alarmed and worried of a profession of doctors, who have been recruited in the future only from of a bunch of model school boys, rather than from those who really bring to this profession the prerequisite—that is the true calling.105

The transformation of the student career

88

Throughout the 1970s, numerus clausus became an increasingly powerful fixture as a determining factor of the student career. The politics of numerus clausus has been complicated in Germany because it had been dealt with as a constitutional problem without any consideration of the overall mission or goal of university study. Since the basis behind numerus clausus had not been to select qualified students, but rather to act as an emergency regulatory measure to restrict capacity of certain fields of study, the total number of students was not limited, but rather channeled in a highly inefficient manner through other Parkstudien.106 Despite its “emergency status,” numerus clausus has always conflicted with other basic rights of equal opportunity and free occupational choice spelled out in the Constitution. Basing access purely on the grade point averages of the applicants was considered by many, including the government at the time, to be against the basic principle of equal opportunity. The fact that preference was given to those who had a higher grade point average was considered socially unjust, since students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds had economic, social and academic advantages others did not. This concern, in turn, brought about an increased need for nation-wide planning between the Länder ministries of education.107 In 1976, the Federal Higher Education Framework Law (Hochschulrahmengesetz) attempted to alleviate this conflict through the institution of a lottery, which still gave a greater weight for those applicants with higher grade point averages.108 Opening the Universities In 1977, the trend towards nation-wide controlled access restrictions took a new course when, under the political leitmotif of “opening the universities,” the Federal and State governments attempted to reverse and reduce the effects of numerus clausus. Instead of enhancing a policy of selection, however, the Federal and State governments issued a resolution intended to bring about an “opening” of the universities by reducing the number of study programs which would be subjected to the selection procedures at the ZWS.109 The idea behind this policy was that each applicant should have a place to study, even if the provided place was not at the university of his or her choice or in the subject area that the applicant desired. Instead of selection, the new resolution called for a policy of redistribution of students throughout the system. Redistribution would be brought about through an increased rationalization of the use of the existing capacity.110 Fields such as medicine and dentistry would retain a selective numerus clausus because of the constant high demand. The policy of “opening the universities” was partly based on calculations made through system-wide demographic planning. According to the data, the universities were expected to experience a growth of the university-age cohort until around the mid 1980s at which time the cohort size was supposed to subside again. In order to avoid an unnecessary short-term expansion of the facilities and the instructional staff, the universities were expected to tolerate an “overload quota” (ÜZberlastquote) of around 15%, based on a statistically calculated capacity of an institution.111 It was also feared that if the universities did not subject themselves to a short-term overloading and became instead more selective, many of the qualified graduates with an Abitur would be forced to follow vocational training apprenticeships, thereby displacing graduates from the other

Germany

89

two non-academic high schools.112 Universities, therefore, were asked to “tunnel under” a “mountain of students” until the mid 1980s, despite the fact that many of the resources remained the same.113 This strategy, however, did not work for reasons that will be discussed below. Study Reform During the course of the 1970s, the concept of “study reform” which became an institutionalized component of the German student career was marked by two contradictory trends. The first was towards increased institutional or programmatic innovation through pilot projects. These reforms implied a trend toward increased differentiation throughout the system of higher education. The second reform trend was towards enhancing the unified nature of study programs and degrees across all institutions throughout the federal government. This trend leaned clearly away from any real differentiation within the landscape of higher education. The trend towards pilot projects was really started as a result of individual Länder and institutional initiatives. However, shortly thereafter, the Federal government became involved. Fearing that individual Land reforms might lead to increased difference and incomparability among the universities in the 11 German states and therefore threaten the principle of equality among institutions—the Federal government provided funding, together with the Länder, to undertake “model experiments” to “stimulate reform in content and structure within study courses.”114 The co-ordination of these pilot projects was carried out by a special working group established by a Federal-Ltfwder commission. Funding for model programs was made available after review through the Land Ministry, which would upon approval ask the federal government to share the cost.115 Whether a proposed experimental project received funding or not depended on whether it met certain basic criteria necessary to “stimulate change and contribute to the reorganization of the system of higher education.”116 A program had to be, for example, not only innovative in nature but also “applicable to other areas in higher education.”117 Some of the pilot projects were oriented towards increasing the occupational orientation to study through creating “new forms of praxis orientation to study” whereas others tended to attempt to increase the efficiency of study through the “rational utilization of higher education facilities…increasing the efficiency of the student advisement,” or “developing three year study courses.”118 During the 1970s and early 1980s, around 200 pilot projects were funded. Though these projects were supposed to foster system-wide change, they failed, in the end, to transfer any results at the national level to affect the mainstream administrative structure of university study.119 In many ways, the pilot projects ran counter to the nation-wide study reform trend that set out to increase the overall sameness and equality of study programs and degrees throughout the country. As mentioned above, the trend towards increased Federal standards resulted in the drafting by the Hochschulrahmengesetz that was intended to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in regulations throughout the federated system. As in Sweden and the Netherlands, one of the chief goals behind the nation-wide study reforms in Germany was to bring about clearer administrative controls and structures to

The transformation of the student career

90

the process of study. The two nation-wide reforms that were undertaken at the beginning of the 1970s to standardize academic study in Germany are normally referred to as the “kleine” (small) and “große” (large) study reforms.120 The “kleine” study reform was intended to unify the requirements for the academic degree, the Diplom, across the Länder.121 Advisory committees were established by nominees from specific disciplines to counsel the Ministry of Culture on the development of common study and examination regulations.122 The “große” study reform was, as its name indicates, larger in scope. It established study reform commissions that “explored both the innovation to be recommended and the indispensable common elements of course programs in each discipline.”123 The reform commissions were discipline specific and made up of representatives from various interest groups. The majority of the voting members were academic, (four professors and one member of the academic support staff) balanced by three voting representatives from the state. The commissions also consisted of a few non-voting representatives from the business community or trade unions. Ideas generated by the reform commission were then circulated to academic faculties at all of the universities for their comments and afterward sent to the Conference of Ministers of Education.124 The goals of these commissions were to continue on the path set by the Wissenschaftsrat in 1970 to construct curricular frameworks that would help “separate the subject material and main points in a more transparent fashion.”125 This basic goal was partially achieved during this time through the development of state study and exam regulations as well as a differentiation in many study programs between what should be considered a basic study phase (Grundstudium), which was supposed to be more organized and prescribed in nature, and a main study phase (Hauptstudium), which would still retain a degree of Lernfreiheit so as to retain the academic nature of independent scholarship.126 These reforms, however, were accompanied by few sanctions and, therefore, had no affect on bringing about the desired change in study duration. These changes notwithstanding, many of the goals of the reform commissions were far more encompassing, setting out to increase the efficiency of study while at the same time raising the social relevance through a more direct coupling of study to the labor market. Despite the large amount of time spent by commissions to redefine the purpose of study, little in the end was accomplished over the years. In the end, it became clear to many involved in the study reform process that it was almost impossible to reform study towards the moving target of a rapidly changing labor market.127 As a result, many of these reform commissions died out in the mid 1980s.

ESTABLISHING A PRAXIS ORIENTATION: INTEGRATION OR SEPARATION? One key issue regarding study reform in all three countries was the establishment of a more practical or vocational orientation to the traditionally theoretical and academic nature of the student career. As discussed in chapter four, Sweden had attempted to establish praxis-orientation by establishing a differentiated, but nevertheless unified, system of higher education that would incorporate many kinds of post secondary education into the concept of the student career. In the Netherlands, praxis-orientation

Germany

91

was established through the promotion of a new, separate sector of non-academic education in the HBOs, with the intent of protecting the academic character of university study (see chapter five). In Germany, however, the path of reform did not follow a clear direction towards an integrated or separated praxis-orientation during the 1970s. Instead, parallel attempts were made towards both integration and separation of academic and vocational components. On the one hand, a separate sector Fachhochschulen was developed similar to the HBO’s in the Netherlands (see below). On the other hand, the Wissenschaftsrat had recommended in 1970 that the integrated comprehensive university, the Gesamthochschulen represent the future model for all higher education in Germany.128 This recommendation was written into the Federal Higher Education Framework Law (HRG) in 1976. The Gesamthochschulen were by design supposed to accommodate both the more traditional pattern of university study as well as the new praxis-oriented study pattern at the Fachhochschule. Separation ofFunction: The Fachhochschulen In 1969, an agreement between the Federal Government and the Länder allowed the Länder to develop new Fachhochschulen through the founding of entirely new institutions or by promoting existing technological or engineering schools to the rank of Hochschule.129 Because of the fact that the Gesamthochschule was written into the Higher Education Framework Law (HRG) as the future institutional model in Germany, the role and place of the Fachhochschule within the system of higher education was very ambiguous at the beginning of the 1970s. The Fachhochschule was nevertheless successful in finally bringing a much more structured and planned dimension to the German student career. Courses at the Fachhochschulen were designed to follow a “strict organization” and were divided into a first phase of basic studies lasting from 2–4 semesters and a second phase of main studies lasting 2–4 semesters as well.130 Unlike the universities, Fachhochschulen were to subject the students to a “continuous assessment of course work, frequently in the form of individual course testing or in the form of project assignments.”131 Students were expected to complete a final project at the end of their studies which should last 3 to 6 months.132 The standard course duration at the Fachhochschule was originally intended to be 3 years, with 1 year of practicum.133 Many study courses at the Fachhochschulen divided the standard four year course into 3 years (6 semesters) of course work and 1 year (2 Semesters) of internship or practicum at a company or organization.134 The type of student to which the Fachhochschule was originally intended to cater was evident in the access criteria. Originally, the Fachhochschule was intended for secondary school graduates with a leaving certificate specifically created for the Fachhochschule (Fachhochschulreife), which was obtained at a 12-year Fachoberschule (higher technical school) instead of the 13-year Gymnasium.135 Since the early 1970s, the Fachhochschule had become an increasingly more important component of the German student career, especially after it became clear that the Gesamthochschule would not be adopted as the primary “model of a differentiated higher education system” throughout the Federal Republic.136

The transformation of the student career

92

Integrated Gesamthochschule While the Fachhochschule was developing its own separate identity, the idea of the integrated Gesamthochschule prevailed during the early 1970s among idealistic policy makers as the preferred solution to the massification of university study.137 The idea of an integrated—or comprehensive—university was not new. Not only had it been a key component to the Dahrendorf Plan, the idea of an integrated university had surfaced as early as the Weimar Republic.138 The principle underlying the Gesamthochschule was based on the assumption that integration would help rectify many of the structural problems plaguing traditional German university study such as the perceived lack of occupational relevance and the lack of equal opportunity.139 Unlike the separated differentiated system consisting of the Fachhochschulen and the universities, the integrated Gesamthochschule was based on “transferability”140 which would allow students to move more freely from one type of study course to another, thereby decreasing status barriers between the academic and practical courses. Two major types of integration were envisioned in the planning period of the comprehensive university: one which brought the structures of study programs from the Fachhochschule and the university under the same roof, but maintained separation, and the other which integrated the structure of study programs intended for Fachhochschulen and universities into a unified, interdependent pattern.141 The problem of how the separate traditions (academic and vocational/practical) were to be integrated produced a variety of innovative curricular plans. Some of the early plans for an integrated and unified structure were similar to the Swedish U68 idea (see chapter four) in that it called for a modular structure of course work allowing students to piece together 6–8 week modules to form a degree. Most likely on account of its radical departure from the traditional system of study, this plan was not implemented.142 On the other end of the spectrum of potential structural patterns, a more conservative “V” shaped model that clearly differentiated study paths between the longer traditional form of university study and the shorter Fachhochschule study from the very beginning. Based on the 1967 Dahrendorf plan, this model essentially placed a ‘separate but equal’ idea within the walls of the same institution,143 but tended to disfavor the integration of the academically and practically oriented students within the study courses. Instead, it forced students to make a choice at the beginning of their studies towards an academic or a practical/vocational course, which “effectively pushes the point of differentiation back to the stage of secondary school.”144 This “V” shaped model appealed more readily to the conservative political and social groups within society because it did not really challenge the status quo. Though the development of this model was originally supported by the State of Baden-Wiirttemburg as an offspring of the Dahrendorf Plan, the “V” model did not become successfully implemented there in the end.145 Another alternate pattern for a Gesamthochschule was the consecutive model that was intended to integrate all students in courses from the beginning, allowing students to either continue after a certain point, or leave with certification. This program was intended to be highly integrative, giving options and choices to students to leave after maintaining the first level of study without becoming ‘dropouts.’ This pattern appealed to people with more progressive political perspectives and was adopted by the Gesamthochschule Kassel, in Hessen. The third model, which represented sort of a

Germany

93

compromise between the V form and the consecutive form, was the Y form. This design kept students together during the Grundstudium phase, but then differentiated the students afterwards into separate degree courses. This model was also known as the Nordrhein-Westfalen model (NRW), since NRW developed 5 Gesamthochschulen based on this idea in 1972.146 Despite the fact that Paragraph 5 of the 1976 Higher Education Framework Law stated that all of the various institutions of higher education were to be eventually incorporated into the pattern of the Gesamthochschule,147 the idea of the Gesamthochschule was already politically dead when the law was passed. In the end, only a few of the 11 states had constructed Gesamthochschulen to complement, rather than replace, the universities and Fachhochschulen. Ironically, since the passing of the 1976 HRG, which held the Gesamthochschule as the central model for study reform, not one new Gesamthochschule has been constructed within the Federal Republic of Germany.148 One of the chief reasons for failure of what seemed to be such a firm state and federal legislative policy was rooted in the overall lack of system-wide governmental control, in comparison to Sweden and the Netherlands, to ultimately affect change. Neusel and Teichler state that the main reasons for failure in the establishment of the Gesamthochschule as the integrated model of higher education in Germany were multiple. For one, the choice ultimately fell along lines of political ideology. In those states controlled by the more conservative Christian Democrats, the concept of the Gesamthochschule was not ultimately embraced. Another reason was that the entire concept of the Gesamthochschule was not unified, but rather represented a variety of structural plans and educational goals throughout the Länder.149 In the end, even the chief principle behind the Gesamthochschule, that is to somehow mix together academic and vocational/practical courses, was not clearly outlined.150 These factors, together with a swing towards a more conservative mood at the end of the 1970s, placed the Gesamthochschule in a “crisis of legitimization”151 as the future model of the student career. After a decade of reform activity during the 1970s, the 1980s was marked by a respite in the efforts to reform the student career, with no new national plans on the political horizon. If anything, the 1980s represented a reversal of some of the centralizing trends. In a 1985 revision of the Higher Education Framework Law, the Gesamthochschule was removed as the future pattern of German higher education. Further, the 1985 HRG transferred some of the centralized decision making power over the make up and content of study programs to the individual universities.152 Despite the apparent failure of study reform in the 1970s, one key successful reform to the student career is apparent in the establishment of the Fachbochschulen, which during the 1980s began to define their place in the higher education landscape. The Success of the Fachhochschulen The failure of the Gesamthochschule in the 1970s to provide a new domain for the German student career resulted in a defacto policy of dichotomization along the two fundamental assumptions of purpose: theory and praxis. Though the Fachhochschulen originally had an ambiguous role in the higher education landscape in Germany, by the late 1980s they had become mature, successful institutions that stood on their own.

The transformation of the student career

94

The increasing success of the Fachhochschulen during the 1980s and early 1990s was well indicated by the growing number of the proportion of their students who had attained an Abitur. Throughout the 1980s, increasing numbers of young people with academic secondary examinations were opting for a shorter course of studies within the Fachhochschulen instead of the universities. Whereas in 1983 around 37.5% of the Fachhochschule students had received an Abitur, in 1988 this number had risen to 45 %.153 This trend demonstrated that the Fachhochschulen were successful in attracting students who also had the choice to study at the university and thus “had become a real alternative to university study.”154 In some cases, study programs offered at the Fachhochschulen attracted a greater proportion of applicants than similar programs did at the universities.155 The reasons for the increasing attractiveness of the Fachhochschulen to Abiturienten are telling. In a survey cited by the Wissenschaftsrat, the majority of Abiturienten who chose the Fachhochschulen (77%) stated that they had done so because “university study is too theoretical.” Sixty two percent of the Abiturienten also claimed that “university study was too long” and 44% believed that there were “better occupational opportunities after study at a Fachhochschule.”156 Conversely, only 16% of the Abiturienten stated that they were attending the Fachhochschule because of entrance restrictions at the university and only 13% stated that their reason for attending was that the universities did not offer a similar study program.157 As a result of the attraction of the Fachhochschulen to the Abiturienten, the originally targeted clientele of the Fachhochschulen found themselves at a disadvantage in competing for access. In relation to the growth of Abiturienten, the proportion of students entering the Fachhochschule who have attended the Fachoberschule (technical high school) had decreased from 68 percent in 1982 to 50 percent in 1991.158 The changing character of entering students at the Fachhochschulen affected the institutionbecause fewer and fewer had a vocational background.159 As a result of the developments of the Fachhochschulen over the past three decades, increasing numbers of study programs fell under numerus clausus in the Fachhochschulen, especially in the areas of business economics, computer science, mechanical and electrical engineering. In some specialty cases, such as European business economics, the ratio of applicants to study places has reached 10:1.160 According to the KMK, “the demand of the applicants for places at the Fachhochschulen can not by any degree be filled,” causing a “nation-wide numerus clausus at the Fachhochschulen.”161 The fact that some study programs became more selective than the universities had caused some students to “park” at the university in order to wait for an opening at the Fachhochschule. The success of the Fachhochschule could also be seen by the number of graduates in the labor market. Over the past decades, increasing numbers of Fachhochschul graduates are to be found in the expanding areas of the economy. Especially in engineering and business economics, Fachhochschul-gtaduates filled the middle management positions, though some even moved into upper management positions. In fact, the proportion of unemployed business economics graduates was higher among the university graduates.162 Though many graduates of Fachhochschulen found good employment in the private sector, mechanisms existed to ensure status differentiation between Fachhochschule and university graduates. Though the degree corresponding to study at a Fachhochschule was

Germany

95

also called a Diplom, it was distinguished by a “FH” after the title to avoid confusion with a university Diplom. The most blatant status differentiation to the Fachhochschulgraduates was in the public sector, whose remuneration and promotion regulations heavily favored the university graduates.163 Students graduating from the Fachhochschulen were given an entry-level status of “higher civil servants” whereas university graduates were automatically given entry-level status of “senior civil servants.”164 Status and Hierarchization The bifurcation of the student career into a shorter, praxis-oriented program at the Fachbochschulen and a longer, theoretically-oriented pursuit at the university implied a hierarchization based on status, rather than mere differentiation. From the beginning, the difference between the universities and the Fachhochschulen had been clear in their official titles: universities were “wissenschaftliche” Hochschulen whereas the others were “Fach” Hochschulen. As was discussed in chapter five, the same stress on maintaining the purity of “wissenschaft” separate from technical or occupational training was also evident in the Dutch terminology, differentiated the “wetenschapplijke” universities from the “hoger beroeps-” (vocational) institutes (HBOs) (see chapter five). Though the differentiation between theory and praxis in both Germany and the Netherlands was justified by government statements to the effect that universities and technical/vocational institutions were of “equal worth,” status differentiation, as discussed above, did in fact exist. Fearing the image of hierarchization, the Federal government tried to counter status differentiation by stating clearly in the revised German Framework Law of 1985 that “the different forms of institutions stand next to each other as elements of equal worth.”165 Underlying the fear of hierarchization in Germany was the status of the hallowed term of “Wissenschaft” which was used to denote the universities but not the Fachhochschulen. During the mid 1980s, reformers were finally confronted with their own competing and paradoxical ideals. The first was the desire to differentiate between theoretical and practical oriented study courses and the second was the desire to maintain the ideal of equality within the concept of the student career. The paradox in the German Framework Law is summed up best by the Wissenschaftsrat itself: Fachhochschulen are of course not ‘Wissenschaftliche Hochschulen’ [academic institutions] in the traditional sense and should not become so. Concepts such as ‘Wissenschaftliche Hochschule’ and ‘Fachhochschule’ should nevertheless ‘not be misunderstood in the sense that it would place the wissenschaftlichkeit of the Fachhochschule in question.’ In order to avoid such conscious or unwanted misunderstandings which can easily lead to a hierarchization of the institutions, a differentiation of universities and Fachhochschulen is recommended. For these same reasons, terms such as ‘wissenschaftliche’ study courses or ‘wissenschaftliche’ study (Studium) should not be used any more to characterize university study courses.166

The transformation of the student career

96

Thus, the dilemma between equality and differentiation of function and purpose was rationalized chiefly through the creative use of semantics. The fact that university education set itself apart from Fachhochschul education through “Wissenschaft” ultimately implied status hierarchization, thus negating the legal declarations that both sectors were “equal.” Recognizing this dilemma, paragraph 2 of the Framework Law of 1985 stated that these differences were not to continue to play a role in higher education policy.167 The push for an increase in similarity is also evident in the fact that the Framework Law of 1985 stresses that study courses at universities, just as those at Fachhochschulen, should be aimed towards …an occupationally-enabling cultivation and training (Bildung and Ausbildung) to an occupationally qualifying degree, at the same time study at the university is primarily oriented towards theory and basic research, and study at the Fachhochschulen is primarily oriented towards application, method and occupational fields.168 Instead of the use of the term “Wissenschaft” to differentiate study between the university and Fachhochschule, differentiation was stressed through the “primary orientation” of each separate study track. Though the tasks of the Fachhochschulen were originally envisaged by law makers to focus on the teaching of praxis-oriented subject matter, with time the Fachhochschulen have come to rest on somewhat similar legal ground as the traditional universities. Conversely, however, German law states that both types of institutions should strive for the “preparation for occupational tasks through teaching and learning (study).”169 The intended difference between the two types of institutions has evolved to a matter of how much stress each type of institution should place on academic research and teaching as opposed to occupational training.

THE FAILED PROGNOSIS Despite the success of the Fachhochschulen during the 1980s and early 1990s, the relationship between the universities and the Fachhochschulen still represented, as Ralf Dahrendorf had originally feared in the mid 1960s, an “inverted educational pyramid.” Unlike the relationship between the HBO’s and the universities in the Netherlands, in Germany an overwhelming majority of students remained enrolled in the universities. And despite the fact that the proportion of students studying at the Fachhochschulen grew from around 21% in 1975 to 28% in 1989, by far the majority of growth of students had been within the universities, where students continued to study on the average 1/3 longer than those in the Fachhochschulen.170 As a result, the successful development of the Fachhochschulen during the 1970s had a limited effect on steering away the everincreasing numbers of new students at the universities. The failure to appreciably expand the Fachhochschulen increased the burden on the universities, which, as a result of the 1977 policy of “opening the universities,” were purposely subjected to an overburden quota. This overburden was supposed to last until the mid 1980s, when the demographic bulge of the 18–21 year-old cohort subsided and enrollments dropped off rapidly.171 In actuality, however, while the proportion of the 18–

Germany

97

21 year old cohort did slowly rise from 1980 to 1985 from 900,000 to 1,000,000 and then decrease each year to under 850,000 in 1990, the total number of students continued to grow between 1980 and 1990, from around 800,000 to around 1.12 million university students and from around 200,000 to about 380,000 Fachhochschule students.172 What the higher education planners had failed to take into consideration was that any decrease in size of the 18–21 year old age cohort might be offset by the rapid growth of the proportion of young people who attained the right to attend higher education in academic secondary schools during the mid 1970s and mid 1980s.173 Though the number of students entering higher education actually did drop off for around 2 years, between 1983 and 1985, it began to grow again after 1986.174 The failed prognosis revitalized the old crisis facing the German student career. Though the growing numbers of entrants to post-secondary study in Germany had been a problem in Germany since the early 1960s, the continued growth during this period ran counter to the planning objectives based on a calculated outcome of a projected demographic development. The constant growth had a profound effect on the university, especially on teaching. Despite a growth in expenditure across the board from 1975– 1987, the total amount of real expenditures (less medical clinics and adjusted for inflation) on higher education in Germany actually dropped 50% during this same period.175 From 1977 to 1989, the number of academic staff at the universities remained practically the same, rising from 54,000 in 1977 to 54,300 in 1989.176 Overcrowding and under funding did not only effect the teaching environment (overcrowded lecture halls and seminars, inaccessible professors); it also affected the core of the German university ideal: the ability for students to carry out independent research. This problem was outlined in 1992 in a report by the Conference of Universities Rectors (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz): The basic university facilities for research in the areas of personnel, space and equipment are no longer adequate. There is a lack of scientific equipment and space, laboratories do not fulfill their purpose and communications networks are not sufficiently operational. The libraries can not acquire the newly published literature to an adequate extent for research and teaching on account of the lack of means… The increased need for re-investment funds, which has come as a result of the outdated physical plant and equipment, is not by far covered.177 Thus, what was planned as a temporary situation of overcrowding within the universities “developed into a constant, pressing condition of normality.”178 To make matters worse, within the academic community it seemed clear at the time that there was no sign of relief on the horizon and that overcrowding would be the status quo well into the next century. Reunification: The Lost Opportunity The story of the transformation of the student career in the Federal Republic of Germany has an interesting and equally involved counterpart in the former German Democratic Republic. Despite the common roots, university and higher education in both East and West Germany had taken very different paths since the end of the Second World War.

The transformation of the student career

98

The systems differentiated on almost all levels—secondary schools, access, research and teaching and employment of graduates. In the East, for example, the school system was more unified than in the West.179 Furthermore, since the end of the 1960s, the German Democratic Republic had instituted a strong separation of research and teaching in the realm of post secondary training and education. Academic research was separated out into scientific academies, relegating the universities to pure teaching institutions, whose curriculum was strongly tied to the ideals of the ruling Communist Party, the SED (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands).180 As a result, the structural and administrative nature of university study in the East was controlled and school-like and the universities did not suffer from the over-crowding of long-time students as in the West. During the early stages of “reunification” of the German Democratic Republic into the system of the Federal Republic of Germany, the entire educational system in the East was re-evaluated from primary schools to advanced scientific research. In 1991, over 200 evaluators from the West undertook an extensive evaluation of academic research and universities in the former GDR on behalf the Wissenschaftsrat.181 Some of those in the West still concerned with the dire need for study reform saw an unprecedented opportunity to extend this process of evaluation to the West German system of higher education as well. These hopes never came to fruition. On the contrary, as Frackmann and de Weert explain, the system of the West gained a new false sense of legitimization: with the fall of the system in the East, the West German higher education system was proved to be ‘correct’ with all of its strengths and weaknesses. In spite of a few ‘ideas’ which had been formulated at the beginning of the reunification process, nothing happened so that one could profit from this opportunity with a ‘rejuvenation,’ such as, for example, to create at least one or two ‘unconventional,’ ‘experimental’ higher education institutions.182 At the beginning of the reunification process, many in the West feared that the situation of overcrowding would be made even worse by the sudden influx of East Germans, whose secondary finishing examination, which was still called Abitur, was held at par with those in the West. The goal of the Western reformers, therefore, was to create in the East, as fast as possible, the same study programs with the same qualified teaching staff, in order to avoid an exodus of East German students.183 As in the West, the most ‘efficient’ policy decision would have been for the Federal and Lander government to spend a much larger amount of resources developing new Fachhochschulen to reduce the effects of an “inverted pyramid.” The five new Länder in the East, however, were primarily interested in developing more prestigious research universities of their own.184 The fact that the entire West German system of higher education was “transplanted” to the East beginning in the 1990s was therefore somewhat ironic.185 Despite much hope and fear stirred up by the media in the early stages of reunification, the effects of the fall of the Berlin wall had been only to extend the Western conceptual structure of the student career into the five new Länder. During the first half of the 1990s, the situation of overcrowding and under funding worsened, exacerbated by the financial constraints brought on by resources pouring into the newly adopted Eastern states. By early 1992, the

Germany

99

total number of students enrolled in both in the old and new Lander reached 1.78 million.186

THE STUDENT CAREER: TOWARDS THE 21ST CENTURY In the early 1990s, the German student career had become a day-to-day struggle, devoid of any real consensus of what the underlying philosophy of university study should be. Instead of structural change to the student career, what characterized the student career during the late 1980s and early 1990s was the rise of a series of definitional themes within the reform discourse that attempted to describe developments within the otherwise oblique and structurally undefined process of study. Concepts such as long-term students, part-time/full-time students, multiple qualifications, student culture as self-determination, and “phantom” students all began to shape the concept of study. Long-Term Students Despite the attempts to establish normative durations of study programs, the German reforms of the 1970s and 80s failed to tie the prescribed changes to new structural control mechanisms, sanctions or administrative changes. Continually since the 1960s, not only was the average study duration increasing, but students were also becoming progressively older. This trend had continued throughout the 1980s. Whereas in 1980 around 40% of the students were under 24 years of age, this number slipped to around 28% in 1990.187 On the other end of the scale, 21 % of the students were 28 or older in 1980, 30 percent of the students were 28 or older in 1990.188 In the 1990s, the growing average duration of university study coupled with an everincreasing average age of university students, raised new con-cerns in the media about how the society should deal with the phenomenon of Langzeitstudenten, or long-term students. The concept of long-term students was not new. In the past, they were referred to as eternal students—an eccentric type who “studied” forever without concern of the external world. In the age of mass higher education, however, when around 30 percent of 18–21 year-old age cohort was choosing a student career, long-term students presented themselves as a major social issue. Despite the concern, a long-term student was difficult to define, inasmuch as there was no clear definition of just how long a student had to overshoot the prescribed limits to be classified as long-term student.189 It was difficult to pinpoint a long-term student for a few reasons. Unlike in the Netherlands and Sweden, years of higher education reform in Germany gave the state or the institution little increase in control over the individual’s actions within the study process. This was coupled with the fact that the study process itself, despite the years of attempted reform, has remained somewhat “Kafkaesque” to any beginning student and very intractable to students wishing to finish as quickly as possible.190 Though study and examination regulations instituted in the late 1970s brought about an increase in clarity to the make up of study courses for incoming students, any help these regulations brought were countered by the chronic overcrowding and under funding of universities. This coupled with the fact that the institutions or faculties had very little control over the study behavior of the students.

The transformation of the student career

100

Multiple Qualifications Though the issue of the increasing average age and study duration of students had been increasingly portrayed by state reformers as an indicator of inefficiencies and need for “quality” improvement of academic study, the reasons for longer study and increased average age were not only based on the misguided and lost individual floundering in an uncaring environment. Instead, in some cases, individual students had clear goals and intentions to undertake multiple qualifications through different educational domains: formal vocational apprenticeship, study abroad, practica, and part-time employment in areas that mirrored their future occupational interests. In the mid-1980s, increasing numbers of students began undertaking “double qualifications” by enrolling in vocational training programs as well as academic study.191 Between 1983 and 1989, the proportion of university students who finished an occupational training course increased from 13% to 23%.192 This proportion differed from one academic subject to the other. Clearly the largest proportion of students (48%) who had completed an apprenticeship before enrolling in studies in 1989 was in business economics.193 This trend towards double qualification of students represented an unplanned development of vocational training on the part of individual students. Originally developed as an important vocational education path for young people without a secondary academic qualifying examination, many apprenticeships in banks and industry were competed for by some of the best of the secondary graduates with Abitur. The informal educational pathway of Gymnasium, Abitur, bank apprenticeship, followed by academic study became the “king’s path” to high positions in industry and commerce during the 1980s.194 As a result, employers in business and industry began to expect a formal double qualification from university graduates. At the Deutsche Bank, according to an interview in Der Spiegel with the Personnel Director, Gunther Mangold, “candidates without occupational experience have no chance.”195 In addition to the attraction of university students to vocational apprenticeships, the increased competition for upper-level management positions prompted university students to pursue “supplemental” qualifications.196 In 1988, over 65% of university students had undertaken some sort of “supplemental training” in the form of foreign language training, practica, or computer programming outside of their formal course of study.197 The increasing number of students pursuing double or multiple qualifications had the obvious effect of pushing the average age of students higher and higher, running counter to a long-standing policy desire to reduce the age of the average university graduate. In the late 1980s, only 28% of the total (West) German student population was under 24 years old. The most important factor leading to the increasing age of students was the trend towards multiple qualifications after academic secondary schools. As shown in Table 6.1, the average time students took between finishing high school and entering university was on average 17 months (19 months for men and 14 months for women).198 For most men, the average of 19 months was explained by the required civil or military service. For women, the average of 14 months was explained mostly by vocational training and “indecisiveness” towards undertook study.199 The university students who undertook a vocational apprenticeship after secondary school entered university on average 42 months later (43 months for men and 42 months for women).200

Germany

101

On the other side of the study process, increasing numbers of university graduates undertook further practical training in private institutes after prolonged study courses in order to gain experience necessary for emerging markets, such as ecological consulting.201

Table 6.1 Average Time Students Take between Abitur and University Study1 Without Apprenticeship

With Apprenticeship

Men

19 months

43 Months

Women

14 Months

42 Months

Total

19 Months

42 Months

1

Source: BMBW, 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 124

As discussed above in the Swedish section, the coordination of academic study towards a clear occupational relevance is in many cases very difficult. Since the early 1960s, the German government, industry and media have raised criticisms about the lack of practical and vocational qualification of the theoretically-educated German student. Despite the reform efforts of the 1970s, and despite the purpose of study being outlmed in the Hochschulrahmengesetz as an “occupationally-qualifying degree,” academic study had failed in key areas—especially in the social sciences and humanities—to develop any clear link to the labor market. In the early 1990s, an increasing level of unemployment of university graduates in general raised the criticism again in the media that the “universities limp behind the developments in the labor market.”202 As an employee at the Hamburg employment office stated, “never before have so many bright, young, well-educated natural scientists registered at our office as unemployed.”203 Despite the structural reform efforts of the 1970s and 1980s, individual student freedom continued to define the study experience of the 1990s. With a growing proportion of students in the German population, many students realized the importance of their own personal cultivation in a competitive labor market. Left to their own power of decision, increasing numbers of students exploited the structural and legal characteristics of the German educational system to undertake vocational, theoretical and personal formation that includes far more than what was intended by the state defined formal educational options. Students who wanted to formulate their concept of a’quality’ education were thus taking even longer to emerge from the overall educational process than before. As one student pointed out, I don’t think that an over-arching knowledge is delivered in [university] study. But during study one has the time to further one’s knowledge in other ways. I can simply do more things during my free time for which I would have no time to do if I were working full time.204

The transformation of the student career

102

Self-Determination and Leisure The struggle over the redefinition of the student career in Germany is still based on the question of the right to leisure and self-determination of the student. Despite the rather rational and operationalized images of the student career portrayed in government recommendations, compared to Sweden and the Netherlands, the German student career still retained a strong aspect of student culture external to the daily operations of the university. As discussed in chapter three, the original ideal behind Lernfreiheit had been based on the nineteenth-century precepts of leisure from toil of the daily social requirements for the pure pursuit of Wissenschaft. In the 1980s, the loose structure of the German student career coupled with an increase in the proportion of students studying at the university and a strong economy fostered the development of a student culture and lifestyle that, according to one student, “resemble[d] to a shocking degree a roll-yourown cigarette advertisement:”205 The “civilized society” of the late 1980s, in which everything was “discussed,” in which everything was more cuddly and cultural, more fun and leisurely, was of course quite especially cultivated out of the student milieu. The student existence became to be a leading social standard…. Student consciousness is thus something like the result of that wonderful comfortable social democratic era, which is now almost over…in the shadow of the Wall we lived in a social ideal, in which poverty seemed to appear only in the Anti-imperialism seminar.206 Practically unlimited university study paid for by the state together with government subsidized living, transportation, eating, and health insurance costs, manifested themselves in the 1980s in an exemplary student lifestyle largely protected from external sanctions and demands. Part of the problem with long-term students outlined above was that unlike student life in the United States, the boundaries of this lifestyle have always defined themselves well outside the context of the university. One student, asked if he centered his life on the university, answered with: There is no attraction… I go to the university, go to my courses, perhaps also I eat, but that’s it, in the end I immediately leave again. It is too uncomfortable, too loud, too stressful.207 “Phantom” students The fact that students in Germany received social subsidies, such as reduced health insurance (until 30 years of age) and transportation costs created a good incentive for some to register just for the student identification card.208 Since students paid no tuition and, within many disciplines, the university had no clear means of accounting for their students, an undetermined number of Scheinstudenten, or “phantom students,” registered every semester chiefly to maintain their social benefits rather than to finish their studies.

Germany

103

Though these types of students had always existed in some form or another,209 the growth in the numbers and proportion of students during the 1980s meant that they no longer represented fewer than 2 or 3 percent of an age cohort. The problem, however, was how to recognize these students in the context of an overcrowded and under funded university culture. Because overcrowded facilities and personal financial burdens that forced many students to work had also lengthened the time to degree, it was difficult to distinguish Scheinstudenten merely by looking at who did not register for examinations within the prescribed time. Diederich Behrend, the Director of Student Affairs at the Ludwig-Maximillians-University of Munich, pointed out that One becomes an Scheinstudent only with the course of time. Only a portion of the people registers from the beginning with the intention that ‘I want my identification card but nothing else to do with the university.’ The others want to study, but don’t manage the right start in university study.210 Some study programs, such as Germanics, seemed to have far more Scheinstudenten than others, partly because of the relative numbers of students enrolled. In 1992, Germanics was the largest field of study at the Free University of Berlin, with 8796 students enrolled. Of the 8796, 1401 were enrolled in the 19th semester or higher (9.5 years or more) and 10 percent of the total number of Germanics students was enrolled between 35 and 57 semesters (between 17.5 and 28.5 years).211 When the Germanics department contacted these “long-term students” personally, they were subjected to “the saddest stories of their lives. Pregnancy, test anxiety, lack of money, depression…”212 There were a lot of reasons—and ideas—about why the average time students take to study had steadily increased over the past 30 years. However, due to the lack of clear structural parameters to determine norm duration of study and behavior of students, the concept of long-term students continued to generate much discussion among policy makers and within the popular media. Part-Time/Futt-Time Study? Also related to the confusion over long-term students and phantom students is the concept of part-time studies, which had arisen in the media and reform discourse as a new portrayal of the student career.213 Just as it has been difficult in Germany to determine who is really a “student,”—and who is just using the status for other social or individual purposes—it is also difficult to determine what a “part-time” student is. Whereas the establishment of part-time studies in the Netherlands and Sweden were clear policy decisions grounded in the establishment of credit points and administrative sanctions, in Germany the ever-growing popular idea of part- time student had been almost purely speculative. Since the German system lacked any formal means to distinguish full and part time study, the term had increasingly appeared in the public discourse without any clear structural or functional grounding. In most cases, the term part time had been used for those students who undertook other activities during their studies such as employment or child care and as a result become long-term students.

The transformation of the student career

104

However, even these definitions were flawed inasmuch as some students finished their studies in the shortest time possible while working at the same time and others overshoot the normative study time by years though they have never held a job.214 Despite the lack of mechanisms to determine part-time students, the long-term student phenomenon spawned much speculation as well as some empirical research to determine the proportion of “part-time students” based on student “time budgets”—that is, how students managed their time over an average week between “student-oriented” as opposed to “non-student-oriented activities.”215 Such research is problematic, however, because it is based at the most fundamental level on very speculative assumptions of what full-time study is. As researchers at Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS) point out, if one assumes the social norm of 40 hours a week to be full-time study, then one must raise the question as to whether the requirements of a study program can be successfully completed in 30 or even 20 hours a week.216 On the basis that “some study programs seem to be studiable, with effective organizational skills, with a time expenditure of almost 30 hours a week” and that “a regular full-time study is hardly possible with a weekly time expenditure of under 25 hours a week,” HIS researchers established two separate models of full-time study: one based on the lower limit of 30 hours a week, and the other based on the lower limit of 25 hours a week.217 Naturally, the 30 hour-a-week model produced fewer “full-time students” (74 percent) than did the 25 hour-a-week model (85.6 percent).218 Of the 85.6 percent of the students who claim to spend 25 hours or more, for example, 12.1 percent also carry a “heavy work load” from outside employment. As compelling as they might be, such snapshots of student time budgets had its limitations within a study process which was relatively non-compartmentalized based on the basic unit of measurement of time. As long as the individual, rather than the system, remained the primary master over the temporal breakdown of his or her own study process, the concept of full-time and part-time remains strictly a matter of conjecture. Further, differences between the nature of study and inquiry had been present between the more structured applied sciences and the more loosely organized humanities in all three countries since the nineteenth century. These differences are also apparent in the empirical research undertaken by Greisbach and Leszczenksy, which show a large difference in how the concept of part-time student is portrayed among the social sciences and the natural sciences. In a rationalized concept of time budgets, “study-oriented behavior” takes on a much narrower definition, even within the social sciences and humanities. All of these concepts and issues (part-time study, long-term students, multiple qualifications, self-determinations) are related to the fundamental way in which time is compartmentalized within the structure of the German student career. Lacking the most basic temporal unit, the study point, semantic changes to the German student career such as labeling something “part-time” or “long-term” is, as demonstrated above, conjecture. Though lack of temporal structure has been portrayed by reformers as problematic to the entire student career, many students exploited the loose structure to their own personal, and many times, educational benefit.

Germany

105

STUDIABILITY: NEW EFFORTS AT COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF THE STUDENT CAREER By the early 1990s, the combined pressures of overcrowding, under financing, long-term students, and graduate unemployment brought about another wave of study reform euphoria. After the failure of the combined Federal-Länder reforms in the 1970s and 80s, many of the individual Länder began to take reform matters into their own hands, reframing the old problems and issues as well as the solutions and plans in a new light. In 1991, all the minister presidents of the Länder governments (Ministerprasidentenkonferenz) requested that the Ministers of Finance (Finanzministerkonferenz—FMK) and the Ministers of Culture and Education (Kulturministerkonferenz—KMK) formulate recommendations for a “structural reform of study” across the Länder.219 As a result, in 1992 the FMK and the KMK published an “actualization paper” which was intended to “make the reform recommendations more concrete.”220 By the time this report had been published, the “feeling towards a necessity of a radical structural change in the area of higher education had clearly grown” to include support from the Wissenschaftsrat and the Conference of University Rectors (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz—HRK).221 Based on the preliminary outline, the Conference of Rectors and the Conference of Ministers of Culture established a work group, which published in 1993 the report, Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform (Transformation of structural reform of study).222 In this report, the KMK and the HRK stated that the core of the reform was to “design a clearer structure of university study with the goal of retaining the academic nature of study (Wissenschaftlichkeit der Ausbildung) also in the mass university.”223 As the new reform effort gained momentum, it became a national issue. Because of the renewed “crisis” portrayal of the student career, the new reform effort was tied to a national educational summit in November of 1993, where final reports and recommendations would be presented to the Chancellor as well as all the minister presidents of the individual Länder. In preparation for the summit, a special Federal-Land work group developed a detailed blue print for the restructuring of university study for the entire country.224 Preceding the summit, the minister presidents from all the Länder met in October 1993 and agreed to adopt a series of reforms based on the various recommendations outlined by the different participating groups. In an end report published by the KMK in 1993, the new nationwide reform standards were outlined along with the main themes that were mirrored in many of the reform ideas of the Länder. Expansion of the Fachhochschulen On account of the success of the Fachhochschulen, the most important structural recommendations that the KMK and HRK put forth was a “qualitative and quantitative” expansion of the Fachhochschulen to make them even more competitive with the universities. This meant expanding the physical plant, the study programs, allowing highly qualified FH graduates to undertake doctoral work at universities and increasing the accessibility to public service employment.225 By expanding the Fachhochschulen, the university would be allowed to continue its mission of offering longer, more theoretical and academically-oriented degree programs. Despite the inverse pyramid

The transformation of the student career

106

effect in having fewer FH students than university students, “the Fachhochschule sector can…act as a safety valve for the universities. It takes pressure of the high numbers of students off the university sector and helps it to maintain its elite character.”226 Consequently, the most imperative policy decision seen across the board was the expansion of the number of places at the Fachhochschulen. In 1992, the proportion of Fachhochschulen students to university students was 20:80. The goal of the KMK was to bring this level up to 35:65 by the year 2000, and 40:60 thereafter.227 Another Attempt at Two Tiers of Study Aside from the recommendations for the expansion of the FH sector, the KMK report called, yet again, for a “differentiation of study at the universities” into two stages. Much like the series of recommendations from the past, the first stage would be “an academic (wissenschaftliches), occupationally-qualifying (berufsbefähigendes) first [tier] study,” and the second, “a more advanced study, especially for the training of future academic personnel.”228 As in the Netherlands, the second tier study would find itself within the context of a more structured doctoral study. The chief goal of this reform—as the reforms in the past—was to increase the efficiency of the first degree studies by trying once again to increase the clarity of the structure and purpose of study. This in turn was supposed to reduce the average time to degree, the percentage of dropouts and the number of students switching to a new study program midway throught thier studies.229 A Normal Study Duration The 1993 KMK report recommended that study duration should be strictly tied to prescribed norms. It is interesting to note, however, that at the time of the report, all of the Länder had already determined their own study durations for the universities. For the humanities and social sciences, the maximum was set at 9 semesters. For the natural sciences, some states allowed a 10th semester as an exception, and all states set the norm for engineering at 10 semesters. In North Rhein Westfalia, all study programs were set through law at nine semesters, with an allowance of an additional semester for study abroad or practicum. For the Fachhochschulen, all Länder set the duration of study at 8 semesters.230 The difference between the attempts to establish norms in Sweden and the Netherlands and those attempts in Germany, came down to the role of the Länder. Studiability, Study Loads and Study Parameters As in the Netherlands, the concept of studiability became a popular way of characterizing the goal of an efficient means of study, based on setting normative study loads, or study volume. By the time of the 1993 report, many Länder had set normative study loads on the basis of the number of hours per week. Just as in Sweden and the Netherlands, study volume was measured by units (weekly semester hours) such as 40 per year (20 per semester). In the humanities and social sciences, the norms varied from state to state from

Germany

107

120 in North Rhein Westfalia to around 160 in Hamburg. Natural sciences varied from 160 in Hamburg to 220 in Bavaria.231 Though the establishment of the norm study duration into many of the Länder laws had been an unprecedented change to the concept of study in Germany, ensuring that this normative duration was followed was another matter altogether. As was demonstrated in the Netherlands, the only way to ensure a change in the overall study duration was to provide incentives and sanctions to both the individual student and the institutions. In earlier reports, the KMK had suggested that sanctions be established for those students who had overstepped the new normative boundaries. They suggested charging students study fees for those who overshot the limit by 2 Semesters and “exmatriculation” (expulsion) for those who remained an additional 2 semesters after that.232 Recognizing, however, that the overcrowded conditions of the universities made it impossible for some of even the most diligent students to complete their study programs within a norm time, many of the Länder ministries proclaimed that they would not implement proposed sanctions until study programs were actually studierbar—or “studiable.” Studiability meant that structural reforms had to be implemented by the higher education institutions first in order to “allow the average talented student to finish his or her studies during the prescribed normative study time if they really want to.”233 In order to achieve studiability, many Länder began to establish “structural, quantitative parameters (Eckwerte) for university study” which outlined the normative study duration, the number of examinations, and the overall volume of curricular material to which study programs would be held accountable. Reformers claimed that many disciplines had been subjected to an explosion of knowledge that had over-loaded study programs with “irrelevant” academic material. In the field of biology, according to the Bavarian state institute for higher education research, the amount of learning material had increased by about three times within the same organizational framework of the first two years of study, the Grundstudium over the past 20 years.234 Part of the idea behind “studiability” was to undertake a “purge of the extraneous curricular content of the first degree studies” (inhaltliche Entfrachtung des Erststudiums).205 According to the reform recommendations, a purge of academic content was necessary since “room has to be made for the transmission and acquisition of methods and their practical use in study…,”236 Just how this would be done, however, was not spelled out. Further, study parameters would set limits on the duration of time a student would be allowed to work on his or her thesis. Over the years, the size of the final theses students had been required to write to receive a Magister or Diplom has increased in size. This trend had gone so far that “no one dares anymore to turn in a thesis of under 60 pages.”237 In many cases, the length of a thesis was approaching that of a dissertation,238 though this was not necessarily reflected in an increase in the level of quality of the work.239 The result of this trend meant that students were taking longer and longer to write their theses, therefore also increasing the overall average study duration for students. In order to remedy this, the Land North-Rhein Westfalia recommended that the student spend no more that three months on the thesis. Limits would also be placed on the length of the thesis, which, as in the case of North-Rhein Westalia, a thesis limit of no longer than 60 pages had been proposed.240

The transformation of the student career

108

Exemplary Learning Similar to the reform efforts in the Netherlands and Sweden, the study parameters represented an effort to increase compartmentalization of the study process as a means to decrease the level of freedom—or ambiguity—that was inherent in the student career. Instead of freedom of learning, the key word of the new reform effort was “exemplary learning.” By reducing strong emphasis on comprehensive examinations, and the resultant over-specialization, the extra room that was gained could be used to strengthen the interdisciplinary component of study, the acquisition of the so-called key qualifications (Schlüsselqualifikationen), (foreign) language competence, the appreciation of cultural offerings as well as study in small groups. In this way, it would be possible to strengthen self-determined study again in today’s mass university while at the same time strengthening academic competence as a component of occupational competence that is now being established at the university.241 The first German state to establish legal study parameters was North-Rhein Westfalia,242 which educates by far the largest number of students of any of the Länder.243 NorthRhein Westfalia had anchored the ideas of study parameters and studiability into a larger reform theme, called “Qualität der Lehre,” or quality of teaching.244 Launched in November 1990, this program set out to restructure academic study much in the same fashion that was recommended by the report to the minister presidents in 1993. Study parameters had been established or were in the process of being established at the time of the report by many of the other 15 Länder as well. Efficiency and “Quality” Since the 1960s, the main goal behind the various waves of reforms in Germany has been economic efficiency based on measurable outcomes. The Länder “action programs” of the 1990s were no different. By the time of the publication of the recommendations by the KMK and HRK report, all Länder had developed quantitative productivity parameters that were intended to measure the efficiency of academic study and the productivity of universities. As in Sweden and the Netherlands, productivity measurements were based on • The number of students who finished within the prescribed study duration • The average time to degree • The ratio of newly enrolled students to successful graduates • The quota of how many exams were passed at the first try • Quota of the number of drop outs and changes of major field245 The move towards quality indicators, as in Sweden and the Netherlands, had the intent of shifting the primary responsibility for quality of study away from the individual student and onto the mechanisms of the system at large. In the past, the quality of study had been assured chiefly on an input-oriented basis, that is, the quality of student was determined

Germany

109

by the common experience of the secondary qualification examinations. What followed was an individually-oriented process of study, where quality was measured more on a personal experiential process than on norms and output criteria. As discussed in the previous two chapters, with the drive to increase “efficiency” of study, output-oriented parameters became increasingly prevalent as measurements of “quality.” In spite of the increased market-oriented discourse in Germany, the “quality” debate in Germany differed in the mid 1990s from that in Sweden and the Netherlands. A marketbased ideology remained at that point antithetical to the well-rooted idea that all universities were of equal quality. The external “quality control” system in the Dutch sense had not yet been as popular in Germany due to a lack of consensus.246 Instead, the German academic community began to examine in the latter part of the 1990s the idea behind the U.S. form of “non-governmental” accreditation as a possible answer to the more centralized, state quality control system. What evolved, eventually, was a sort of hybrid system that kept recognition of study programs at the Länder ministries but relied on external accreditation review as a prerequisite for acceptance.

CONTINUATION OF THE STATUS QUO? In comparison to Sweden and the Netherlands, it appeared by the mid 1990s that the student career in Germany was stuck in a rut. This was especially apparent following the Educational Summit of November 1993. Despite the great expectations, the summit accomplished, in the end, very little. According to the president of the German Organization for Student Services, Albert Mutius, the meeting portrayed itself “less as a summit than as a dampener of expectations.”247 The Süddeutsche Zeitung described the summit as such: for barely an hour the minister presidents of the Länder and the Chancellor [Helmut Kohl] discussed higher education reform and the shortening of the number of years at school. After that, the summit was over and—the nation is laughing itself to death—two new work groups are supposed to continue to plan, though they are already surrounded by a flood of papers, concepts and explanations.248 After a twenty-month build-up to the Educational Summit, the only agreement that arose among the members of the summit was to continue to set up and fund committees. As in the past, the problems and the solutions to the “crisis” of the German student career were well-known to everyone involved. The Länder, however, felt that the issue of federal fiscal responsibility had not been fairly addressed in the discussions of reform. Despite the large increase (72.8%) of students across the nation since the “opening of the universities” in 1977, the proportion of funding from the federal government had “decreased substantially to the detriment of the Länder over the past years.”249 Though the students were in agreement that the German student career was in crisis, student groups across the country came out in strong opposition to the reform recommendations.250 Just as in the Netherlands, it was clear to the students that “study reform” and “quality improvement” did not mean an increase in expenditure towards the

The transformation of the student career

110

overall infrastructure, but rather a rationalization of resources that threatened what they understood and underscored as important qualities of the student career. Opposition from student groups was underscored by two main fears. The first was that the implementation of study parameters and the resulting rationalization of the study process would ultimately create a “social numerus clausus,” which would shut out those members of society who did not possess the resources or social background to participate. The second was that the “division of study” into two stages threatened to bring about the Entwissenschaflichung, or “de-academization,” of the first study phase, leaving “Wissenschaft” only to the more “elite” doctoral phase. According to students, years of progression towards the democratization of access to study would be countered by the division of study. Perhaps worse, in their opinion, was the fact that the university graduate would slip in social status. As a result of Entwissenschaftlichung, The ‘normal’ university graduate would have more or less the same social status as those who used to visit the middle educational tracks (realschule, vocational apprenticeships, and occupational training). At the same time study would be just a lengthening of school and occupational training. The graduates of the “wissenschaftlichen” second phase would form again a clear and limited elite.251 The students believed that the institution of highly structured and prescribed courses of study ultimately meant a social demotion. They feared that their generation had been singled out and forced to accept an economized version of university study. They asserted that any further rationalization of the student career would only worsen the study conditions: Students, who are studying at this moment, especially those who are starting now or who want to start soon, will be left to themselves as the lost generation…the authors want, they know already: A self-determined study for all!252 Instead of economic and social rationalization, student groups argued for an increase in resources so that all could pursue their right to a “self-determined” academic study that had been enjoyed by the previous generations. Under the organization of AStA (Allegemeiner Studierendenausschuss), students affirmed the traditional student career and rallied against the reforms on the grounds that they would lessen the quality of the student career for the majority, rather than improve it.253 The planners and reformers—many if not all of whom were former students themselves—modeled their goals after an “ideal type” of student which was far from the daily reality of the students protesting in the streets. Throughout the course of reform discussions, it became shockingly clear that many who had been participating in the discussion about the real condition of the universities, about the reality of everyday student life, about the life goals of young people, about their expectations and fears had scarcely a close idea of reality.254

Germany

111

Reform discourse instead was intended to counter the real situation of the students by focusing much more on a student type who raced through the university in the shortest time possible and who had concentrated from the beginning only on finishing a degree. The fact that up to 25% of the students already have occupational training, and that 20 percent of the students have consciously decided to complete a “part-time study” and that 56–61 percent of the students is employed either during the regular semester or during the semester break is either unknown or is not taken into consideration.255 To the planners and reformers, the loose framework of study represented in itself poor quality. Based on an ideal type of student, a more rational student career was conceived which took the play out of the system and allowed for a more output-oriented controlled learning environment (exemplary learning) in lieu of a more process-oriented pursuit of knowledge. As Länder governments focused on the increase of the quality of teaching, many students were defining their own student careers in many cases outside the purview of the course and study program by exploiting the chance to pursue multiple qualifications and experiences. Convincing students to strive towards a normative state ideal is especially difficult when those students who have undergone apprenticeships, worked during their studies, learned a few foreign languages and studied or worked abroad have been rewarded in the labor market. A quality process, experienced by a student can be quite different than a quality output produced by state criteria and indicators. The Länder ministries felt, rightly that fundamental problems noted in the late 1950s were the same as in the 1990s: students were studying too long, they had too much freedom, university study was not relevant enough to the occupational world and university study was inherently inefficient. The only consensus that existed by the mid 1990s was that some kind of change had to happen. Despite the recalcitrance of the traditional pattern of German university study towards “reform,” the German student career had, as a whole, undergone important changes. The development of the Fachhochschulen brought a shorter, more directed study component to the purview of the student career, the success of which was demonstrated by their increasing popularity with the Abiturienten. Furthermore, the Gesamthochschule had also provided limited alternatives to the unitary concept of German university study, despite its failure to redefine the overall concept of the German student career. These few changes have provided a more flexible and differentiated student career than what is normally considered within the discourse of reform. For the overwhelming majority of students, the traditional form of university study remained the defining experience, with its strong em-phasis on self-determination and Lernfreiheit. Despite the resilience of this tradition, over the years of reform discourse, the ideal behind the meaning and purpose of study had been somehow buried under government reports.256 The highly mechanistic and compartmentalizing qualities of study reform present in all three systems, however, have been countered in Germany by the fear of “Entwissenschaftlichung”—or de-academization—on the part of students, professors and, most notably, the individual Länder governments. Given the choice of the more output oriented and “efficient” Fachhochschulen, the new states in the East put more

The transformation of the student career

112

weight on the development of more prestigious—but less “efficient” universities. The claim in the mid 1990s—as it was in the 1970s and 80s—was that it is possible to rationalize the structural form of study toward clear occupational goals while at the same time retaining the underlying academic nature as defined by Wissenschaft. The concept of Wissenschaft, however, has a very strong tradition of being defined as process-oriented rather than output-oriented, despite the trend towards the latter. Fear of “Entwissenschaftlichung,” therefore, may continue to challenge for the time being the state reform efforts towards a highly output-oriented student career. The German student career had, by the mid 1990s, proved to be more resilient than its Swedish or Dutch counterparts. Nevertheless, many of the reform ideas that were stalled in the mid 1990s took on a new meaning in Germany near the latter half of the 1990s. Just as in Sweden and the Netherlands, the context of international comparison provided German academic policy makers the impetus to look beyond national goal planning toward a broader purpose of the student career. As will be discussed in the last chapter of this book, in doing so, policy makers began to embrace reforms similar to those in Sweden and the Netherlands, including norm study times, required contact hours, study points and credits, and quality assurance. However, these ideas were embraced in a new, international context. If one takes into consideration the struggle for change over the past 40 years in Germany, this new direction has been substantial.

Chapter Seven The Transformation of the Student Career The previous three chapters have discussed how Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden tried to redefine the student career from the mid 1950s to the mid 1990s. Since the nineteenth century, the goals, purposes, and definitional boundaries of the student career have been defined in law by each state. The student career of the past was defined exclusively as academic study, only loosely tied to national goals and purposefully devoid of administrative control mechanisms. “Study” was a process, a phenomenon in itself, with its own ideological traditions and ideals. The student career of today is a mixture of many different and sometimes conflicting purposes and goals, having incorporated over the years different social expectations and new structural components. Displacing the traditional idealism of individualism, governments in each country constructed commissions and central offices charged with issuing recommendations for change based on scientific planning and forecasting. Since the 1960s, centralized reform has become one of the most dominant determinants of the purpose and structure of the student career. Most notably, reform has institutionalized a “constant appeal for change”1 to the concept of the student career. COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF THE CONCEPT OF STUDY The key transformation of the student career has been the compartmentalization of the study process into more discrete and definable units of time and function. This trend reflects an assumption that an individual student defines his or her experience in the context of a clear separation between being engaged or disengaged in “study-oriented activities.” In all three countries, governments struggled to gain control over the loosely defined study process by increasingly defining measurable indicators of productivity. These indicators help define the new concept of “studiability,” which is based on normative study behaviors, study loads, units of credits, modularization, and specific degree durations. In each country, this transformation has been gradual and has reflected each government’s desire to define a historically process-oriented individual experience as more output oriented. Compartmentalization of the student career has occurred in each country in two parallel and overlapping ways: 1) on the basis of time (temporal), and 2) on the basis of orientation (functional). 1) Temporal Compartmentalization Since the 1950s, one of the chief determinants of efficiency of the student career has been time and the manner in which it was spent or structured. As Niklas Luhmann has observed, as an increasing number of social expectations were placed on everyday experiences (such as employment or university study), time has been increasingly

The transformation of the student career

115

perceived within the public sphere as scarce.2 In the context of the student career, new social expectations gave rise to demands that the study experience consist of a much better and more efficient use of time. This was first evident when reform commissions in each country began to view the duration of study as abnormally long in relation to more “normal” study durations in other countries (i.e., the United States or Great Britain). The problem of degree length was paralleled by a concern as to how the student career was temporally compartmentalized internally, that is, how the entire process of study could be broken down into more discrete modular units. Rejecting the more loosely-defined process of individualized learning, reformers re-defined academic study to be based on increasingly normative concepts of “student,” “study oriented behavior,” and “study loads.” The student career was viewed less as a the traditional holistic life experience, and more as a sequence of discrete temporal units. The study process in Sweden was first temporally compartmentalized with the implementation of fixed study courses in 1965, when study was reformulated to be based on a series of points (40 points a year) and fixed study durations. The philosophy of U68 and the resulting reforms in the 1970s refined this process further, attempting to divide the student career into discrete modular and interchangeable units of study. This resulted in giving the student career not only a clear part-time/full-time distinction, but also a multitude of varying degree durations. Thus, a student theoretically would be considered successful in his or her own studies by receiving certification for a month-long or a fiveyear long course. This policy was a clear repudiation of the traditional idealism stipulating a depth of experience unhindered from the daily travail of employment or family. Instead, the prevailing concept of study of the U68 ideal became a discrete activity that most students would do alongside other social or personal responsibilities, such as employment or raising a family. The thirty-year trend towards temporal compartmentalization in Sweden was reversed somewhat in the 1990s, when the new conservative government stipulated that degree programs in higher education be distinguished from other activities through the establishment of minimum degree durations and titles in the form of the Högskolexam, the Kandidatexam, and the Magisterexam.3 As in the Netherlands, Sweden finally opted for a more normative degree format and duration that were based on the stipulation of normative study points and fixed study courses. Part of the justification of such a change was to give the Swedish student career more currency in the international realm, thus making it more attractive. Another justification was the reaffirmation by the Swedish government that a study experience should have at least a minimum standard duration reflecting a depth of experience. The basic reforms undertaken in the 1990s have held into the current century and have set the stage for Sweden to conform to the new European reforms grounded in the bachelor’s and master’s degree format. However, as will be discussed later, the struggle towards conceiving the student experience in the form of modular versus fixed degree components remains at play in the European reform discourse. Temporal compartmentalization also occurred in the Netherlands and, to a lesser degree, in Germany by the mid 1990s. As in Sweden, the chief goal in both Germany and the Netherlands was to shorten the average time to degree through the establishment of shorter fixed degrees. One idea which surfaced early in both countries was to divide the student career into two separate (and shorter) cycles in the form of a three- or four-year

The transformation of the student career

116

bachelor’s degree for the majority of students followed by a second master’s phase for a select number of students. Though this pattern of compartmentalization was also based on the desire to bring about functional compartmentalization (see discussion below), shortening the time individuals spent engaged as students was a fundamental policy objective in the Netherlands. This was evident in the establishment of the “Two Phase Law,” which, despite its title, essentially compartmentalized the first phase of the study process into discrete units of time, or credits, and ensured that students followed the prescriptive norms by instituting control mechanisms and incentives tied to study fees, access to financial aid, and the threat of expulsion.4 Despite the original intent, the law did not functionally differentiate the purpose of the first degree (doctorandus) by creating two separate phases. Instead, the term “two phase” targeted the strengthening of doctoral or research training to be more in the structured fashion of training in the United States. In spite of its success in reducing the average time to degree by almost two years, the Dutch government’s interest in creating a differentiated first degree continued to drive the policy recommendations in the 1990s. This was evident in the resurrection of the idea for a three-year baccalaureate or in the suggestion that the standard four-year doctorandus be replaced with different degrees of varying lengths. The differentiation of degrees into a bachelor’s and master’s degree was eventually realized for all new degree programs in the Dutch higher education law of 2002.5 The concept of time to degree in the German student career has perhaps been the most exhaustively debated because of the inability of government policy makers to tie controls and incentives to the standard degree lengths stipulated in laws throughout the country. Unlike Sweden and the Netherlands, the German student career remained in the 1990s loosely organized, with no structural means of clearly defining “study-oriented behavior,” study loads, or full- and/or part-time study activity. Thus, the desire of government policy makers to change the temporal structure of the student career remained a key issue, because an ever-increasing number of students had not been matched by an increase in state expenditures.6 As occurred in the Netherlands, in the latter part of the 1990s the German student career finally saw a move towards a differentiated first degree in the form of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. However, in spite of the differentiated degrees, important differences were retained in this structure between the academic and the vocational functions of the first degree. 2) Functional Compartmentalization Parallel to the increased temporal compartmentalization of the student career has been an increased functional compartmentalization. In the 1950s, the primary function of the student career was distinguished from other forms of education in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden through the academic ideal of Wissenschaft, wetenschap, and vetenskap respectively. Though praxis/vocational or professional orientation had always been a tacit function in many areas of study (e.g., medicine, dentistry, and law), the reform discourse in each country had played down these characteristics over the years. With the rise of interest in the social relevance of university study, state policy makers in all three countries emphasized the need for a vocational/praxis orientation for the majority of students, inasmuch as they did not believe that the academic function of study related well to the specific and planned needs of the labor market. Over time, the

The transformation of the student career

117

definition of the student career became fractured on the one hand, by a split between academic/theoretical and vocational/practical orientations and, on the other, by a differentiation between the teaching function and the research function. Despite the frequent use of the terms “academic” or “vocational” in the policy discourse, the use and the meaning of these terms have been unclear, further muddled by attempts to redefine them based on changing policy imperatives over time. Nevertheless, in each country, much of the reform discourse centered on how the different perceived functions of the student career should be unified and/or separated within a degree program or an institution. In most cases, the focus was on the degree to which the “academic” function should be separated from or integrated with the “vocational.” Further, policy makers struggled with the issue of whether such separation should be structured in the form of separate stages within a degree program, separate institutional types, or both. Functional compartmentalization of the Swedish student career occurred first with the attempts to separate research and teaching in the 1950s, and continued as policy makers minimized the more traditional academic orientation of university study, stressing instead vocationalism. The Swedish government’s intention was to relegate the academic orientation of study to a more advanced stage for students aiming to become academic researchers. The government later attempted to resolve the dilemma between the academic and vocational functions within the U68 ideal of “comprehensiveness.” The U68 ideal and the ensuing reforms of the 1970s further compartmentalized the vocational function of study by tying it to clear “lines” that were intended to reflect the needs of the labor market. The idea behind these reforms was to mitigate the arbitrary nature of the student career based on individual self-determination by maximizing the direct connection of study lines to the needs of society.7 The policy objective of U68 was to make all forms of study equal within the all-encompassing concept of “higher education” and thus avoid the possibility of fostering a status differentiation between the traditional academic and the vocational functions. All basic study programs were designated by law to be primarily vocational/practical in purpose, leaving the traditional academic function to the doctoral stages of study. In the 1990s, the trend toward comprehensive vocationalism and modularization of the Swedish student career changed course when the 1993 law called for higher education to be more attractive by distinguishing it from other forms of education. As a result, the Swedish student career was recast as fixed degrees recognizable on a more international market, tacitly based once again on the academic ideal of vetenskap. The dilemma between the academic and the vocational function of study was finally relegated in Germany and the Netherlands to different sectors, despite the fact that in Germany a comprehensive approach had come so far in the early 1970s as to be written into national law in the form of the Gesamthochschule. Whereas the need for a more practical and vocational orientation of the student career was recognized in both Germany and the Netherlands since the 1960s, adherence to the academic ideal of Wissenschaft or wetenschap offered strong counter pressures to protect and retain the traditional “academic” function of university study. In both countries, functional compartmentalization was evident in the early calls to establish a clear difference between basic studies and advanced research through the construction of an Americanstyle split between a bachelor’s and a master’s degree. One of the primary intentions

The transformation of the student career

118

behind the attempt to create a baccalaureate degree was to shorten the time to degree. The idea behind a two-tier split was also argued on the basis of creating a separation between the primarily vocational and the primarily academic functions of the first degree. Despite the attractiveness in both countries of a shorter time to degree, the idea behind a bachelor’s/master’s split could not reconcile the tension between the academic and the vocational functions. Instead, both Germany and the Netherlands eventually established separate vocational/ practical sectors of higher education, thus in theory protecting the primary academic nature of university study. Thus, both Germany and the Netherlands took the path of attempting to preserve a particular “academic” nature of the student career within the universities, relegating in the reform discourse vocationalism and praxis orientation to the German Fachhochschulen and the Dutch HBO’s (universities of professional education) respectively. Whereas the strong re-affirmation of the concept of “academic” had served to underscore the bifurcation of the student career, it clashed with another goal to bring about equal opportunity. Recognizing the potential problems of status hierarchization between the two sectors, both governments attempted to enhance the impression that the vocational/practical sector was “equal” to the academic through changes in their higher education laws. Faced with an irreconcilable dilemma, the Wissenschaftsrat went so far as to suggest the abandonment of the term “Wissenschaft” when referring to university study in order to avoid “conscious or unwanted misunderstandings which [could] easily lead to hierarchization of the institutions.”8 The attempt to “rescue” the academic nature of study, however, clashed in the end with the persistent drive towards vocational orientation, which, in Germany, did not stop with the creation of the Fachhochschulen. This was evident in the 1980s, when the German Framework Law stressed that the function of the universities, like the Fachhochschulen, was to provide occupational training.9 Thus, attempts at a clear differentiation between “academic” and “vocational” lost its idealism in the policy discourse and became increasingly unclear. In the 1990s, the focus of the reforms seemed to make university study more like study at the Fachhochschule while, ironically, the Fachhochschule seemed to be becoming increasingly academic in nature. A similar shift in terminology was evident in the Netherlands in the 1992 Law of Higher Education and Academic Research.10 Instead of following separate laws for separate sectors, this 1992 law oversaw the universities and the HBO’s, emphasizing common goals between sectors to “fulfill a critical function within society” through occupational training, personal development, and scientific development. The difference between the universities and the HBO’s was not to be based so much on the separation of academic from vocational but instead on the relative emphasis placed on these functions.11 Comparison between countries shows that the underlying concept of the “academic” nature of study may also change its meaning in the context of compartmentalization. In the Netherlands, the concept of “academic” education was at first preserved, avoiding functional integration with vocationalism as in Sweden; what remained “academic” education was compartmentalized, purging many of the structural freedoms which originally defined the student career as academic in the past by grounding it on norms. Questions were raised in all three countries as to whether there existed a particular structure necessary for “academic” and/or “vocational” study. In the Netherlands, for

The transformation of the student career

119

example, the Academic Council for Government Policy lamented the loss of the specifically academic character of wetenschappelijk education because of the shortened and compartmentalized degree.12 Resistance to major structural reforms in Germany similar to those in Sweden and the Netherlands were fundamentally grounded on fears of de-academization, or Entwissenschaftlichung, of the student career. The reform commissions in Germany answered back that it is possible to “make room” for improved academic and occupational functions by increasing the “studiability” of university study.13 For some students and faculty, however, the concept of “studiability” described in the German and Dutch sections was thought to be antithetical to the traditional idea of Wissenschaft. The problem of redefining the academic pursuit has plagued reformers since the 1950s. The nineteenth century idealism outlined in chapter three underscored the importance of the humanities—especially philosophy—as the guiding principle behind Wissenschaft. The historical emphasis on the humanities has posed one of the greatest problems in creating a “rational” solution to the student career in all three countries. Despite efforts in each country to enhance the connection between university study and the labor market, the humanities remain only loosely connected to jobs and employment and have registered some of the longest average times to degree in Germany. Solutions to the “problem” of the humanities had been mixed, mainly because the approach to this perceived problem shifted along with the underlying ideological frames of reference. In a climate of rational manpower planning, the humanities posed a problem because of their unclear connection to the needs of society. The efforts of the 1977 reforms in Sweden, however, demonstrated that the tradition of humanities and philosophy is not easily purged from the system merely by redefining everything within a new framework of vocational tracks. Many students voted with their feet, choosing to construct a freer, more humanities-based approach through loopholes in the system. In a climate of a rapidly changing labor market and an increasingly internationalized workforce, the underlying concept of the humanities also provided flexibility in a highly unpredictable future. This example is evident in Germany, where, in a tight labor market, business and industry demanded “Bildung” above and beyond sheer specialization when seeking new recruits. Students who sought out multiple qualifications in languages, computers, apprenticeships, and other work experience, alongside their academic careers by and large continued to find an edge over those who only followed the requirements of a university degree. What is important is that the flexibility of the German system that fostered such creativity to a few students also at the same time leads to what state policy makers observe as inefficient for the majority. Similar developments could be observed in the early 1990s in Sweden. The conservative Swedish government espoused, at least rhetorically, the traditional idealism of a free, academically based (vetenskaplig) student career as the appropriate government policy to prepare youth for a rapidly changing workforce and society.14 The government seemed to have come full circle, embracing traditionalism in the form of studiefrihet (freedom of study) as the most effective ideal for the 21st century. In the context of a highly compartmentalized study process, however, studiefrihet was viewed from an economic perspective more as a matter of consumer choice than of self-determination.

The transformation of the student career

120

The Rise of Quality The abandonment of the traditional academic idealism by the middle of the 1990s has left a vacuum in the reform discourse, begging the question “what is academic?” In the attempt to ground the student career in vocationalism, the idea of “academic” was in transition, stuck somewhere between the old and the new, with governments holding no clear vision or ideal for the future. Shifting meanings in the concept of “academic” also have implications of another important concept: Quality. Chapters four through six examined how each government became increasingly fixated on determining and assuring the quality of study programs during the latter part of the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s. Cross-national comparison among countries, however, shows that determining, measuring, and ensuring “quality” is also rooted strongly within the structure of the system. Structural compartmentalization of the student career in Sweden and the Netherlands allowed for the rise of new normative definitions of “quality” through the establishment of normative indicators and measurement techniques, which had remained difficult to carry out in Germany, despite the strong interest at the federal and Land levels. Concerns about the quality of the student career were, of course, not new. What was new was where and how quality was being defined. Crossnational comparisons reveal that the definition of “quality” depends largely on how the fiscal and legal control over the student career is balanced. In the past, the state responsibility for the student career was checked by the idealism of limited state action.15 As this idealism became increasingly discredited as antiquated and elitist, the student career was defined more and more as an arena for increased state action. In the political climate of the early 1990s, governments were understandably concerned about increasing the economic “efficiency” and “productivity” of the student career. It is not surprising, therefore, that governments had defined “quality” largely by how well the student career fit normative productivity parameters. Some critics claimed that the quality of the student career had been increasingly defined by the Dutch government as ‘better and cheaper,’ yielding products for less money. The rationale behind this idea of quality was that if the same thing can be done in a shorter amount of time (i.e., three years instead of four), then the efficiency of the student career improves appreciably. Quality would be enhanced because there would be more money per student if students studied for a shorter amount of time. The Dutch also defined a quality program as “studiable,” that is, a statistically determined normstudent should be able to fulfill the course requirements within a quantitatively determined number of hours (see chapter five). The ideological antithesis of the neo-humanistic idea of Bildung, “studiability” defined the student career in terms of statistical norms and outcomes. In Sweden, the government followed similar goals to define the “quality” of the student career; however, it also began to emphasize in the 1990s the idea of competition in the metaphor of a “free market.” As discussed above, study programs were increasingly under pressure to attract a high number of students (high input) and graduate a large number of students (high output). Thus, just as with a consumer item, the “quality” of an academic program was to be determined by its attractiveness (appeal) and sustainability. The combination of structural change based on the new market idealism

The transformation of the student career

121

allowed for a more efficient assessment of whether or not “quality” improved, in spite of the fact that critics have complained that such constructions of “quality” are based on a misunderstanding of what universities do and a false premise, namely, that the business world and consumerism provide an appropriate frame of reference to judge “quality.” Up until the mid 1990s, the German approach to quality offered an interesting contrast to approaches in Sweden and the Netherlands. Despite years of “study reform,” and despite the prevalence of very similar rhetoric of “quality” and “studiability” at both the Land (state) and federal level, the reform rhetoric had not been followed by the implementation of structural control mechanisms. By the mid-1990s no credit hours, registration requirements, and, most importantly, no clear monetary sanctions had been exercised to ensure the desired increases in “efficiency” and “productivity” of the study process. Despite the attempts to curtail student freedom and self-determination, students for the most part still defined their academic programs quite freely and individually. The result of this intransigent tradition has had its obvious down side: the crisis of the early 1960s remained the crisis of the mid 1990s. German universities were plagued by chronic overcrowding and underfunding. The everincreasing average duration of university study continued to remain a thorn in the side of the state and federal governments.16 In comparison to Sweden and the Netherlands, the situation in Germany portrayed an inverse image of the picture of “quality” control. By the mid-1990s, still adhering to the traditional principles of academic freedom of the student and the fear of de-academization as the precursor to “quality,” the German student career still found itself in a perpetual crisis of overcrowding. As will be discussed below, however, the almost forty-year long resistance to overall structural change was destined to change in Germany as well. By the end of the 20th century individual Länder, too, had finally embraced a more ‘rationalized’ and compartmentalized sys tem of study as the overall framework of the student career.

THE BALANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY The student career has been characterized by a tension between self-determination and state control, a tension that has not been easily balanced over the years. At the root of this problem is a question of responsibility. What responsibility should the state have vis-àvis the individual? What stake does the state have in maintaining a high level of responsibility towards educational expenditures given an increased internationalization and privatization of the European labor market and economy? Likewise, to what extent should the individual student be held fiscally responsible for his or her study experience? Up until the mid 1990s, all three systems of higher education had given no indication of being prepared to commit substantial increases in expenditures merely to keep pace with the growing demand for access. On the contrary, each system had set out to devise means to justify an overall reduction in the growth of expenditures across the board while demand for access continued to increase. In this context, the disproportionately large share of state responsibility needed to be re-evaluated. Increasingly, it could be argued that it would be counter-productive to charge the state with the full responsibility of devising ways for full financing or retrenchment when a broader spectrum of

The transformation of the student career

122

constituencies—such as multi-national enterprises, individuals, members of other nations—might also benefit from an overall increase in expenditure on higher learning. Responsibility, however, also falls on the individual student: regardless of how politically difficult the question might be, the right to participation in fully-subsidized lectures and courses has come under increased scrutiny, especially when the successful completion of university study increasingly bestows an economic and social advantage and privilege to the individual.17 Over the years, the question of the balance of responsibility has been at the periphery of the major reform debates despite the fact that the universities tend to serve, inequitably, the sons and daughters of parents in the higher income brackets.18 The social expectation that such a select group of young adults have a legal right to fully subsidized higher education (and in some cases cost of living allowances) when the benefits are increasingly perceived as personal, had come under greater scrutiny in all three countries. This scrutiny has lead to uncomfortable and revealing contradictions between the state’s ideal of social equity in society and the commitment to ensure full-financing of study.19 Nowhere has this issue been more apparent than in Germany, where the issue of tuition and social equity has remained an insurmountable political issue into the current century. 20 Regardless of whether the tuition issue is raised as a matter of personal responsibility or as a punitive means to encourage more efficient study behavior (or both), the issue of tuition has faced a strong counter force by those who believe that university study should remain fully subsidized solely for reasons of social equity. The issue in Germany has become so charged that few politicians dare mention the word “tuition.”21 Because of the power of this issue, the political response in Germany has been to forbid the charging of tuition in the Framework Law.22 In spite of the political setbacks, individual states (Länder) have increasingly pursued the goal of shifting more financial responsibilities to students who take too long in their studies or who, as described in chapter six, are not seriously engaged in “normative” study behavior. Such arrangements have shifted the balance of responsibility towards the student and have subsequently put pressure on the student to change his or her study behavior to fit the state norms. This approach strikes a fragile compromise between the rights and responsibilities of the individual as opposed to the state. Shifting more responsibility to the individual to help finance his or her own studies may in the end do more to change the student career, for better or for worse, than 40 years of other attempts at reform. It introduces an element of privatization at the most basic level—the individual student. This form of privatization might promise to decentralize fiscal responsibility by requiring students to contribute more to the costs of education. However, at the same time such a shift would reduce their degree of selfdetermination with respect to their own study process which may lead to an imbalance of control over the study experience in favor of the state’s normative goals. In the climate of increased globalization of industry and labor markets, however, this problem of balance will become ever more apparent as the goals of individuals assert themselves more and more, challenging the goals of the national interests. As the context of the student career becomes more European, more international, or even more private, what stake does each state have in attempting to ensure a more level playing field for all members of the society in regard to higher learning? Based on past developments in all three countries, a significant increased investment in the infrastructure of higher education to accommodate the increased demand from a more representative segment of the population is not likely

The transformation of the student career

123

to occur. The balance of responsibility becomes more complicated within the international context as institutions begin to seek out external resources in the form of fundraising from industry, alumni or the local community. However, successful fundraising is highly related to a perception of quality that might be quite different from that which is defined by the state. Alumni, for example, most often give to an institution only if they perceive the institution to be part of their identity and their success.23 In sum, the student career found itself in a sort of paradox by the mid 1990s. After 40 years of building up the state reform apparatus, each state seemed ready to use it to justify its retreat away from the responsibility it formally took upon itself. It was not clear, however, what new idealism would fill the void if the old reform apparatus were “turned off.” One alternative, decentralization, had mainly meant shifting control down to lower levels while at the same time increasing the state demands for accountability. In the end, what has occurred has been a diffusion of the same centralized control, rather than a real decentralization of responsibility. Any real change—in the form of decentralization and perhaps even increased privatization—did not seem possible without ultimately abandoning the rigid 40-year old state idealism of institutionalized reform for a more inclusive and flexible balance of responsibility and commitment between the state and the individual.

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN DIMENSION OF THE STUDENT CAREER The reform efforts in each country discussed in the previous chapters set the stage for a more comprehensive reconceptualization of the student experience at the turn of the current century: the pursuit of a European dimension of the student career. As was demonstrated previously, past reform efforts of the student career often mirrored the overall political aspirations of the time. The push behind an international and, consequently, a European dimension of the student experience has been no exception. During the latter part of the 1990s, the increasing globalization of the economy and international competition began to be reflected in the reform discourse in each country. International comparison and competition began to play a larger role in the discussion of the goals of what was expected of graduates in all three countries.24 Just as in the Swedish reforms of the early 1990s, many higher education policy makers and academics began to question the level of attractiveness of their higher education system relative to systems in other countries, especially the United States, which was attracting over 500,000 tuition paying students from around the world to its technical institutes, community colleges, and research universities by the end of the 1990s.25 Despite the growth in importance of the European Union in many key areas of policy over the past two or more decades, basic and higher education policy had been excluded as part of a “common European policy,” leaving control over this area explicitly to the individual member states. Therefore, instead of the adoption of a common European education policy, the Treaty of Amsterdam called for the European Community to “encourage cooperation” among Member States in the area of education policy.26 Such encouragement of cooperation in Europe began in the mid 1980s when the European Commission established a number of innovative initiatives to nudge quietly European

The transformation of the student career

124

institutions of education towards more cooperation in the areas of basic education, teaching, research, curriculum development, and student mobility. The program that impacted students most was the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), which was intended to provide increased mobility to students in the countries of the European Union through stipends to the students and small grants to participating institutions. The residual impact on the national systems of higher education and their study careers as a result of these programs was by no means inconsequential. ERASMUS, for example, added a new international dimension to the student career that did not, in any organized fashion, exist up to that point. Though these early European-wide programs were peripheral to the existing defining goals of student experiences at the national levels, the Commission’s efforts established important administrative innovations that allowed students to receive recognition for their study period at their home institutions, which, in many cases, did not have the means or mechanisms to determine credit. Such mechanisms came in the form of schemes such as the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), which were purposely designed to involve individual faculty members or institutes in the recognition of credits earned by students, thus skirting nonexistent or idiosyncratic credit schemes at individual institutions and creating a new system for the sole purpose of this program.27 The impact of these programs in adding an important new dimension to the student career was undeniable. In remarks made in 2001 celebrating the one millionth student to participate in ERASMUS, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, stated that the ERASMUS Program, alongside other Commission programs, had “proved to be powerful tools for opening up and Europeanising the world of [the] universities.”28 Further, tracking the relatively large numbers of student flows per year provided an important means to compare the relative attractiveness of systems of study throughout Europe. The idea of Europe moved quickly from the periphery to the center of the reform discourse with the signing of the Bologna Declaration by 29 ministers of education in 1999. The Bologna Declaration called for the establishment of a European Higher Education Space by the year 2010 and represented a reaffirmation of a much smaller scale meeting of academic and ministry officials a year earlier at the Sorbonne.29 Because this effort was spearheaded by a group of national education ministers, the Bologna Declaration represented a convergence of reform goals and trends already occurring at the national levels and the more ambitious and overarching goals of Europeanizing higher education asserted by Commission president Prodi. The Bologna Declaration called for the development of a “system” that consisted of 1) easily comparable degrees, 2) two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate, 3) a system of credits, 4) mobility (for students and academic personnel) 5) European cooperation in quality assurance and, lastly, the broadest category, 6) the promotion of the “European dimensions in higher education.”30 In spite of the unprecedented breadth and scope of this call for reform, the Conference of the European Rectors affirmed that the Bologna Declaration underscored the autonomy and diversity of each of the systems of higher education involved, stressing that the effort would emphasize “convergence” of different systems rather than “standardisation or uniformisation of European higher education.”31 The Bologna Declaration has led a broad reform effort to establish a European dimension of the student career, known more widely as the Bologna Process. The

The transformation of the student career

125

Declaration has led to an unprecedented degree of large scope activities at many different levels, including that of the European Council in Lisbon, in 2000, and in Barcelona in 2002, and at the level of the European Ministers in May 2001 in Prague and in September 2003 in Berlin, where 33 Ministers represented their support for this new commitment.32 The key justification for the Bologna Process has been the need to promote the attractiveness and competitive nature of the European study experience. Mirroring similar reform discourse at the national levels, the Council of Europe underscored the importance of the Bologna Process not only to make Europe “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” but also to ensure that it was “recognised as a world wide reference for the quality and relevance of its education and training systems and institutions.”33 The Bologna Process is perhaps most widely known for the proposal to restructure university study into a standard European bachelor’s and master’s “two cycle” format. As we have seen in the preceding chapters, the idea of a two-tiered degree structure in the form of master’s and bachelor’s degrees had been a consistent policy leitmotif in Germany and the Netherlands beginning in the early 1960s. By the time the Bologna declaration was made, all three countries had taken significant steps towards establishing structures compatible with the bachelor’s and master’s format. The Bologna imperative to develop comparable degree structures across all of Europe goes far beyond the development of a system of common nomenclature of degrees. The Bologna Process represents a pan-European reform effort to achieve many other goals similar to those seen at the national levels in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Such a wide-reaching reform effort stretches the tensions already created at the national level in efforts to balance the academic and vocational functions of the student career. Just as at the national level, the reconciliation of different durations of degree and courses is key to the development of a higher education space by 2010. The tension is apparent, for example, in Germany and the Netherlands, where long-standing efforts to establish bachelor’s and master’s degrees have revolved around the issues of functional differentiation described in the previous chapters. In the Netherlands, a long drive towards establishing bachelor’s and master’s degrees as the required format for all new degree programs was finally established in 2002, and credited as a consequence of the Bologna Process.34 However, the Netherlands still differentiates between two separate bachelor’s degrees: one at the universities and a separate bachelor’s degree at the HBO (or “Universities of Professional Education”). In general, Dutch law intends the HBO bachelor’s to qualify someone for the labor market whereas the university bachelor’s is intended to prepare students for further study in a master’s degree at the university.35 Because of this emphasis, the university degree, which, as we saw in chapter five, was shortened in the 1990s to four years, was shortened once again to three years in duration (180 credits). The bachelor’s degree at the HBO, conversely, was lengthened to be one year longer than the university degree (240 credits).36 The shift in degree durations reflects the intended functions of the degrees: the HBO bachelor’s degree seekers would be essentially seeking a terminal professional degree and the university bachelor’s degree seekers would be seeking further academic education in the form of a master’s degree. In Germany, the establishment of the degree differentiation in the form of a bachelor’s and master’s degree has also been a major reform goal running parallel to the Bologna Declaration. In 1998, a year before the signing of the Bologna Process, Germany had

The transformation of the student career

126

amended its Framework Law to allow institutions to offer parallel bachelor’s and master’s degrees at universities and Fachhochschulen. In spite of these changes in the law, it was not clear how these new degree structures would function alongside the existing degree structures, nor was it clear what would eventually be done with the existing degree structures in Germany. Nevertheless, the externally driven imperative of the Bologna Process had bolstered the long-standing goal to split German university study into two separate stages. Thus, in June 2003, almost 40 years after the idea was first proposed in the Dahrendorf Report, the German Committee of Cultural Ministers (KMK) published a report declaring the bachelor’s/master’s structure to be “central to German higher education policy,” which demanded “far reaching reform of study program on the basis of organization and content.”37 As was argued in the Netherlands, the KMK emphasized that such a degree structure would be compatible in the international higher education arena and therefore heightened the “international attractiveness of German universities.”38 As in the Netherlands, the establishment of the bachelor’s and master’s degrees ensured that the academic function is clearly differentiated from the praxis/vocational sector (Fachhochschulen). The most pronounced differentiation remains in the continuation of the established status hierarchization which gives university degree holders higher placement in civil service positions than their counterparts with degrees from the Fachhochschulen. Some academic critics have challenged the status differentiation as a perpetuation of an academic apartheid.39 However, the threat against equal opportunity is not limited just to differences between both sectors. University student critics have argued against the goal of limiting the number of university graduates who can pursue a master’s degree to 30% of all bachelor’s degree holders, a move that would lead to a university degree for the masses (bachelor’s) and a university degree for the elite (master’s).40 As before, student groups feared that such a restructuring of university study would mean that the “academic [wissenschaftlich] education and training will be increasingly neglected.”41 Though one of the main purposes of the establishment of the bachelor’s degree is to make the German student career more “attractive,” students and academics alike are skeptical about the currency of the bachelor’s degree in the society in general, as well as more specifically in the labor market. Such skepticism is evident in a survey of academic institutions, which showed that only ten percent of German institutions thought that students who complete a bachelor’s degree would leave the system without continuing on.42 The bachelor’s degree runs the same risk of becoming a “stepping stone” in the process of completing a degree program that holds many of the same characteristics of the past.43 The challenge for the European dimension of the student career will be to reconcile these long-standing challenges on even a higher policy level. The Bologna Process produced in a relatively short time detailed comparisons of degree offerings in terms of durations, academic years, and ECTS credits. The process has also produced intricate structural comparisons of degree offerings in terms of “cycles,” that is, comparisons of those that are divided in a form conducive to a bachelor’s or master’s or undivided such as the traditional format that still exists in Germany.44 Such efforts have shown a large level of variation in the structure and the status of degree offerings within countries. Just as in the past, such national characteristics of degree programs are moving targets. The Netherlands, for example, has now moved towards an entirely new differentiation of its

The transformation of the student career

127

first and second cycles as mentioned above. Sweden has more or less retained the differentiation established in the 1990s, but differentiates between master’s programs that are “divided” in a first and second cycle as opposed to an “undivided” master’s program (that is, a master’s without a bachelor’s degree).45 Germany, as discussed above, has established the bachelor’s and master’s degree in law parallel to the traditional degree structures, which will continue to prevail until major political decisions can be taken. Whether or not a national system keeps or discards such differentiation remains to be seen, but as we can see from the reform efforts in Germany, the traditional structures have not disappeared easily, regardless of the overarching reform imperative of the time. Tuning, Transparency, Harmonization, and Convergence As with the national reform efforts examined in previous chapters, the challenge in establishing a European student career is demonstrated by many key terms that are used to characterize particular initiatives within the Bologna Process. Terms such as “convergence” or “harmonization” are the terms used to denote the overall Europeanization of student experiences across Europe, and “tuning” and “transparency” are the terms used more often to characterize the attempts to reconcile the different structures and functions of study programs in over 30 countries involved in the Bologna Process. Within the reform discourse of the Bologna Process, “transparency” seems to be used as a means to call for an increased rationalization of the study process in a way that it can be understood across many national systems. Though the term is used in different contexts, “transparency” seems to represent a reform concept that picks up where the term “studiability” left off at the national level. “Tuning” is increasingly used to portray the need to describe methods of managing the large amount of variation and differences in study experiences, course content, and related administrative details across different national levels. In many ways, the wide use of the terms in the reform discourse throughout Europe demonstrates the complex—perhaps untransparent—nature of the multitude of higher education systems in transition. Efforts to bring about overall convergence of the systems involve the development of common “descriptors” of study careers at a number of levels, including the newly proposed “cycles,” as well as developing indicators at the “modular” or course level. At the most fundamental level, these efforts are linked to the establishment of a common credit system, or “credit accumulation.”46 At the highest level, these descriptors are intended to develop a European system of quality assurance.47 As will be discussed below, the efforts to bring about overall harmonization rely on a number of complicated system-wide reform initiatives, each of which depends upon the other.48 One of the chief pilot projects to bring about increased “transparency” of degree programs across Europe is the Tuning Project, funded in 2000 by the European Commission. This large-scale pilot effort involved over 100 academic programs at universities, broken down by particular subject areas such as physics, business, education, geology, history, mathematics, and chemistry.49 According to the report, “tuning” is intended to bring about a “high level Europe-wide convergence” in higher education and “facilitate transparency in the educational structures”50 without “pay[ing] attention to educational systems, but to educational structure and contents of studies.”51 The fundamental task underlying “tuning” is comprehensively defining all aspects of the

The transformation of the student career

128

study process in order to clearly delineate the “learning outcomes” and “skill competencies.” This applies to general subject areas as well as in specific subject areas such as business or chemistry, whether these outcomes are for entire degree programs, including first or second cycle (bachelor’s or master’s) programs, for individual units, (learning modules), or even for individual courses. Just as was evident in the earlier national efforts to reform the student career, the work of the tuning process also focuses on compartmentalizing learning by function and by time across Europe. Such processes, as we have seen before, ultimately lead to the function of the academic credit, which the Tuning Project considers to be an “essential tool for the development of other, more flexible kinds of higher education: part-time studies, recurrent study periods” and a “precondition for the tuning of education structures in Europe.”52 The importance of the academic credit as the unit for determining basic value of study was emphasized at the Prague meeting and again, in September 2003, in the Berlin Communiqué which reiterated the goal of transforming the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) from a credit transfer system into a means of determining “credit accumulation.”53 As was discussed above, ECTS had been developed as an important tool to facilitate mobility by ensuring recognition of temporary study abroad. In the ECTS format, credit has a relative value, that is, it represents the recognition at the student’s home institution of a short-term study abroad activity. ECTS was not designed to be based on an internationally agreed upon set of indicators, descriptors, or norms within or among degree programs and institutions.54 The centrality of the issue of credit to the effort to establish a convergence of European higher education was recognized by the comprehensive work undertaken by the Tuning Project. Because credits in the ECTS system have no value in themselves, credit transfer represents a purely functional process, attributing no inherent value to the credits earned by students. The Tuning Project argued that for credit accumulation of a student’s work to occur at the programmatic and institutional level, study programs must be defined by credits that carry an “absolute” rather than a “relative” value.55 Just as with the degree programs, the value of credit would be established based on values attributed to learning outcomes tied to the skills or knowledge being transferred. These learning outcomes would be a fundamental activity of tuning, which, as mentioned above, is based on developing a European-wide system of common descriptors or “level indicators” that have currency in all academic systems. The attempts to develop common “descriptors” or “indicators” is therefore also central to the effort to bring about convergence of the European student career, but also quality assurance at the European level. At the very least, descriptors would help describe common, or convergent, qualities or indicators that differentiate the characteristics of a bachelor’s degree from a master’s degree upon which all higher education systems and their institutions could agree. A more involved approach might relate indicators to commonly agreed upon “learning outcomes” expected of someone with a bachelor’s or a master’s degree. Further, indicators might be based on general learning outcomes (expectations for all bachelor’s and master’s students) as well as on subject specificlearning outcomes (such as Physics or Educational Science). These descriptors would reflect common agreement on study loads, credit hours, skill competence, and outcomes. The call for credit accumulation in the Berlin Communiqué places many of these issues squarely at the center of the reform process and may very well represent the most

The transformation of the student career

129

far-reaching goal of the European reform process. The results of preliminary work by the Tuning Project provide an excellent window into the complexities facing the development of the European student career. The Tuning Project also demonstrates the degree to which all levels of the reform efforts are interrelated and self-referent. Whereas the credit accumulation scheme is a central building block of the efforts to develop descriptors of higher education in Europe, the establishment of a “European-wide system of level indicators” is seen as essential for the development of a credit accumulation scheme.56 As discussed in previous chapters, the attempts to redefine the student career in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden were based on long-standing goals to compartmentalize study through academic credit, normative study loads, and periods of study time. Basing the success of the European student career on the development of a credit accumulation process raised the importance of the credit to a new level. The preliminary efforts to bring about convergence demonstrates that the process centers on grappling with many key issues that were discussed in past national reform efforts. However, the establishment of norm study durations, student aid and fee processes, clear relationships between the study content and qualifications, and aligning these with national employment needs and practices remain incomplete at the national level. In Germany, individual Länder have begun to determine their own study durations, study loads and, in spite of a law that forbids tuition, some have begun to calculate fees to charge students who study too long.57 The interrelationship of issues such as student fees with degree structures, sanctions, and study loads are based on complex formulae and perceptions of study behavior in each of the individual countries. Issues concerning the right to student aid and the level of tuition fees charged to out-of-state citizens at institutions in the Netherlands will require “tuning” as well.58 Though the complex nature of student financial aid and tuition in the United States demonstrates that these issues are not insurmountable, in the end, such issues do limit the degree to which the system can be fully harmonized at all levels.

QUALITY: A SHIFT IN FOCUS In spite of the challenge of establishing a European student career, one can not understate the importance of the shift in focus of the reform debate from the national imperative to the European dimension. As a result, the importance of quality assurance or accreditation has become increasingly central to the determination of common parameters for qualifications of students in Europe. The centrality of quality assurance to the process was reiterated in the Berlin Communiqué, which called for all participating countries to ensure that their quality assurance systems participate and cooperate internationally and include a “system of accreditation, certification, or comparable procedures” by 2005. The ministers called upon the recently established European Network of Quality Assurance (ENQA) in cooperation with other recently established US-style European higher education advocacy associations to coordinate the development of “an agreed set of standards, procedures, and guidelines on quality assurance.”59 The shift towards a European-wide quality assurance approach offers both promise and trepidation. Much depends on how the sharing of control over the quality assurance process is reconciled over the coming years.

The transformation of the student career

130

As discussed in previous chapters, the call for quality assurance in higher education has often been perceived as a demand for increased accountability, limiting the approach to dealing with the perceived inefficiencies in the overall study process. Such a perception of quality assurance will not easily be dispelled among some of the participating countries. Further, past reform efforts in all three countries have demonstrated tendencies for large-scale reform efforts to become technocratic, as is already evident in the attempt to determine an “absolute value” of academic credit across countries. Not only do such efforts threaten fundamental tenets of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the coordination of such an effort among many different nations would be a monumental undertaking. When one adds to this the multiple layers of different quality assurance mechanisms within individual nations (and in some cases states), the determination of quality of the student career in the European context becomes daunting indeed. However, since undertaking the challenge to establish a European approach to quality assurance is unavoidable, the stakes are high for institutions to get involved. The result may be that the effort will bring with it great promise for a change that all parties can be happy with. First, the context for quality is different from that of the past inasmuch as the shift towards European-wide quality assurance also promises to ground quality more in the overarching Bologna goals of enhancing the attractiveness of the student experience. This would shift the context of quality away from national goals and accountability schemes.60 Second, precisely due to the large amount of variation and diversity among the study programs throughout Europe, efforts to define common quality assurance processes will most likely settle on less radical approaches to determine common descriptors. This is evident in the efforts of the Joint Quality Initiative, which constitutes a group of countries interested in establishing descriptors that allow for determinations at the national, regional or institutional contexts. Such descriptors would indicate “an overarching summary of the outcomes of a whole programme of study” rather than “limited to describing merely the outcomes of units of assessment at the level of the qualification.”61 Shared descriptors under the Joint Quality Initiative differentiate between bachelor’s and master’s degrees in broad terms. For example, bachelor’s degrees should be awarded to students who “have demonstrated knowledge and understanding in a field of study that builds upon and supersedes their general secondary education …” whereas master’s degrees, on the other hand, should be awarded to students who “have demonstrated knowledge…that is founded upon and extends and/or enhances that typically associated with bachelor’s level.”62 Such a broader approach to defining the bachelor’s and master’s degree is already employed by the Netherlands Accreditation Organization (NAO), which uses very similar descriptors to differentiate between the bachelor’s and the master’s degrees.63 Third, surveys of institutional leaders have shown an increasing level of support for a European form of accreditation if it means increased institutional autonomy from state control.64 Such a shift in interest in quality assurance has been evident in Germany, where external quality assurance was strongly resisted in the past but was quickly embraced in the late 1990s with the hope of ensuring increased institutional autonomy under the more American nomenclature of Akkreditierung. Though a fully independent accreditation process did not materialize as hoped, some institutional leaders now see the importance of having a stake in shaping the process.65

The transformation of the student career

131

Fourth, despite the fears of a highly technocratic quality assurance process, the European approach to quality could in the long run produce a more flexible, efficient, student career responsive to the needs of students in a more international market of offerings. The attempts to align study programs to needs described in the previous chapters represented highly bureaucratic and labor intensive undertakings in all three countries. In some cases by the time the reforms were in place, the overriding goals had shifted towards a renewed reform effort. A more flexible quality assurance system in the end could promise to provide the most effective “glue” to hold a European Higher Education Space together.66

CHANGE AND REFORM IN RETROSPECT Comparing the transformation of the student career in three countries demonstrates how governments grapple with seemingly opposing and contradictory ideologies within traditional and novel structural frameworks. Over time, the goals towards which the policy apparatus aimed to bring about change transformed their meanings and relationships to the student career. The only component that has remained constant has been the impetus towards reform, which represents each government’s strong legal responsibility towards shaping the structure and goals of the student career. Over the years there has been no one consistent policy towards change, but rather a series of different—and sometimes contradictory—ideals that reflect the political imperative of the day. The change to the concept of student has been quite dramatic-from the post-war era of an academic pursuit of knowledge to an international concept, loaded with goals and expectations from multiple layers and actors: the faculty, the disciplines, the institutions, the governments and, most recently, Europe. The reform effort of the Bologna Process reflects surprisingly well the reform discourse in all three countries over the past 40 years. As was apparent in the national reform efforts preceding it, the effort to establish a European dimension to the student career places at the center similar social and economic goals such as relevance to the labor market and promotion of social equity. We have seen that establishing a clear connection between university study and the labor market has been somewhat elusive on the national scale. The same can be said for the issue of improving equal opportunity in higher education, an issue which reflects deeply rooted cultural beliefs and assumptions that cannot be separated from the structural aspects of individual higher education systems. As we have seen in the past, one nation’s belief about equal opportunity may lead to the embracement of a comprehensive system while another’s belief might lead to the development of “separate but equal” sectors of higher education. The idea of mobility, credit, transfer, bachelor’s and master’s degrees will challenge all of the long-held beliefs behind access and opportunity. In the face of all of these challenges, one should not forget the overall goal and purpose of the reform and what influences this might have on the numbers and levels of opportunities for students within and outside Europe. Even at the most preliminary stages of this effort, the future for students appears to be bright. The available range of subjects, institutional types, exchange experiences, and funding opportunities available to students

The transformation of the student career

132

throughout Europe today would have been unimaginable 40 years ago. There is no doubt that students in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands have lost a defining degree of personal academic freedom over the past 40 years. However, this lack of freedom has been replaced by a plethora of new opportunities and possibilities for students to learn their subject areas frorn other cultural standpoints and through a language different from their own.

Notes NOTES TO CHAPTER ONE 1. Martin Trow, “Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education” in Policies for Higher Education, General Report. (Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education, 1973), 65. 2. Burton R.Clark. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in a Cross-National Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 99. 3. Though the same has been true for Central and Eastern Europe since the beginning of the 1990s, this work examines change in three Western European countries since 1960. 4. Guy Neave. “Foundation or Roof? The quantitative, structural and institutional dimensions in the study of higher education,” European Journal of Education 24, no. 3 (1989):211–221. 5. A discussion of this phenomenon can be found in Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock, eds, The European and American University since 1800, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 6. This is discussed in detail in chapter four. See Utbildningsutredning, 1968 års (U68), Higher Education: Proposals by the Swedish 1968 Education Commission (Stockholm: U68, 1973). 7. Ulrich Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems: Programm und Wirklichkeit der staatlichen Studienreform 1975–1986 (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1989). 8. See Werner Conze and Jürgen Kocka, eds., Bildungsbürgertum im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol I: Bildungssystem und Professionalizierung in Internationalen Vergleichen (Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1985). 9. Sven-Eric Liedman and Lennart Olausson describe ideology in this context as “an implicit or explicit and often contradictory system of ideas, rituals and/or plans of action, a system which gets its significance and meaning in a certain society with its classes, groups, institutions, traditions and contradictions.” Sven-Eric Liedman and Lennart Olausson, eds., Ideologi och Institution (Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag, 1988): 9. [All English quotations from foreign sources in this work are my translations.] 10. This is discussed in chapter three. 11. Neave, “Foundation or Roof?” 211–221. 12. Trow, Problems in the Transition, 55 13. Ibid., 65. 14. Ibid., 85. 15. Ibid., 66. 16. Clark, The Higher Education System, 182. 17. Ludwig von Friedeburg made the point that change in Germany in fact preceded expansion. See Ludwig von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland: Geschichte und gesellschaftlicher Widerspruch (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989). 18. Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Reflexionsprobleme im Erziehungssystem (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988), 15.

NOTES TO CHAPTER TWO

Notes

134

1. Else Øyen, “The Imperfection of Comparisons,” in Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research, Else Øyen, ed. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 1. 2. Ibid. 3. Stefan Nowak, “Comparative Studies and Social Theory,” in Cross-National Research in Sociology Melvin L.Kohn, ed. (New York: Sage Publications, 1989). 4. Ibid., 35. 5. Charles Ragin, review of “Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research,” edited by Else Øyen in Contemporary Sociology 20 no.6 1991, pp.961– 962. 6. The OECD, World Bank, and United Nations tend to publish comparative multi-country reports on a variety of social characteristics. See Charles Ragin, “New Directions in Comparative Research.” Melvin L.Kohn (ed.) Cross-National Research in Sociology, (New York: Sage Publications, 1989), 57. 7. Eliot Freidson, “The Theory of the Professions: The State of the Art,” in Dingwall et al (eds.) The Sociology of the Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and others. (London: MacMillan Press, 1983). 8. Ibid., 25. 9. Dietrich Rueschemeyer, “Professional Autonomy and the Social Control of Expertise,” in Dingwall et al (eds.) The Sociology of the Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and others (London: MacMillan Press, 1983), 39–40. 10. Freidson, The Theory of the Professions, 36. 11. Charles Ragin, The Comparative Method, vii. 12. Harold Lasswell, “The Future of the Comparative Method,” Comparative Politics, 1 (October, 1968), 3. 13. Else Øyen, The Imperfections of Comparisons, 4. 14. Charles Ragin, The Comparative Method, 1 (my emphasis). 15. Ibid., 1. 16. L.Sigelman, and G.Gadoids “Contemporary Comparative Politics: An Inventory and Assessment.” Comparative Political Studies, vol. 16, no.3 (Oct 1983), 281. 17. Ibid., 281. 18. Harold Sparrow, Comparative Political Analysis, (New York: Harper and Row, 1969). 19. Sigelman and Gadoids, Contemporary Comparative Politics, passim. 20. Melvin L.Kohn (ed.) Cross-National Research in Sociology. (New York: Sage Publications, 1989), 2. 21. Ibid., 2. 22. A. Clipart, “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method,” The American Political Science Review 65 (1971):684. 23. Ibid., 684. 24. Ibid., 683. 25. Ragin, The Comparative Method, 3. 26. Ibid., 3. 27. Ibid., 3. 28. Charles C.Ragin, “Introduction: The Problem of Balancing Discourse on Cases and Variables in Comparative Social Science,” in Charles C.Ragin (ed.) Issues and Alternatives in Comparative Social Research, (Leaden: E.J. Brill, 1991), 1. 29. Michel Wieviorka, “Case Studies: history or sociology?” in Charles Ragin and Howard Becker, What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 160. 30. Ibid., 160. 31. Ragin, The Problem of Balancing Discourse, 1. 32. Ragin, The Comparative Method, 3.

Notes

135

33. Ragin, The Problem of Balancing Discourse, 3. 34. Ibid., 3. 35. Ragin, The Comparative Method, x. 36. Michael Nugent, James Ratcliff, and Stefanie Schwarz. “Inverse Images: A Cross-National Comparison of Factors Pertaining to Student Persistence in Germany and the United States,” in Hans Pechar (ed.) Das Amerikanische Hochschulsystem: Beiträge zu seinen Vorzügen, Problemen und Entwicklungstendenzen. Zeitschrift für Hochschuldidaktik. 17 no.2–3 (1993):219–242. 37. Ragin, Balancing Discourse on Cases and Variables, 3. 38. Ibid., 3. 39. Ibid., 40. 40. Øyen, Comparative Methodology, 7. 41. Ibid., 8. 42. Kohn, Cross-National Research in Sociology, 20. 43. Burton Clark, The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). 44. Joseph Ben-David, Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States, (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1977). 45. see Ragin’s review of Øyen, 961. 46. Ragin, “New Directions in Comparative Research,” 57. 47. See Charles C.Ragin “Introduction: Cases of ‘What is a case?’ in Charles Ragin and Howard S.Becker (eds.) What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 8. 48. Clark, The Higher Education System, 95. 49. Ibid; Sven-Eric Liedman and Lennart Olausson, eds., Ideologi och institution. Om forskning och högre utbildning, 1800–2000 (Stockholm: Carlsson, 1988). 50. Clark, Higher Education System, 99. 51. Ibid., 95. 52. Ibid., 96. 53. See Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock, eds, The European and American University since 1800, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Liedman and Olausson, Ideologi och institution; F.W.Foppen, Gistend beleid: Veertig jaar universitaire onderwijspolitiek. (‘s-Gravenhage: VUGA, 1989). 54. Clark, Higher Education System, 95. 55. Liedman and Olausson, Ideologi och Institution, 9. 56. Guy Neave, “Foundation or Roof ? The quantitative, structural and institutional dimensions in the study of higher education.” European Journal of Education. Vol. 24, No. 3, 1989. pp.211–221 see also Ayla Neusel and Ulrich Teichler, “Strukturentwicklung des Hochschulwesens,” in Gabriele Gorzka, Klaus Heipcke and Ulrich Teichler (eds.) Hochschule-Beruf-Gesellschaft: Ergebnisse der Forschung zum Funktionswandel der Hochschulreform, (Frankfurt: Campus, 1988), 321. 57. Clark, Higher Education System, 95. 58. Ibid., 95. 59. Ibid., 96. 60. Ibid., 96.

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 1. After Wilhelm von Humboldt, director of cultural affairs at the Prussian Ministry of the Interior (1809–1810).

Notes

136

2. Werner Conze and Jürgen Kocka (eds), Bildungsburgertum im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol I: Bildungssystem und Professionalizierung in Internationalen Vergleich (Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1985), 26; J.W.Foppen, Gistend beleid: veertig jaar universitaire onderwijspolitiek (‘s-Gravenhage: VUGA, 1989); Sven-Eric Liedman, and Lennart Olausson, (eds.) Ideologi och Institution. Om forskning och högre utbildning, 1800–2000 (Stockholm: Carlsson, 1988). 3. Ulrich Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulssystems: Programm und Wirklichkeit der staatlichen Studienreform 1975–1986 (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1989), 17–18. 4. Fritz Ringer, Education and Society in Modern Europe (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1979). 5. Ralph Fiedler, Die Klassische deutsche Bildungsidee.: Ihre soziologischen Wurzeln und pädagogischen Folgen (Weinheim: Beltz Verlag, 1972), 13. 6. Fritz Ringer, Fields of Knowledge: French Academic Culture in Comparative Perspective 1890–1920, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 7. L.W.B.Brockliss, French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 15. 8. Fritz K.Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community 1890–1933 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1969) 114. 9. J.C.McClellend, State, Society and University in Germany 1700–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 107. 10. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins, 19. 11. McClellend, State, Society and University, 97. 12. Ringer, Fields of Knowledge, 2. 13. Ernst Anrich, ed., Die Idee der Deutscken Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus and romatischen Realismus, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964). 14. F.W.J.Schelling, “Vorlesungen über die Methode des Akademischen Studiums,” in Ernst Anrich, ed., Die Idee der Deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und romatischen Realismus 2d ed., (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964). 15. Ibid. 3. 16. Ibid., 3. 17. As with many other abstract ideals, the definition of Bildung has evolved over time and is embraced by different camps of thought. See Hans Weil, Die Entstehung des deutschen Bildungsprinzips (Bonn: H.Bouvier, 1967). 18. Fiedler, Die Klassische deutsche Bildungsidee, 14. 19. Ibid., 14. 20. Ibid., 43. 21. Ibid., 43. 22. Ibid., 14. 23. Ibid., 44. 24. Wilhelm von Humboldt, On the Limits of State Action, Translated by J.W. Burrow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 16. 25. Ralph Fiedler, Die Klassische deutsche Bildungsidee, 9. 26. Johann Gottlieb Fichte “Deduzierter Plan: Einer zu Berlin zu Errichternden Höheren Lehranstalt, die in Gehöriger Verbindung mit einer Akademie der Wissenschaften Stehe” in Ernst Anrich, ed., Die Idee der Deutschen Universität, 130. 27. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Verusch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen (1792) in A.Flitner and K.Giel (eds.) Wilhelm von Humboldt: Werke in Fünf Bänden. Werke I, (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1960), 64. 28. Fiedler, Die Klassische deutsche Bildungsidee, 42.

Notes

137

29. Friedrich Schleiermacher, in Ernst Anrich, ed., Die Idee der Deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus and romatischen Realismus, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 225. 30. Fichte, Deduzierter Plan, 138. 31. Eduard Spranger, Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Reform des Bildungswesens, (Tübingen: Max Neimeyer Verlag, 1965.), 208. 32. Spranger, Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Reform…, 208. 33. Ibid., 208. 34. Schleiermacher, 28. 35. McClellend, State Society and University. 36. Schelling, Vorlesungen über die Methode, 4. 37. Ibid., 4. 38. See Margareta Bertilsson. “Från universitet till högskola: Om glappet mellan ‘Lehre und Leben’” in Thorsten Nybom (ed.) Universitet och samhölle: Om Forskningspolitik och vetenskapens samhälliga roll (Stockholm: Tidens Forlag, 1989), 217, and Foppen, Gistend beleid, 44. 39. John E.Craig, Scholarship and Nation Building: The University of Strasbourg and Alsatian Society, 1870–1939 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 13. 40. Craig, Scholarship and Nation Building, 13. 41. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Verusch. 42. Helmut Schelsky, Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt der deutschen Universität und ihrer Reform (Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1971), 152. 43. McClellend, State, Society and University, 180. 44. Sven-Eric Liedman, “In search of Isis: general education in Germany and Sweden,” in S.Rothblatt and B.Wittrock (eds.) The European and American University since 1800: Historical and Sociological Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1993), 90. 45. Crister Skoglund, Vita Mössor under Röda Fanor: Vänsterstudenter kulturradikalism och bildningsideal i Sverige 1880–1940 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991), 45. 46. Liedman, In search for Isis, 90. Peter Hellqvist, “Att tänka fritt och att tänka rätt. Seminariet och universitetsreformen 1891,” in S.E.Liedman and L.Olausson (eds.) Ideologie och institution: Om forskning och högre utbildning 1880–2000. (Stockholm: Carlssons Bokförlag, 1988). 47. Liedman, In search of Isis, 93–94. 48. Ibid., 95. 49. Skoglund, Vita Mössor under Röda Fanor, 48. 50. Ibid., 48. 51. Hellquist, Att tänka fritt och att tänka rätt, 71. 52. Göran Blomqvist, Elfenbenstorn eller statsskepp?: Stat, universitet och akademisk frihet i vardag och vision från Agardh till Schück (Lund: Lund University Press, 1992), 178. 53. Liedman, In search of Isis, 95. 54. Or in Swedish, Studiefrihet. 55. Skoglund, Vita Mössor under Röda Fanor, 49. 56. Hellquist, Att tänka fritt och att tänka rätt, 71. 57. Blomqvist, Elfenbenstorn eller statsskepp?, 178. 58. Joseph C.M.Wachelder, Universiteit tussen vorming en opleiding: De modernisiering van de Nederlandse universiteiten in de negentiende eeuw (Hilversum, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Verloren, 1992), 63. 59. van Duyvendijk, De Motivering van de Klassieke Vorming, 10. 60. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 44. 61. Ibid., 44.

Notes

138

62. Wachelder, Universiteit tussen vorming en opleiding, 67. 63. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 57. 64. Ibid., 55–56. 65. Article 1 of the Law tot regeling van het Hooger Onderwijs van 28 april 1876. cited in Foppen, 45.

NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 1. Aant Elzinga. “Universities, research and the transformation of the State in Sweden,” in Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock (eds.) The European and American university since 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 205. 2. Elzinga, Universities, 203. 3. Urban Dahllöf. Svensk Utbildningsplanering under 25 år: argument, beslutsunderlag och modeller för utvärdering (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1971), 66. 4. OECD. Educational Policy and Planning: Sweden. (Paris: OECD, 1967), 104–105. 5. Ibid., 104–105. 6. Statistika Centralbyrån (SCB), Examinerade frän gymnasium 1957, 1962 and 1967: Sodal bakgrund, betyg och universitetsstudier, (Statistika central-byrån: Stockholm, 1974:14), 36. 7. Ibid., 65. 8. Dahllöf, Utbildningsplanering, 67. 9. Statistika centralbyrån (SCB). Examinerade från gymnasium, 2. 10. Ibid., 64–65. 11. Sven-Eric Liedmann, Utmättning. Essäer och Personliga Betraktelser om Samtiden, (Fälths i Värnamo: Bokförlaget Arena, 1993), 256. 12. Leon Boucher, Tradition and Change in Swedish Education. (New York: Pergamon Press, 1982), 12. 13. Ibid., 129–130. 14. Swedish the verb ‘to read’ (läsa) commonly denotes the activity of studying. 15. Liedmann, Utmättning, 256. 16. Thorsten Husén. An Incurable Academic: Memoirs of a Professor. (Oxford: Pergamon, 1983), 24–25. 17. Elzinga, Universities, 213. 18. Bo Lindensjö. Högskolereformen. En studie i offentlig reformstrategi. (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 1981), 32. 19. Elzinga, Universities, 213. 20. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 37. 21. Ibid., 34. 22. Dahllöf, Utbildningsplanering, 105. 23. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 39–40. 24. Dahllöf, Utbildningsplanering, 105. 25. SMES, The Swedish Way Towards a Learning Society, 96. 26. Dahllöf, Utbildningsplanering, 105. 27. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 36. 28. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 56. 29. Mac Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, Jämlikhet och Avlänkning: Studier i utblidningspolitik och utbildningsplanering 1933–1985, (Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1988), 59. 30. SOU, 53. 31. Dahllöf, Utblildningsplanering, 106. 32. Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, 61.

Notes

139

33. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 53. 34. Liedmann, fria fakulteternas långsamma död, 175. 35. OECD. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Sweden. (Paris: OECD, 1969), 174. 36. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 39. 37. Ibid., 39. 38. Ibid., 40. 39. Swedish government Prop. 1965:141, p.129. quoted in SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 40. 40. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 54. 41. Dalhlöf, Utbildningsplanering, 107. 42. Ibid., 107. 43. Ibid., 107. 44. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Sweden, 175. 45. SOU, Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens, 40. 46. Ibid., 55. 47. Ibid., 55. 48. Ibid., 55. 49. Ibid., 39. 50. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 49–51. 51. Ibid., 51. 52. Sven-Eric Reuterberg, Studiemedel och rekrytering till högskolan (Göteborg, Sweden: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1984). 53. Sven-Eric Reuterberg and Allan Svennson, “Financial Aid and Recruitment in Sweden: changes between 1970 and 1990,” Studies in Higher Education 19 no. 1 (1994): 33–58 (33). 54. SMES, The Swedish Way, 98. 55. Reuterberg, Studiemedel, 167. 56. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 49. 57. Ibid., 49. 58. Ibid., 36. 59. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning in Sweden, 176. 60. Liedmann, fria fakulteternas långsamma död, 179. 61. Ibid., 177. 62. OECD, Reviews of National Policies for Education: Sweden, (Paris: OECD, 1969). 63. Boucher, Education and Change, 23. 64. Ibid., 31. 65. SMES, The Swedish Way, 86. 66. Boucher, Education and Change, 23. 67. SMES, The Swedish Way, 87. 68. Boucher, Education and Change, 23. 69. SMES, The Swedish Way, 90. 70. Ibid., 90. 71. MacMurray, Utbildningsexpansion, 71. 72. Ibid. 73. Boucher, Education and Change, 34. 74. Dahllöf, Utbildningsplanering, 76. 75. Mac Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, 73. 76. Boucher, Education and Change, 43. 77. Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, 75. 78. Boucher, Education and Change, 34. 79. Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, 75. 80. Ibid., 75. 81. Ibid., 76.

Notes

140

82. Utbildningsutredning, 1968 års (U68), Higher Education: Proposals by the Swedish 1968 Education Commission (Stockholm: U68, 1973), 7. 83. U68, 7. 84. Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, 83. 85. U68, 74. 86. SMES, 96. 87. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 63. 88. U68, 43. 89. Ibid., 44. 90. Ibid., 45. 91. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 63. 92. U68, 45. 93. SMES, The Swedish Way, 93 94. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 65 95. U68, 16. 96. Ibid. 97. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 65 98. Ibid., 65 99. Ibid., 63 100. U68, 8 101. Ibid., 8 102. Jan-Eric Lane, “Sweden,” in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, Burton Clark and Guy Neave, eds, (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992), 691. Though högskola has been translated often as “college” it bears little resemblance to the English or American concept. In the context of this study, it will be translated as “institution of higher education.” 103. Lane, Sweden, 691 104. Göran Svanfeld, “Hochschulpolitik in Schweden.” in Goedegebuure, Kaiser, Massen, et al, (eds.) Hochschulpolitik im Internationalen Vergleich (Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993), 324. 105. SMES, 100. 106. Murray, Utbildningsexpansion, passim. 107. U68, 9. 108. Ibid. 109. Ibid. 110. Ibid. 111. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och högskolor, Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, 1992, 13. 112. National Board of Universities and Colleges (NBUC), “Higher Education and Research in Sweden. 1983/84: Some Facts and Figures,” Western European Education 16 no.1 (1988): 14. 113. NBUC, 14. 114. Svanfeld, Hochschulpolitik in Schweden, 324. 115. Ibid., 325. 116. NBUC, 14. 117. Svanfeld, Hochschulpolitik in Schweden, 325. 118. Ibid., 325. 119. SMES, 101. 120. SCB, Enstaka kurser, 11. 121. U68, 10. 122. Ibid. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid.

Notes

141

125. Ibid., 27. 126. Ibid. 127. Ibid. 128. Ibid., 28. 129. These courses have been referred to by academic and government officials as both enstaka kurser (single courses) and fri stånende (free standing) courses. 130. Statistika Centralbyrån (SCB), Enstaka kurser 1977/78–1981/82: Siffror om högskolan, 2, (Stockholm: Statistika Centralbyrån, 1983), 12. 131. Ibid., 12. 132. Lan, Sweden, 690. 133. Svanfeld, Hochschulpolitik in Schweden, 327. 134. SCB, 11. 135. Ibid. 136. SMES, 101. 137. SCB, 11. 138. Ibid. 139. U68, 31. 140. Ibid., 30. 141. NBUC, 14. 142. Ibid. 143. Elzinga, Universities, 213 144. U68, 43. 145. Ibid., 13. 146. Lilimore Kim, “Der Hochschulzugang in Schweden und seine Folgen für die Intergrierte Hochschulbildung,” in H. Hermanns, Ulrich Teichler (eds.) Integrierte Hochschulmodelle: Erfahrungen aus drei Ländern (Frankfurt: Campus Forschung, 1982), 102 147. SMES, 97 148. Kim, Hochschulzugang in Schweden, 103 149. Ibid., 104 150. Lane, Sweden, 691. 151. Svanfeld, Hochschulpolitik in Schweden, 328 152. Ibid. 153. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Goals for Educational Policy in Sweden (Paris: OECD, 1980), 32. 154. Svanfeld, Hochschulpolitik in Schweden, 328. 155. Ibid., 327–328. 156. Boucher, Tradition and Change, 142. 157. OECD, Goals for Educational Policy in Sweden, 31 158. Boucher, Tradition and Change, 143. 159. Ibid. 160. Lindensjö, Högskolereformen, 124 161. Ibid. 162. Ibid. 163. SMES, 97. 164. Boucher, Education and Change, 148. 165. Lane, 691; SMES, 97. 166. SMES, 91. 167. Ibid., 98. 168. Ibid., 98. 169. Kim, Hochschulzugang in Schweden, 107. 170. SMES, 93. 171. Utbildningsdepartmentet, Fria Universitet och högskolor, 13.

Notes

142

172. SMES, 101. 173. Liedmann, fria fakulteternas Iångsamma död, 179. 174. Gordon Sander, “Actions of New Swedish Coalition Raise Hopes for Revitalization of Higher Education,” Chronicle of Higher Education 4 December 1991, A53. 175. Gordon F.Sander, “Sweden’s Conservative-Led Government Steps up Pace of Reform of Higher-Education System,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 May 1994, A43. 176. Per Unckel. Introduction to Fria Universitet och högskolor, (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, 1992), 4. 177. Unckel, Introduction, 4 178. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och högskolor, 9. 179. Ibid., 10 180. Ibid., 10 (emphasis in the original). 181. Ibid., 10 182. Sander, Actions of New Swedish Coalition, A53 183. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och högskolor, 11 184. Ibid., 10–11 185. SOU, 38 186. Ibid., 40 187. Ibid. 188. SOU, 41 189. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och Högskolor, 14 190. Ibid. 191. Ibid., 22 192. Ibid., 17 The required number of credits and length of time originally proposed were different from what was finally adopted. 193. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och Högskolor, 17. For the magisterexamen, a student would have the choice of writing one work of 20 points or 2 works of 10 points. 194. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria universitet och högskolor, 24 195. Gordon Sander, “Sweden’s Conservative-Led Government Steps Up Pace of Reform of Higher-Education System,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 May 1994, A43 196. Information for this paragraph based on author’s discussion with a Professor, University of Göteborg. May 1994. 197. Ibid. 198. Sven-Eric Reuterberg and Allan Svensson. “Financial Aid and Recruitment to Higher Education in Sweden: Changes between 1970 and 1990.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 19, No. 1 1994 33–45. 199. Sander, Actions of New Swedish Coalition, A53. 200. Ibid. 201. Information based on author’s informal discussion with Professor. Göteborg, May, 1994. 202. Ibid. 203. Carl Tham, quoted in Gordon F.Sander, “New Minister Would Undo Some Reforms at Sweden’s Universities,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 December 1994, A43 204. Marianne, Bauer B.Askling and S.G.Marton. (1999) Transforming Universities: changing patterns of governance, structure, and learning in Swedish higher education (London: Jessica Kingsley 1999), 85.

Notes

143

NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 1. Th.H.J.D.Stoelinga, “Hoger Onderwijs,” in J.A.van Kemenade, N.A.J. Lagerweij, J.M.G.Leuene and J.J.M.Ritzen, eds., Onderwijs: Bestel en beleid-3: Onderwijs in ontwikkeling, (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1987), 397 2. P.N.Karstanje, “Voortgezet onderwijs.” in J.A.van Kemenade et al, eds., Onderwijs: Bestel en beleid. v. III: Onderwijs in ontwikkeling, (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1987), 294. 3. Ibid., 294. 4. Karstanje, Voortgezet onderwijs, 295 5. Ibid., 349–350. The neo-humanistic vormingsideal equals the neo-humanistic Bildungsideal discussed in chapter three. 6. Ibid., 296. 7. J.W.Foppen, Gistend beleid: veertig jaar universitaire onderwijspolitiek, (‘s-Gravenhage: VUGA, 1989), 46. 8. Ibid., 49. 9. Stoelinga, Hoger onderwijs, p. 371. 10. Richter, Roland, Das Niederländische Modell: Studienstrukturreform, Studienförderung, Evaluation von Lehre und Forschung. Neue Modelle der Selbstverwaltung und Finanzierung der Hochschulen in den Niederländen, (Frankfurt: GEW, 1994), 19. 11. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 8 3. 12. J.Meynen, “Het Probleem van de Studieduur,” Universiteit en hogeschool, 10 (3) (1963–64) pp 174–179. 13. Ibid., 174–179. 14. Ibid., 175. 15. OECD, Netherlands: Contours of a Future Education System, (Paris: OECD, 1976), 21. 16. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 85. 17. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: The Netherlands, (Paris: OECD, 1967), 140. 18. Th.H.Bot, “Het Probleem van de Studieduur,” Universiteit en Hogeschool, 11 no.4 (1964– 65), 229. 19. Ibid., 231. 20. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 85. 21. Bot, Het Probleem van de Studieduur, 231. 22. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 94. 23. See Roger L.Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 24. Meynen, “Het Probleem van de Studieduur,” 176. 25. Sj. Groenman, “Gedachten over het Baccalaureaat,” Universiteit en hogeschool, 5 no. 6 (1958–59), 316. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., 318. 28. After its founding in the early 1960s, the University of Twente offered a 3 and 1/2 year course leading to a Bachelor’s degree in technology. The labor market, however, had a difficult time deciding what to do with these degrees. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: The Netherlands, Paris: OECD, 1967) 148. 29. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 231. 30. Stoelinga, Hoger Onderwijs, 397. 31. Ibid. 32. Richter, Das Niederländische Modell, 22. 33. Stoelinga, 397.

Notes

144

34. Hoger Onderwijs voor velen. 35. Foppen, Gistend beleid, 177. 36. Tweede Kamer. Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit. (The Netherlands: Tweede Kamer, 1985–86) 19 235, nrs. 1–2. 37. The Netherlands (1992) Staatsblad von bet Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk ondezoek (WHW) nr. 593. 38. Stoelinga, 377. 39. WHW, nr. 593. 40. L.Goedegebuure. “Institutional Mergers and System Change.” in P. Maassen and F.v.Vught, eds., Dutch Higher Education in Transition. (Culemborg: Lemma, 1989), 77. 41. Stoelinga, “Hoger Onderwijs,” 399. 42. Goedegebuure, “Institutional Mergers and System Change,” 77. 43. Stoelinga, Hoger Onderwijs, 377. 44. Frans van Vught, “The Netherlands,” in P.Altbach (ed.) International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia. (New York: Garland, 1991), 735. 45. W.Frijhoff, “The Netherlands,” in B.R.Clark and Guy Neave, The Encyclopedia of Higher Education (New York: Pergamon, 1992), 494. 46. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), Medelelingen CBS, No. 7915, April 1991. 47. Leo C.J. Goedegebuure and V.Lynn Meek, “Restructuring Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis between Australia and the Netherlands,” Comparative Education, Vol. 27 No.1 1991, p 16. 48. WHW, art. 7.24. 49. Goedegebuure, et al, 263. 50. Tweede Kamer. Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit. The Netherlands: Tweede Kamer, 1985–86) 19 235, nrs. 1–2. 51. Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit, 9. 52. Ibid. 53. The Netherlands (1992) Staatsblad von het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenscbappelijk onderzoek (WHW) nr. 593. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid., art. 1.3. 56. van Vught, “Higher Education in the Netherlands,” 23. 57. WHW, art. 7.52. 58. Ibid., art. 7.56. 59. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen (KUN), Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten. (Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Afdeling Studentenzaken van de Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. 1993), 79. 60. van Vught, Higher Education in the Netherlands, 23. 61. WHW, art. 7.25. 62. Ibid., art. 7.29. 63. Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House). Twee-fasenstructuur wetenschap-pelijk onderwijs, Tweede Kamer, zitting 1979–1980. 16 106, nrs, 1–2. 18. 64. WHW, art. 7.8, paragraph 4. 65. Ibid., art. 7.9, paragraph 1. 66. Ibid, art. 7.30. 67. Uulkje de Jong, Pjotr Koopman and Jaap Roeleveld, Snelwegen en slinger-paden in en om het Hoger onderwijs: Eindrapport Project ‘Studieloopbaan in het Hoger onderwijs, (‘sGravenhage: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, 1991). 68. KUN, Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten, 94. 69. WHW, Article 39. 70. WHW, Article 7.38 In spite of this flexibility, the 6 year time allotment was later considered too restrictive and was lengthened to 10 years.

Notes

145

71. KUN, Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten, 95. 72. Adapted from KUN, Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten, 82. 73. Vereniging van Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU), Studielast en Studeerbaarheid, (Utrecht: VSNU, 1989). 74. VSNU, Studielast en Studeerbaarheid, 27. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid., 27–30. 77. Ibid., 14. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid., 7. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid., 14. 82. van Vught, The Netherlands, 742. 83. KUN, Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten, 80. 84. van Vught, The Netherlands, 742. 85. KUN, Vademecum, 43. 86. Ibid., 44. 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid., 45. 90. Tweede Kamer, 16 106 nrs. 1–2, p. 12. 91. Article 1. Wet op het Wetenschappelijke Onderwijs. cited in (Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House). Twee-fasenstructuur wetenschappelijk onderwijs, Tweede Kamer, zitting 1979– 1980. 16 106, nrs, 1–2. p.18. 92. OECD, Reviews of National Policies for Education: Netherlands, (Paris: OECD, 1991), 49. 93. Ibid. 94. Ibid. 95. Richter, Das Niederländische Modell, 25. 96. OECD, National Policies for Education: Netherlands, 49. 97. Ibid. 98. M.Groen, Het wetenschappelijk onderwijs in Nederland van 1815 to 1980: een onderwijskundig overzicht. Vol 1: Wetgeving, viviel effect, godgeleerdheid, rechtsgeleerdheid, indologie, geneeskunde. (Den Haag: CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibiotheek, 1987), 72. 99. WHW, Article 7.20. 100. Groen, Het wetenschappelijk onderwijs in Nederland, 72. 101. Ibid. 102. Ibid. 103. WHW, Article 7.21, 1992. 104. Ibid., Article 7.22. 105. OECD, National Policies for Education: Netherlands, 46. 106. Ibid., 33. 107. Bijleveld, Riekele, “Numeriek rendement en studienduur voor en na de invoering van de tweefasenstructuur,” Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs. vol. 8 no. 2 1990, 67–79. 108. ‘De Brevenbus Kleppert,’ NRC Handelsblad. March 9, 1995, p.4. 109. OECD, National Policies for Education: Netherlands, 49. 110. Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House), Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en kwaliteit, The Netherlands: Tweede Kamer 1985–1986, 19 253 nrs. 1–2. 111. VSNU, studeerbaarheid, p.17. 112. Roland Richter, (ed.) “Introduction,” J.Willems et al, Qualitätssorge in der Lehre: Leitfaden für die Studentische Lehrevaluation, (Berlin: Luchterhand, 1994) ix. 113. Richter, das Niederländische Modell, 44.

Notes

146

114. M.M.H.Frederiks, D.F.Westerheijden and P.J.M.Weusthof, “Effects of Quality Assessment in Dutch Higher Education,” European Journal of Education 29, No. 2, (1994):181–199. 115. Frederiks et al “Effects of Quality Assessment,” 181–199. 116. Richter, das Niederländische Modell, 48. 117. Ibid., 47. 118. Ido Weijers, ‘Politieke discussie over universiteit krijkt dubieus niveau,’ Trouw, January 12, 1995. 119. Hendrik Spiering, ‘Ik denk da Nuis ook zelf geschrokken is’ NRC Handelsblad, March 9, 1995, 4. 120. Ibid. 121. ‘De Brevenbus Kleppert,’ NRC Handelsblad. March 9, 1995, 4. 122. Ibid. 123. Bart Tromp. “Naar en dreijarige propaedeuse.” Het Parool. August 19, 1994. 2. 124. Ibid. 125. Marleen Barth, “Politiek mist verlangen naar de bachelor,” Trouw, March 18, 1995, 8. 126. Esther Hageman, ‘Praten over hoger onderwijs, maar niet te popular,’ Trouw March 15,1995, 17. 127. Ido Weijers, “Politieke discussie over universiteit krijgt dubieus niveau.” Trouw. Jan 12, 1995, 11. 128. ‘Universiteit beleeft crisis,’ Het Parool, January 14, 1995. 129. “Hoger Onderwijs,” NRC Handelsblad, January 30, 1995. 9. 130. Marjan Agerbeek, Studeerbaarheid: ‘Ritzen spant studenten voor karretje,’ Trouw, September 22, 1993, 30. 131. C.J.M.Schuylt, cited in Bas Blokker and Birgit Donker, De Gemangelde Universiteit, NRC Handelsblad, September 9, 1993, 1. 132. Professor Dr. R.A.de Moor, cited in Laurens Berentsen, “Beter onderwijs kost studenten de vrijheid,” Het Parool, February 4, 1995, 30.

NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX 1. Ulrich Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulssystems: Programm und Wirklichkeit der staatlichen Studienreform 1975–1986 (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1989), 29. 2. Jürgen Habermas, “Das chronische Leiden der Hochschulreform (1957)” in Jürgen Habermas, Kleine Politische Schriften I-IV (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1981). 3. Ludwig von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland. Geschichte und gesellschaftlicher Widerspruch (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989), 334. 4. Ibid., 404. 5. Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung (MPIB), Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Überblick für Eltern, Lehrer und Schüler (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1990), 32. 6. MPIB, Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 32. 7. Joachim Hirsch and Stephan Leibfreid. Materialien zur Wissenschafts- und Bildungspolitik (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971), 17. 8. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deuschland, 336. 9. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlung des Wissenschaftsrat zum Ausbau der Wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen bis 1970 (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1967), 273. 10. Ibid. 11. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulssystems, 14. 12. Christoph Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland seit 1945 (Frankfurt: Campus, 1989), 18.

Notes

147

13. The German word Land is the singular form used to denote a state. In the plural, the word becomes Länder. 14. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Germany, (Paris: OECD, 1972), 2. 15. Ibid.,4. 16. Ulrich Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany.” in Burton Clark, ed., The School and the University (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1985), 46. 17. Margaret Kraul, Das Deutsche Gymnasium 1780–1980 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1984), 210. 18. Kraul, Das Deutsche Gymnasium: 1780–1980, 184. 19. Ibid., 189. 20. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 348. 21. Oehler, Hochschulentwidklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 32. 22. Ibid., 63. 23. G. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany: The Burden of Tradition,” Minerva 4,3 (1968): 323–354. 24. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Germany, 9. 25. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 338. 26. Ibid., 340. 27. Ulrich Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany,” in Guy Neave and F.A van Vught, Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe (New York: Pergamon, 1991), 31. 28. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 341. 29. For a complete chronological discussion of reform between 1945–1959 see Rolf Neuhaus (ed.) Dokumente zur Hochschulreform: 1945–1959 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961). 30. Congress of Ministers of Education and Culture of the (then) 11 Länder. 31. Empfehlung der Abteilung II: “Form und Organization der Studentenförderung. Hochschultagung in Bad Honnef. Gegenwartsprobleme der deutschen Hochschulen. November 19–22 1955.” Reproduced in Rolf Neuhaus (ed.) Dokumentente zur Hochschulreform 1945–1959. (Wiesbaden; Franz Steiner, 1961). 32. Ibid. 33. Wissenschaftsrat. Anregungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Gestalt neuer Hochschulen. (J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen 1962), 11. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., 12. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid., 12–13. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid., 13. 41. Ibid., 13–14. 42. Habermas, Das chronische Leiden der Hochschulreform, 13. 43. MPIB, Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik, 22. 44. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 323–354. 45. “Gutachten zur Hochschulreform vom Studienausschuß für Hochschulreform (Blaue Gutachten, 1948),” In Rolf Neuhaus, ed., Dokumente zur Hochschulreform: 1945–1959 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961). 46. These later became the Fachhochschulen (see below) R.M.O Pritchard, The End of Elitism? The Democratization of the West German University System (New York: Berg, 1990), 78. 47. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 29. 48. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany,” 30. 49. v. Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 341–342.

Notes

148

50. Rolf Neuhaus, Dokumente zur Gründung neuer Hochschulen: 1960–1966 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1968). 51. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlung des Wissenschaftsrat zum Ausbau der Wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen bis 1970 (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1967). 52. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 18. 53. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 39. 54. Ralf Dahrendorf, Bildung ist Bürgerrecht: Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik (Onsnabrück: Nannen-Verlag, 1965). 55. Dahrendorf, Bildung ist Bürgerrecht, 111. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid., 116. 58. Ibid. 59. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 339. 60. Hansgert Peisert and Gerhild Framhein, Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany (New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1978), 119. 61. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 341. 62. The term “comprehensive university” should not be confused with the term used by the Carnegie Classification in the United States to denote non-doctoral granting universities. In Germany, it means the integration of two types of university study under the same roof: research-oriented and praxis-oriented study (see below). 63. Peisert and Framhein, Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany, 119. 64. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Neuordnung des Studiums an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen, (Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 1966), 14. 65. Ibid., 12–13. 66. Ibid., 16. 67. This means literally “between” or “mid-point” examination. 68. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Neuordnung des Studiums, 18. 69. Ibid., 14. 70. Ibid., 29. 71. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 339. 72. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Germany, 132. 73. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 339. 74. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 59. 75. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 45. 76. Ibid. 77. Kloss, “University Reform in West Germany,” 339. 78. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 45. 79. These debates produced a large amount of literature which, in hindsight, tended to be either utopic or apocalyptic in their view about the future of the German university: Helmut Schelsky, Abschied von der Hochschulpolitik oder Die Universität in Fadenkreuz des Versagens, (Bertelsmann, 1969); Erwin Scheuch, Realität und Erscheinungsbild der “Hochschulreform” in Hans Maier and Michael Zöllner, eds. Die andere Bildungskatastrophe: Hochschulgesetze statt Hochschulreform (Köln: Markus Verlag, 1970); August Rucker Hochschule und Gesellschaft: Zur Demokratisierung der Hochschule. (Munich: Manz Verlag. 1969) Jürgen Habermas Universität in der Demokratie— Demokratisierung der Habermas, Juergen and Demokratisierung der Hochschule Politisierung der Wissenschaft? Universitaet (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981). 80. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Germany, 7. 81. Peisert and Framhein. Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany, 41. Peisert and Gerhild also point out the contradiction between the drive for the need for diversification and the push for unified standards. 82. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning: Germany, 4.

Notes

149

83. Peisert and Framhein, Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany, 40. 84. Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW) BAfög 93/94: GEW-Handbuch für Schülerinnen und Schüler, Studentinnen und Studenten, (Marburg, Germany: Schüren, 1993). 85. Peisert and Framhein, Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany, 42. 86. OECD, Reviews of National Polides for Education: Germany, 85. 87. Teichler, Federal Republic of Germany (1991), 36. 88. Ibid. 89. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 115. 90. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Struktur und zum Ausbau des Bildungswesens im Hochschulbereich nach 1970: Volume 1, (Tübingen, J.C.B.Mohr, 1970), 17. 91. Ibid. 92. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 63; Schreiterer, Politische Steurung des Hochschulsystems, 44. 93. Peisert and Framhein, 119. 94. Schreiterer, Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems, 117. 95. Nikolaus Lobkowicz, “Reflections on Eleven Years as President of a Germany University,” Minerva, 22, ns.3–4 (1984):365–387. 96. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 422. 97. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany” (1991), 34. 98. Peisert and Framhein, Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany, 93 99. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany (1991), 34. 100. Peisert and Framhein, 94. 101. Ibid. 102. Nikolaus Lobkowicz, “Reflections on Eleven Years as President,” 365–387. 103. Peisert and Framhein, 133. 104. Jürgen Salzwendel, “Zur Bedeutung der Numerus-Clausus-Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes für die Grundrechtsentwicklung in der Bundesrepublikdeutschland,” in Ulrich Karpen, ed., Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen des Hochschulzuganges, (Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1978). 105. Hildegard Hamm-Brücher, “In die Falschen Richtung,” Die Zeit (Hamburg September 14 1973. 106. Information based on an interview with academic administrator, University of Cologne, March 1994. 107. Peisert and Framhein, 94. 108. Thomas Oppermann, “Hochschulzugang in der Bundesrepublic Deutschland,” in Ulrich Karpen, ed., Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen des Hochschulzuganges, (Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1978), 263. 109. Oppermann, “Hochschulzugang in der Bundesrepublic Deutschland,” 263. 110. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in der Bundesrepublik, 428. 111. Oppermann, “Hochschulzugang in der Bundesrepublic Deutschland,” 263. 112. Ulrich Teichler, Higher Education in the Federal Republic of Germany: Developments and Recent Issues, (New York/Kassel: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel and Center for European Studies, CUNY, 1986), 28. 113. Max Planck Institute für Bildung und Forschung, 384. 114. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany,” in Guy Neave and Frans van Vught (eds.) Prometheus Bound, 37. 115. Peisert and Framhein, 130. 116. Ibid. 117. Ibid. 118. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 65.

Notes

150

119. Ibid., 66 120. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany,” in Neave and van Vught (eds.) Prometheus Bound, 36. 121. Oehler, Hochschulenttvicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 67. 122. Teichler, “The Federal Republic of Germany,” 37. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 64. 126. Ibid. 127. Schreiterer, Politische Steurerung des Hochschulsystems, 285. 128. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Struktur und zum Ausbau des Bildungswesens im Hochschulbereich nach 1970: Volume 1 (Tübingen, J.C.B.Mohr, 1970), 112. 129. Ständige Konferenz der Rektoren un Präsidenten der staatlichen Fachhochschulen der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Fachhochschulenrektorenkonferenz (FRK) W. Schöllhammer et al (eds.) Handbook of Fachhochschulen, (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1990). 130. W.Schöllhammer et al (eds.) Handbook of Fachhochschulen (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1990), 22. 131. Ibid. 132. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren (Köln: Wissenschaftsrat, 1991), 20. 133. Schöllhammer et al, Handbook of Fachhochschulen. 134. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren, 20. 135. Ibid., 22. 136. Ibid., 10. 137. Christoph Lüth, Gesamthochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepubik Deutschland: Zur Gesamthochschuldiskussion und Hochschulrahmengesetzgebung (1967–1976) (Bad Honnef: Verlag Karl Heinrich Bock, 1983), 23. 138. Lüth, Gesamthochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 23. 139. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 107. 140. Pritchard, End of Elitism?, 126. 141. OECD, Educational Policy and Planning, 153. 142. Pritchard, End of Elitism?, 126. 143. Ibid., 127. 144. Ibid., 128. 145. Ibid. 146. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland seit 1945, 109. 147. Ayla Neusel and Ulrich Teichler. “Strukturentwicklung des Hochschulwesens,” in G.Gorzka, K.Heipcke and U.Teichler, eds., Hochschul—Beruf—Gesellschaft: Ergebnisse der Forschung zum Funktionswandel der Hochschulforschung (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1988), 312. 148. Ibid. 149. Ibid. 150. Ibid. 151. Oehler, Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik, 110. 152. Edgar Frackmann and Egbert de Weert, “Hochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Goedegebuure et al, eds., Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich, (Gütersloh, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993), 80. 153. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren, (Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 1991), 23. 154. Ibid., 107.

Notes

151

155. Ibid. 156. Ibid., 27–28., 157. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren, 27–28. 158. Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BMBW), Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes (Bonn: BMBW, 1992), 114. 159. BMBW, 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 114. 160. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachbochschulen in den 90er Jahren, 23. 161. Kultusministerkonferez (KMK). Pressemitteilung: KMK veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zur Situation an den Hochscbulen (Bonn: KMK, October 14, 1992), 6. 162. Frackmann and de Weert, 75. 163. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochscbulen in den 90er Jahren, 50. 164. Schöllhammer et al, Handbook of Fachhochschulen, 24. 165. Bericht des Bundestagsausschusses. 26.8.1985, BT-DRs. 10/3751, 27 (cited in Wissenschaftsrat, Empfeblungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochscbulen in den 90er Jahren. (Köln: Wissenschaftsrat, 1991, 12). 166. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren, 12. 167. Ibid., 11. 168. KMK, Pressemitteilung. 169. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochscbulen in den 90er Jahren. 170. Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS) Ergebnisspiegel: 1990 (Hannover: HIS, 1990), 195. 171. MPIB, Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik, 383. 172. BMBW, 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 65–67. 173. Ibid., 49–60. 174. Ibid., 49. 175. BMBW, 13. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 389. 176. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK), Konzept zur Entwicklung der Hochschulen in Deutschland. Einstimmiger Beschluß des 167 Plenums der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Bonn, July 6, 1992 (Bonn: HRK, 1992). 177. Ibid., 4. 178. von Friedeburg, Bildungsreform in Deutschland, 428. 179. Michael Leszczensky and Bastian Filaretow, Hochschulstudium in der DDR. Statistischer Überblick (Hannover: Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS), 1989). 180. Uwe Wesel, “Geisterstunde: Trotz guten Willens von allen Seiten droht der (Ost-) Berliner Humboldt-Universität die völlige Entmündigung,” Die Zeit (Hamburg) Nr. 25, 21 June, 1991 16. 181. “Ihr habt viele niedergemäht: Dieter Simon, der Vorsitzende des Wissenschaftsrates, über die Zukunft der Forschung in der Ex-DDR.” Der Spiegel, no. 27, 1991, 40. 182. Frackmann and de Weert, 94. 183. Ibid. 184. Ibid., 95. 185. Jutta Wilhelmi, Krisenherd Hochschule: Deutsche Universitäten zwischen Wahn und Wirklichkeit, (Weinheim: Beltz, 1993). 186. HRK, Konzept zur Entwicklung der Hochschulen in Deutschland. 187. BMBW, 13 Erhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 71. 188. Ibid.

Notes

152

189. Brigitte Mohr, Allgemeiner Hochschul-Anzeiger, Nummer 20 Seite 4, Winter Semester, 1994). 190. Gerhard Bauer, “Langzeitwirkung,” Allgemeiner Hochshul-Anzeiger, No. 20 Winter 1993/94 1. 191. BMBW, 13 Erhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 121. 192. HIS, Ergebnisspiegel 1990, 158. 193. Ibid. 194. Wolfgang Braun, “Abiturienten 1994—die unentschlossenen Wesen: Mit Studienberechtigung zwischen Desinteresse und Zukunftsstorgen,” Jugend und Berufswahl (Beilage der Suddeutschen Zeitung) September 29, 1993 Nr. 225, 16. 195. “Im Sturzflug Abwärts: Berufschancen für Akademiker (IV): Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Juristen,” Der Spiegel, 45 1993, 153. 196. Wolfgang Braun, “Abiturienten 1994,” 16. 197. Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 12 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes (Bonn: BMBW, 1989), 173. 198. BMBW, 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 124. 199. HIS, Ergebnisspiegel: 1990, 140. 200. BMBW, 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes, 124. 201. “Dr. Arbeitslos” Der Spiegel, Nr. 42/47 18, October 1993 106. 202. Labor market researcher, Manfred Tessaring, quoted in “Im Sturzflug Abwärts: SpiegelSerie über die Berufschancen der Akademiker (I): Volle Universitäten, keine Stellen.” Der Spiegel, 42, 1993 106. 203. Margaret Horstmann, cited “Im Sturzflug Abwärtz: Spiegel-Serie über die Berufschancen der Akademiker (I): Volle Universitäten, keine Stellen.” Der Spiegel, 42, 1993 92. 204. “Man ist ja auch noch Mensch nebenbei” Zeitmagazine. (Hamburg) Nr.16 April 15, 1994 52. 205. Matthias Horx, “Der Ratlose Student,” Unikum, No. 10, 1993 pp. 12–13 206. Ibid. 207. Interview with first semester students published in “Man ist ja auch noch Mensch nebenbei” Zeitmagazine (Hamburg) Nr.16 April 15, 1994 p.52. 208. “Haben wir zu viele Scheinstudenten, Herr Behrend?” Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich) 12/13 March, 1994. 209. See Konrad Jaruasch, Deutsche Studenten: 1800–1970, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1984). 210. “Haben wir zu viele Scheinstudenten, Herr Behrend?” Suddeutsche Zeitung 211. Lutz Göllner, “Harte Bandagen für Berliner Germanisten: Universität block-iert die Rückmeldung von Langzeitstudenten,” Süddeutsche Zeitung: Hochschule und Beruf (Munich) I 1993/94. 212. Ibid. 213. Karl Otto Hondrich, “Totenglocke im Elfenbeinturm,” Der Spiegel, 6/1994. 214. Hienz Griesbach and Michael Leszczensky, Studentische Zeitbudgets—empirische Ergebnisse zur Diskussion über Aspekte des Teilzeitstudium, (Hannover: HISKurzinformation, A4 1993) . 215. Ibid. 216. Ibid., 2–5. 217. Ibid. 218. Ibid., 3 219. “KMK, Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz zur Realizierung der Studienstructurreform in den Ländern.” (Bonn: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, October 8, 1993).

Notes

153

220. KMK, “Pressemitteilung: KMK veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zur Situation an den Hochschulen” (Bonn: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, October 10, 1992). 221. “KMK Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz zur Realizierung der Studienstructurreform. 222. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) and Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK), Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform. (Bonn: KMK, HRK, 1993). 223. Ibid. 224. Bund-Länder Arbeitsgruppe, Eckwerte-Papier zur Vorbereitung des Bildungsgipfels, (Frankfurt: Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW), 1993). 225. KMK/HRK Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform, 226. Frackmann and de Weert, 76. 227. KMK, Pressemitteilung. 228. KMK, “Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz zur Realizierung der Studienstrukturreform. 229. Ibid., 7. 230. Ibid., 3. 231. Ibid. 232. KMK, Pressemitteilung. 233. KMK/HRK, Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform, 3. 234. Reiner Scholz, “Bummelstudent Kohl,” Die Woche Dec 16, 1993, p. 43 235. KMK, Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz, 7. 236. KMK, HRK, Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform, vvi. 237. Jochen Leffers and Armin Himmelrath, “Die Schreibwut verlängert das Studium: Die Länge der Abschlußarbeiten soll beschränkt werden,” Die Süddeutsche Zeitung: Hochschule und Beruf, 1993/94 pg. III. 238. Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hochschulreform von A-Z (Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1993), 24. 239. Jochen Leffers and Armin Himmelrath, “Die Schreibwut verlängert das Studium: Die Länge der Abschlußrbeiten soll beschränkt werden,” Die Süddeutsche Zeitung: Hochschule und Beruf, 1993/94 pg. III 240. NRW, Hochschulreform von A-Z, p.24 and Leffers and Himmelrath, Die Schreibwut verlängert das Studium, p.iii. 241. KMK, HRK, Umsetzung der Studienstruktureform, p.viii. 242. “Die Weichen gestellt,” Deutsche Universitäts Zeitschrift, nr. 17, 1993, 20. 243. NRW had 357,200 university students in 1989. The next largest is Bavaria (183,000 students in 1989. (Source: HIS Ergebnisspiegel, 1990, p. 196–197. 244. Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Aktionsprogramm Qualität der Lehre: Abscblußbericht. (Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1992). 245. KMK, Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz zur Realizierung der Studienstrukturreform in den Ländern, 8. 246. Frackmann and de Weert, 101. 247. Albert von Mitius, “Der Bildungsgipfel: Much about nothing?” Semester Tip, Dec/Jan 1994, nr. 7 (Editorial from the President of the DSW). 248. “Eine Stunde Gipfel,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, Dec. 18, 1993, 4. 249. NRW, Hochschulreform von A-Z, 19. 250. “Demonstration gegen geplante Studienreform—Philturm besetz.” Hamburger Abendblatt, Nr. 292 Dec. 15, 1993 15.

Notes

154

251. “Das Eckwerte-Paper” Rückmeldung: Zeitung des ASta der Universität Köln, Nr 11 February 1994, 3. 252. Taken from a flier printed by the student group (AStA) from North-Rhein Westfalia, distributed in Cologne, November 1993. 253. Flier from V.i.S.d.P.Dieter Asselhoven, Uni-FSK, distributed November, 1993. 254. Albert von Mitius, “Der Bildungsgipfel: Much about nothing?” Semester Tip, Dec/Jan 1994, nr. 7 (Editorial from the President of the DSW). 255. Ibid. 256. “Grosse Worte, viele Studenten, wenig Geld, kein Konzept” Die Woche, April 7, 1994.

NOTES TO CHAPTER SEVEN 1. Niklas Luhmann and Karl Eberhard Schorr, Reflexionsprobleme im Erziehungssystem (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988), 15. 2. Niklas Luhmann, Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1971), 149. 3. Refer to chapter four. 4. The Netherlands (1992) Staatsblad von het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk ondezoek (WHW) nr. 593. 5. Netherlands-Flanders Accreditation Organization. “Accreditation frameword for new degree courses in higher education.” Home Page://www.nvao.net/content.php?a=s&id=153 Netherlands. 6. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) and Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK), Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform. (Bonn: KMK, HRK, 1993). 7. Bo Lindensjö, Högskolereformen. En studie i offentlig reformstrategi, (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 1981), 65. 8. Wissenschaftsrat, Empfehlungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren, (Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 1991), 12 (see chapter six). 9. Ibid. 10. The Netherlands, Wet op het hoger onderwijs. 11. Ibid., art 1.1. 12. ‘De Brevenbus Kleppert,’ NRC Handelsblad (Rotterdam) 9 March 1995, p.4. 13. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) and Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK), Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform (Bonn: KMK, HRK, 1993), viii. 14. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och högskolor (Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet 1992) 11. 15. Wilhelm von Humboldt, “Ideen zu einem Verusch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen” in Wilhelm von Humboldt: Werke in Fünf Bänden. Werke I.A.Flitner and K.Giel, eds., (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1960). 16. Refer to chapter six 17. Wolfgang A.Herrmann, “Bildung hat ihren Preis,” Die Zeit (Hamburg), 50 2002 18. In Germany, for example, the proportion of students from upper class (hoch) and upper middle (gehoben) social backgrounds has increased from 18% to 26% and 25% to 31% respectively between 1982 and 1991. HochschulInformations-System (HIS) has demonstrated that in the Western part of Germany, there is a strong relationship between social background and income. See Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 13 Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes (Bonn: BMBW, 1992), 104.

Notes

155

19. This is discussed in detail by Ludwig von Friedeburg in Bildungsreform in Deuschland: Geschichte und gesellschaftlicher Widerspruch, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989). 20. Christine Brink, “Ich bin Fassungslos!” Interview with Jürgen Hess, Die Zeit Online (Hamburg) 18 2002 http://www.zeit.de/2002/18/Hochschule/print_200218_cinterview_hess.html. 21. Sabine Etzold “Gebühren als Eigentor” Die Zeit Online (Hamburg) 32 2001 http://www.zeit.de/archiv/2001/32/200132_glosse_1.xml. 22. Brink “Ich bin Fassungslos!.” 23. Jose-Gines Mora and Michael Nugent “Seeking New Resources for European Universities: The Example of American Fundraising” European Journal of Education 33 (March 1998). 24. For examples, see Thesen zur künftigen Entwicklung des wissenschaftssystems in Deutchland. Wissenschaftsrat Online. 7 July 2000. http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/PM/pressemitteilungen.html or The Netherlands-Flanders Accreditaiton Organization Home Page http://www.nvao.net/content.php?a=s&id=153 Netherlands. 25. Open Doors Online. “Foreign students by academic level and place of origin: 1999/00,” Institute for International Education. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/. 26. “Higher Education in Europe.” European Commission Website. www.eu.int/comm/education/policies. 27. Ulrich Teichler, “Recognition: A Typological Overview of Recognition Issues Arising in Temporary Study Abroad” Werkstattberichte Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Befufs-und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel (Kassel, 1990). 28. Romano Prodi, “ERASMUS: 1 Million European Pioneers,” European Commission Website. 24/10/2001. http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/articles/erasmus_en.htm. 29. The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An explanation. European Commission Home Page. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/guide/bologna.pdf. 30. The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An explanation. European Commission Home Page. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/guide/bologna.pdf. 31. Conference of European Rectors. The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An explanation. European Union Online: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/guide/bologna.pdf. 32. Conference of Ministers Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education. “Realising the European Higher Education Area.” Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung website: http://www.bolognaberlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf. 33. Council of the European Union Website. “Detailed work programme on the follow up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe.” http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st06/06365en2.pdf. 34. Roland Richter “Magister-Studiengäne an niederländischen Fachhochschulen.” Die neue Hochschule 1 (2003), 42. 35. Netherlands-Flanders Accreditation Organization. “Accreditation frameword for new degree courses in higher education.” Home Page://www.nvao.net/content.php?a=s&id=153 Netherlands. 36. Ibid. 37. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. “10 Thesen zur Bachelor-und Masterstruktur in Deutschland. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz von 12.06.2003” (Rostock-Warnemünde: KMK, 2003). 38. Ibid.

Notes

156

39. Martin Spiewak, “Klassenkampf. Die Zeit Online (Hamburg), 22/2002 http://www.zeit.de/archiv/2002/22/200222_glosse.xml. 40. Baldo Sahlmüller Bachelor and Master mit Problemen. AstA der Uni Münster.http//:web.unimuenster.de/AStA/archiv/lvs_2002-11/bachelor.php. 41. Sahlmüller, “Bachelor and Master mit Problemen.” 42. S.Reicher and C.Tauch. “Bologna four years after: Steps towards sustainable reform of higher education in Europe” Report for EUA Graz Convention: Trends in Learning Structures in European Higher Education III. (European Commission DG Education and Culture, September 2003), 16. 43. Ibid.,72. 44. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report Pilot Project Phase One Available through the European Commission, Education and Culture website http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en. html or directly at http://www.relint.deusto.es/TuningProject/index.htm. 45. Ibid., 312–315. 46. Ibid. 47. Joint Quality Initiative. “Towards shared descriptors for Bachelors and Masters” Joint Quality Initiative Website. http://www.jointquality.com/. 48. Reicher and Tauch, Bologna four years after. 49. Tuning Educational Structures. 50. Ibid., 22. 51. Ibid., 22. 52. Ibid., 46 and 230. 53. Realising the European Higher Education Area, 2. 54. Tuning Educational Structures, 46. 55. Ibid., 46. 56. Ibid., 46. 57. “Sechs Länder klagen gegen Verbot von Studiengebühren” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Online 23 May 2003. FAZ Home Page: http://www.faz.net/s/homepage.htmlSearch: “Hochschulen.” 58. Roland Richer, Studienfianzierung und Studiengebühren in den Niederlanden: Konzequezen für ausländische Studierende, (Bochum: Wissenschaftliches Sekretariat für die Studienreform im Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, June 2002). 59. Berlin Communiqué… 60. Haug, Guy; Tauch, Christian: Towards the European Higher Education Area: survey of main reforms from Bologna to Praque. The Berlin 2003 Homepage http://www.bolognaberlin2003.de/. 61. Joint Quality Initiative. “Towards shared descriptors.” 62. Ibid. 63. Netherlands Accreditation Organization. “Accreditation framework.” 64. Reicher and Tauch. “Bologna four years after,” 16 65. Detlef Müller-Böling, “Hohe Kosten, Wenig Nutzen,” Die Zeit Online (Hamburg) http://www.zeit.de/2001/17/Hochschule/200117_c-akkreditierung.html. 66. Ibid.

Bibliography Agerbeek, Marjan. “Studeerbaarheid: ‘Ritzen spant studenten voor karretje’”. Trouw, 22 September 1993, 30. Anrich, Ernst. ed. Die Idee der Deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und Romantischen Realismus. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Barth, Narleen. “Politiek mist verlangen naar de bachelor,” Trouw, 18 March 1995, 8. Bauer, Gerhard. “Langzeitwirkung.” Allgemeiner Hochshul-Anzeiger. No. 20. Winter (1993/94) 1. Bauer, Marianne, Askling, B and Marton, S.G. (1999) Transforming Universities: changing patterns of governance, structure, and learning in Swedish higher education. (London: Jessica Kingsley 1999), 85. Berentsen, Laurens “Beter onderwijs kost studenten de vrijheid,” Het Parool, 4 February 1995, 30. Bertilsson, Margareta. “Från universitet till högskola: Om glappet mellan “Lehre und Leben,” in Universitet och Samhälle: Om forskningspolitik och vetenskapens samhälliga roll, ed. Thorsten Nybom. Stockholm: Tidens Förlag, 1989. Ben-David, Joseph. Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1977. Bijleveld, Riekele. “Numeriek rendement en studienduur voor en na de invoering van de tweefasenstructuur.” Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs. vol 8 (2) 1990: 67–79. Blokker, Bas and Birgit Donker. “De Gemangelde Universiteit.” NRC Handelsblad. 9, September 1993, 1. Blomqvist, Göran. Elfenbenstorn eller statsskepp?: Stat, universitet och akademisk friheti vardag och vision från Agardh till Schück. Lund: Lund University Press, 1992. Bot, Th. H. “Het Probleem van de Studieduur.” Universiteit en Hogeschool. 11 (4) 1964–65: 221– 231. Boucher, L. Tradition and Change in Swedish Education. New York: Pergamon, 1982. Brockliss, L.W.B. French Higher Education in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Braun, Wolfgang. “Abiturienten 1994—die unentschlossenen Wesen: Mit Studienberechtigung zwischen Desinteresse und Zukunfstorgen.” Jugend und Berufswahl (Beilage der Süddeutschen Zeitung). 29 September 1993, Nr. 225:16. Brink, Christine, “Ich bin Fassungslos!” Interview with Jürgen Hess, Die Zeit online (Hamburg) 182002. http://www.zeit.de/2002/18/Hochschule/print_200218_c Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 12. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes. Bonn: BMBW, 1989. Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 13. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerkes. Bonn: BMBW, 1992. Bund-Länder Arbeitsgruppe. Eckwerte-Papier zur Vorbereitung des Bildungsgipfels. Frankfurt: Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW), 1993. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). Medelelingen CBS. No. 7915, April 1991. Clark, Burton. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Bibliography

158

Conference of European Rectors. The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An explanation. European Union Online: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/guide/bologna. Conze W. & J.Kocka. eds. Bildungsburgertum im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol I: Bildungssystem und Professionalizierung in Internationalen Vergleichen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985. Craig, John E. Scholarship and Nation Building; The University of Strasbourg and Alsatian Society, 1870–1939. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. “De Brevenbus Kleppert.” NRC Handelsblad. 9 March 1995, 4. Dahllöf, Urban. Svensk Utbildningsplanering under 25 år: argument, beslutsunderlagoch modeller för utvärdering. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1971. Dahrendorf, Ralf. Bildung ist Bürgerrecht: Plädoyer für eine aktive Bildungspolitik. Onsnabrück: Nannen-Verlag, 1965. “Das Eckwerte-Papier.” Rückmeldung: Zeitung des ASta der Universität Köln. Nr. 11 (February 1994), 3 “Das sind erwachsene Menschen.” Der Spiegel nr.7 February 10, 1992, 46. de Jong, Uulkje, Pjotr Koopman and Jaap Roeleveld. Snelwegen en slingerpaden in enom het hoger onderwijs: Eindrapport Project ‘Studieloopbaan in het Hoger onderwijs.’ s-Gravenhage: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, 1991. “Demonstration gegen geplante Studienreform—Philturm besetz.” Hamburger Abendblatt, Nr. 292, 15 December 1993. “Detailed work programme on the follow up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe.” Council of the European Union Website. http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st06/06365en2.pdf. “Die Weichen Gestellt.” Deutsche Universitäts Zeitschrift, Nr. 17, 1993, 20. Donner, Jan. De Vrijheid van het Bijzonder Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs. Zwolle, The Netherlands: W.E.J.Tjeenk Willink, 1978. “Eine Stunde Gipfel.” Süddeutsche Zeitung. 18 December, 1993, 4. Elzinga, Aant. “Universities, research and the transformation of the State in Sweden,” in The European and American University Since 1800: Historical and Sociological Essays, ed. Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1993. Empfehlung der Abteilung II: “Form und Organization der Studentenförderung. Hochschultagung in Bad Honnef. Gegegenwartsprobleme der deutschen Hochschulen. November 19–22 1955.” in Rolf Neuhaus (ed.) Dokumentente zur Hochschulreform 1945–1959. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961. Etzold, Sabine. “Gebühren als Eigentor.” Die Zeit Online (Hamburg) 32 2001 http://%20www.zeit.de/archiv/2001/32/200132_glosse_1%20.xml. Etzold, Sabine “Schwer Beweglich,” Die Zeit, 11 February 1994. Etzold, Sabine “Misswirtschaft an der Uni” Die Zeit. No. 23, 5 June 1992 Etzold, Sabine. “Neue Lehre braucht das Land” Bessere Professoren kaemen mit den Problemen der Massenuniversitaet auch nicht zurecht.” Die Zeit. Nr.4, 24 January 1992 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. “Deduzierter Plan: Einer zu Berlin zu Errichternden Höheren Lehranstalt, die in Gehöriger Verbingund mit einer Akademie der Wissenschaften Stehe.” in Ernst Anrich, ed. Die Idee der Deutschen Universität. Die Fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und romantischen Realismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Fiedler, Ralph. Die Klassiscbe deutsche Eildungsidee: Ihre soziologischen Wurzeln und pädagogischen Folgen. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag, 1972. Foppen, F.W. Gistend beleid: Veertig jaar universitaire onderwijspolitiek. ‘sGravenhage: VUGA, 1989. “Foreign students by academic level and place of origin: 1999/00.” Institute for International Education/Open Doors Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/.

Bibliography

159

Frackmann, Edgar and Egbert de Weert. “Hochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” in Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich: eine länderübergreifende Untersuchung, ed. L.C.J.Goedegebuure, Franz Kaiser, Peter Maassen, Lynn Meek, Frans van Vught, Egbert de Weert. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993. Frederiks, M.M.H, D.F.Westerheijden and PJ.M.Weusthof. “Effects of Quality Assessment in Dutch Higher Education,” European Journal of Education. 29 (2) 1994:181–199. Friedson, E. “The Theory of the Professions: The State of the Art,” in The Sociology of the Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and others, ed. Dingwall et al. London: MacMillan Press, 1983. Frijhoff, W. “The Netherlands,” in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education ed. Burton R.Clark and Guy Neave. New York: Pergamon, 1992. Geiger, Roger L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (GEW). BAfög 93/94: GEW-Handbuch für Schülerinnen und Schüler, Studentinnen und Studenten. Marburg: Schüren, 1993. Goedegebuure, L.C.J., Franz Kaiser, Peter Maassen, Egbert de Weert. “Hochschulpolitik in den Niederlanden,” in “Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich: eine länderübergreifende Untersuchung, ed. L.C.J. Goedegebuure, Franz Kaiser, Peter Maassen, Lynn Meek, Frans van Vught, Egbert de Weert. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993. Goedegebuure Leo C.J. and V.Lynn Meek. “Restructuring Higher Education. A Comparative Analysis between Australia and the Netherlands.” Comparative Education 27 (1) 1991:7–22 Goedegebuure, L.C.J (1989) “Institutional Mergers and System Change: Reconstructing the sector of higher vocational education,” in Dutch Higher Education in Transition, ed. P.Maassen and F.v.Vught. Culemborg: Lemma, 1989. Göllner, Lutz. “Harte Bandagen für Berliner Germanisten: Universität blockiert die Rückmeldung von Langzeitstudenten,” Süddeutsche Zeitung: Hochschule und Beruf, I 1993/94. Griesbach, Heinz, and Michael Leszczensky. Studentische Zeitbudgets—empirische Ergebnisse zur Diskussion über Aspekte des Teilzeitstudium. Hannover: HIS-Kurzinformation, A4 1993. Groen, M. Het wetenschappelijk onderwijs in Nederland van 1815 to 1980: een onderwijskundig overzicht. Vol 1: Wetgeving, viviel effect, godgeleerdheid, rechtsgeleerdheid, indologie, geneeskunde. Den Haag: CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibiotheek, 1987. Groen, M. Het Wetenschappelijk onderwijs in Nederland van 1815 tot 1980: een onderwijskundig overzicht. Vol II. Wis- en Natuurkunde, letteren, technische weteschappen, landbouwwetenschappen. Eindvoven: Groen, 1988. Groen, M. Het Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs in Nederland van 1815 tot 1980: Een Onderwijskundig overzicht. Vol III: Diergeneeskunde. Economische Weteschappen. Sociale Wetenschappen. Interfaculteiten. Nabeschouwing. Bijlagen. Eindhoven: Groen, 1989. Groenman, Sj. “Gedachten over het Baccalaureaat,” Universiteit en hogeschool. 5 (6) 1958–59, 316 “Grosse Worte, viele Studenten, wenig Geld, kein Konzept” Die Woche, 7 April 1994. “Gutachten zur Hochschulreform vom Studienausschuß für Hochschulreform (Blaue Gutachten, 1948),” in Dokumente zur Hochschulreform: 1945–1959, ed. Rolf Neuhaus. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961. “Haben wir zu viele Scheinstudenten, Herr Behrend?” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12/13 March, 1994. Habermas, Jürgen. “Das Chronische Leiden der Hochschulreform (1957).” Chap. in Kleine Politische Schriften I-IV. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981). Habermas, Jürgen. “Universitaet in der Demokratie—Demokratisierung der Universitaet (1967).” Chap. in Kleine Politische Schriften I-IV. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981). Hageman, Esther. “Praten over hoger onderwijs, maar niet te popular.” Trouw. 15, March 1995, 17. Hamm-Brücher, Hildegrard. “In die Falschen Richtung.” Die Zeit. 14, September 1973. Hellqvist, Peter. “Att tänka fritt och att tänka rätt.” in Ideologi och Institution: Om forskning och hogre utbildning 1880–2000. ed. Sven-Eric Liedman and Lennart Olausson. Stockholm: Carlsson Bökförlag, 1988 Herrmann, Wolfgang A. “Bildung hat ihren Preis.” Die Zeit (Hamburg), 50 2002.

Bibliography

160

“Higher Education in Europe.” European Commission Website. http://www.eu.int/comm/%20education/policies. Hirsch, Joachim and Stephan Leibfreid. Materialien zur Wissenschafts- und Bildungspolitik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971. Hochschul-Informations-System. Jahresarbeitsberickt, 1991. Hannover: HIS, 1991. Hochschul-Informations-System. HIS-Ergebnisspiegel ’90, Hannover: HIS, 1990. Hochschul-Informations-System. Hochschulzugang in Der DDR: Situationsanalyse I. Halbjahr 1990. Hannover: HIS, 1990. Hochschul-Informtions-System. Hochschulstudium in der DDR: Statistischer Ueberblick: HIS Hochschul-Informations-System. Hannover: HIS, 1990. Hochschulrektorenkoferenz (HRK), Konzept zur Entwicklung der Hochschulen in Deutschland. Einstimmiger Bescbluß des 167 Plenums der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Bonn, 6 July 1992. (Bonn: HRK, 1992). “Hoger Onderwijs.” NRC Handelsblad. 30 January 1995, 9. Hondrich, Karl Otto. “Totenglocke im Elfenbeinturm.” Der Spiegel, 6, 1994. Horx, Matthias. “Der Ratlose Student.” Unikum. 10, 1993, 12–13 Husén, Thorsten. An Incurable Academic: Memoirs of a Professor. Oxford: Pergamon, 1983. “Ihr habt viele niedergemäht: Dieter Simon, der Vorsitzende des Wissenschaftsrates, über die Zukunft der Forschung in der Ex-DDR.” Der Spiegel. 27, 1991, 40. “Im Sturzflug Abwärtz: Spiegel-Serie über die Berufschancen der Akademiker (I): Volle Universitäten, keine Stellen.” Der Spiegel, 42, 1993. “Im Sturzflug Abwärts: Berufschancen für Akademiker (IV): Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Juristen.” Der Spiegel. 45 1993, 152 Jarausch, Konrad. Deutsche Studenten: 1800–1970. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1984. Joint Quality Initiative. “Towards shared descriptors for Bachelors and Masters” Joint Quality Initiative Website. http://www.jointquality.com/ Karstanje, P.N. “Voortgezet onderwijs.” in Onderwijs: Bestel en beleid. Vol III: Onderwijs in ontwikkeling. ed. J.A.van Kemenade et al. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1987. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. Vademecum voor KUN-Studenten. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Afdeling Studentenzaken van de Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. 1993. Kim, Lilimore. “Der Hochschulzugang in Schweden und seine Folgen für Die Intergrierte Hochschulbildung,” in Integrierte Hochschulmodelle: Erfahrungen aus drei Ländern, ed. H.Hermanns and Ulrich Teichler. Frankfurt: Campus Forschung, 1982. Kloss, G. “University Reform in West Germany: The Burden of Tradition.” Minerva. 4, 3 1968 323–354 Kohn, Melvin L. ed. Cross-National Research in Sociology. New York: Sage Publications, 1989. Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Staatsblad von het Koninkrifk der Nederlanden: Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk ondezoek. Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1992, n. 593. Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Staatsblad von het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Wet op het Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs. (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1985. Kraul, M. Das Deutsche Gymnasium: 1780–1980. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1984. Kultusministerkonferez (KMK). Pressemitteilung: KMK veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zur Situation an den Hochschulen. Bonn: KMK, 1992. Lane, Jan-Eric, “Sweden,” in The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, ed. Burton Clark and Guy Neave. Oxford: Pergamon, 1992. Lasswell, H. “The Future of the Comparative Method.” Comparative Politics. 1, October, 1968, 3. Leffers, Jochen and Armin Himmelrath. “Die Schreibwut verlängert das Studium: Die Länge der Abschlußarbeiten soll beschränkt werden.” Die Süddeutsche Zeitung: Hochschule und Beruf, 1993/94, III. Leszczensky, Michael and Bastian Filaretow. Hochschulstudium in der DDR. Statistischer Überblick. Hannover: Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS), 1989.

Bibliography

161

Liedman, Sven-Eric and Lennart Olausson. eds. Ideologi och institution. Om forskning och högre utbildning, 1800–2000. Stockholm: Carlsson, 1988. Liedman, Sven-Eric. Utmättning. Essäer och Personliga Betraktelser om Samtiden. Fälths i Värnamo: Bokförlaget Arena, 1993. Liedman, Sven-Eric. “In search of Isis: general education in Germany and Sweden,” in The European and American University Since 1800: Historical and Sociological Essays, ed. Sheldon Rothblatt and Björn Wittrock. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Liedman, Sven-Eric. “De fria fakulteternas långsamma död,” in Ideologi och institution: Om forskning och högre utbildning 1880–2000, ed. Sven-Eric Liedmann and Lennart Olausson. Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlagp, 1988. Liedman, Sven-Eric and Lennart Olausson. eds. Ideologi och institution. Om forskning och högre utbildning, 1800–2000. Stockholm: Carlsson, 1988. Lijphart, A. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” The American Political Science Review. 65, 1971, 684. Lindensjö, Bo. Högskolereformen. En studie i offentlig reformstrategi. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 1981. Lobkowicz, Nikolaus. “Reflections on Eleven Years as President of a Germany University,” Minerva, Vol 22 No. 3–4 Autumn-Winter 1984, p.365–387. Luhmann, Niklas and Karl Eberhard Schorr. Reflexionsprobleme im rziehungssystem. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988. Luhmann, Niklas. Politische Planung: Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1971. Lüth, Christoph. Gesamthochschulpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Zur Gesamthochschuldiskussion und Hochschulrahemengesetzgebung (1967–1976). Bad Honnef: Verlag Karl Heinrich Bock, 1983. “Man ist ja auch noch Mensch nebenbei.” Zeitmagazine. Nr. 1615, April 1994, 52. Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung (MPIB). Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ein Überblick für Eltern, Lehrer und Schüler. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1990. McClellend, J.C. State, Society and University in Germany 1700–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Meynen, J. “Het Probleem van de Studieduur.” Universiteit en hogeschool. 10 (3), 1963–64, 174– 179. Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Hochschureform von A-Z. Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes NordrheinWestfalen, 1993. Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Aktionprogramm Qualität der Lehre: Abschlußbericht. Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung NordrheinWestfalen, 1992. Mohr, Brigitte Allgemeiner Hochschul-Anzeiger. Nr. 20, Winter Semester, 1994, 4. Moog, Willy (1933) “Der Bildungsbegriff Hegels,” in Verhandlungen des dritten Hegelkongresses vom 19. bis 23. April 1933 in Rome. Mora, Jose-Gines and Michael Nugent. “Seeking New Resources for European Universities: The Example of American Fundraising.” European Journal of Education. 33, (March 1998). Müller-Böling, Detlef. “Hohe Kosten, Wenig Nutzen.” Die Zeit Online (Hamburg) http://www.zeit.de/2001/17/Hochschule/200117_c-akkreditierung.html. Murray, Mac. Utbildningsexpansion, Jämlikhet och Avlänking: Studier i utbildningspolitik och utbildningsplanering 1933–1985. Göteburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1988. National Board of Universities and Colleges (NBUC). “Higher Education and Research in Sweden. 1983/84: Some Facts and Figures.” Western European Education 16 (1)(1988):14. Neave, Guy. “Foundation or Roof? The quantitative, structural and institutional dimensions in the study of higher education.” European Journal of Education. 24, (3), 1989, 211–221.

Bibliography

162

The Netherlands-Flanders Accreditation Organization Home Page http://www.nvao.%20net/content.php?a=s&id=153 Netherlands. Neuhaus, Rolf. ed. Dokumente zur Gründung neuer Hochschulen: 1960–1966. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1968. Neuhaus, Rolf. ed. Dokumente zur Hochschulreform: 1945–1959. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961. Neusel, Ayla and Ulrich Teichler. “Strukturentwicklung des Hochschulwesens,” in HochschuleBeruf-Gesellschaft: Ergebnisse der Forschung zum Funktionswandel der Hochschulreform, ed. Gabriele Gorzka, Klaus Heipcke and Ulrich Teichler. Frankfurt: Campus, 1988. Nugent, Michael, James Ratcliff and Stefanie Schwarz. “Inverse Images: A Cross-National Comparison of Factors Pertaining to Student Persistence in Germany and the United States,” in Das Amerikanische Hochschulsystem: Beiträge zu seinen Vorzügen, Problemen und Entwicklungstendenzen. ed. Hans Pechar. Zeitschrift für Hochschuldidaktik.17 no.2–3 1993 pp.219–242. Nowak, Stefan. “Comparative Studies and Social Theory,” in Cross-National Research in Sociology. ed. Melvin L.Kohn. New York: Sage Publications, 1989. Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD). Reviews of National Policies for Education: Netherlands. Paris: OECD, 1991. OECD. Educational Policy and Planning: Goals for Educational Policy in Sweden. Paris: OECD, 1980. OECD. Educational Policy and Planning: Germany. Paris: OECD, 1972. OECD. Netherlands: Contours of a Future Education System. Paris: OECD, 1976. OECD. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Germany. Paris: OECD, 1972. OECD. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Sweden. Paris: OECD, 1969. OECD. Educational Policy and Planning: Sweden. Paris: OECD, 1967. OECD. Educational Policy and Planning: The Netherlands. Paris: OECD, 1967. Oehler, Christoph. Hochschulentwicklung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland seit 1945. Frankfurt: Campus, 1989. Oppermann, Thomas. “Hochschulzugang in der Bundesrepublic Deutschland,” in Verfassungsrechtliche Fragen des Hochschulzuganges, ed. Ulrich Karpen. Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1978. Øyen, Else “The imperfections of comparisons,” in Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research, ed. Else Oyen. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990. Peisert, Hansgert Tino Bargel, and Gerhild Framhein. Studiensituation und studentische Orientierungen: Eine Empirische Untersuchung im Wintersemester 1982/83. Bonn: Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft (BMBW), 1984 Peisert, Hansgert and Gerhild Framhein. Systems of Higher Education: Federal Republic of Germany. New York: International Council for Educational Development, 1978. Pritchard, R.M.O. The End of Elitism? The Democratisation of the West German University System. New York: Berg, 1990. Prodi, Romano. “ERASMUS: 1 Million European Pioneers,” European Commission Website. 24/10/2001. http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/articles/%20erasmus_en.htm. Ragin, Charles C. “Introduction: Cases of ‘What is a case?’” in What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, ed. Charles Ragin and Howard S. Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Ragin, Charles C. “Introduction: The Problem of Balancing Discourse on Cases and Variables in Comparative Social Science,” in Issues and Alternatives in Comparative Social Research, ed. Charles C.Ragin. Leiden: EJ.Brill, 1991. Ragin, Charles. Review of “Comparative Methodology: Theory and Practice in International Social Research,” by Else Oyen, ed., Contemporary Sociology 20 (6) 1991, 961–962.

Bibliography

163

Ragin, Charles. The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Realising the European Higher Education Area.” Conference of Ministers Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education. “Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung website: http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf. Reicher, S. and Christian Tauch. “Bologna four years after: Steps towards sustainable reform of higher education in Europe” Report for EUA Graz Convention:Trends in Learning Structures in European Higher Education III. (European Commission DG Education and Culture, September 2003). Reuterberg, Sven-Eric. Studiemedel och rekrytering till högskolan. Göteborg, Sweden: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1984. Reuterberg, Sven-Eric and Allan Svennson. “Financial Aid and Recruitment in Sweden: changes between 1970 and 1990.” Studies in Higher Education. Vol 19 (1), 1994. Richter, Roland. “Magister-Studiengäne an niederländischen Fachhochschulen.” Die neue Hochschule 1 (2003), 42. Richer, Roland. Studienfianzierung und Studiengebübren in den Niederlanden: Konzequezen fü ausldädische Studierende. (Bochum: Wissenschaftliches Sekretariat für die Studienreform im Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, June 2002). Richter, Roland. Das Niederländische Modell: Studienstrukturreform, Studienförderung, Evaluation von Lehre und Forschung. Neue Modelle der Selbstverwaltung und Finanzierung der Hochscbulen in den Niederländen. Frankfurt: GEW, 1994. Richter, Roland. Introduction to J.Willems, W.Gijselaers and D.de Bie. Qualitätssorge in der Lehre: Leitfaden für die Studentische Lehrevaluation. Translated by Roland Richter. Berlin: Luchterhand, 1994. Ringer, Fritz. Fields of Knowledge: French academic culture in a comparative perspective, 1890– 1920. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1992. Ringer, Fritz. Education and Society in Modern Europe. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1979. Ringer, Fritz. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community 1890– 1933. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1969. Rothblatt, Sheldon and Björn Wittrock. eds. The European and American university since 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. “Professional Autonomy and the Social Control of Expertise,” in The Sociology of the Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and others, ed. Dingwall et al. London: MacMillan Press, 1983. Rucker, A. Hochschule und Gesellschaft: Zur Demokratisierung der Hochschule. Munich: Manz Verlag, 1969. Sahlmüller, Baldo. Bachelor and Master mit Problemen. AstA der Uni Munster.http//:web.unimuenster.de/AStA/archiv/lvs_2002-11/bachelor.php. Sander, Gordon. “Actions of New Swedish Coalition Raise Hopes for Revitalization of Higher Education.” Chronicle of Higher Education. 4 December, 1991. A53. Sander, Gordon F. “Sweden’s Conservative-Led Government Steps up Pace of Reform of HigherEducation System.” Chronicle of Higher Education. 11 May 1994, A43. Sander, Gordon F. “New Minister Would Undo Some Reforms at Sweden’s Universities.” Chronicle of Higher Education. 14 December 1994, A43. Scarrow, H.A. Comparative Political Analysis. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Schelling, F.W.J. “Vorlesungen über die Methode des Akademischen Studiums,” in Die Idee der Deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus and Romantischen Realismus. 2nd Edition. ed. Ernst Anrich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Schelsky, H. Abschied von der Hochschulpolitik oder die Universitaet im Fadenkreuz des Versagens. Bielefeld: Bertelsman Universitätsverlag, 1969.

Bibliography

164

Schelsky, H. Einsamkeit und Freiheit: Idee und Gestalt der deutschen Universitaet und ihrer Reform. Duesseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1971. Scheuch, Erwin “Realität und Erscheinungsbild der ‘Hochschulreform,” in Die andere Bildungskatastrophe: Hochschulgesetze statt Hochschulreform. ed. Hans Maier and Michael Zöllner. Köln: Markus Verlag, 1970. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. “Gelegentliche Gedanken über Universitäten im deutschen Sinn,” in Die Idee der Deutschen Universität: Die fünf Grundschriften aus der Zeit ihrer Neubegründung durch klassischen Idealismus und romantischen Realismus. 2nd Edition. ed. Ernst Anrich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964. Schöllhammer W, et al. eds. Handbook of Fachhochschulen. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1990. Scholz, Reiner. “Bummelstudent Kohl,” Die Woche. 16 December 1993, 43. Schreiterer, Ulrich. Politische Steuerung des Hochschulsystems: Programm und Wirklichkeit der staatlichen Studienreform 1975–1986. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1989. “Sechs Länder klagen gegen Verbot von Studiengebühren” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Online23May 2003. FAZ Home Page: http://www.faz.net/s/%20homepage.html Search: “Hochschulen.” Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. “10 Thesen zur Bachelor-und Masterstruktur in Deutschland. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz von 12.06.2003” (Rostock-Warnemünde: KMK, 2003). Sekretariat der Stündigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bericht an die Ministerpräsidentenkonferenz zur Realizierung der Studienstructurreform in den Ländern. Bonn: KMK/HRK, 1993. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK) and Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK). Umsetzung der Studienstrukturreform. Bonn: KMK/HRK, 1993. Sigelman, L. and G.Gadbois. “Contemporary Comparative Politics: An Inventory and Assessment.” Comparative Political Studies. 16 (3) (October 1983): 281. Skoglund, Crister. Vita Mössor under Röda Fanor: Vänsterstudenter kulturradikalism och bildningsideal i Sverige 1880–1940. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1991. Spiewak, Martin. “Klassenkampf.” Die Zeit Online (Hamburg), 22/2002 http://www.zeit.de/archiv/2002/22/200222_glosse.xml. Spiering, Hendrik. “Ik denk dat Nuis ook zelf geschrokken is,” NRC Handelsblad. 9 March 1995, 4. Spranger, E. Wilhelm von Humboldt und die Reform des Bildungswesens. Tübingen: Max Neimeyer Verlag, 1965. Statens offenliga utredningar (SOU). Frihet, Ansvar, Kompetens: Grundutbildningensvillkorihögskolan. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, 1992). Statistika Centralbyrån (SCB). Enstaka kurser 1977/78–1981/82: Siffror om högskolan, 2. Stockholm: Statistika Centralbyrån, 1983. Statistika Centralbyrån (SCB). Examinerade från gymnasium 1957, 1962 and 1967. Social bakgrund, betyg och universitetsstudier. (Statistika centralbyrån: Stockholm, 1974:14. Stoelinga, Th. H.J.D. “Hoger Onderwijs,” in Onderwijs: Bestel en beleid-3: Onderwijs in ontwikkeling, ed. J.A.van Kemenade, N.A.J.Lagerweij, J.M.G. Leuene and J.J.M.Ritzen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, 1987. Svanfeld, Göran. “Hochschulpolitik in Schweden,” in “Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich: eine länderübergreifende Untersuchung, ed. L.C.J. Goedegebuure, Franz Kaiser, Peter Maassen, Lynn Meek, Frans van Vught, Egbert de Weert. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1993. Swedish Ministry of Education and Science. The Swedish Way Towards a Learning Society. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Education and Science, 1993.

Bibliography

165

Teichler, Ulrich. “Recognition: A Typological Overview of Recognition Issues Arising in Temporary Study Abroad.” Werkstattberichte Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs-und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel (Kassel, 1990). Teichler, Ulrich. “Higher Education in Federal Systems: Germany,” in Higher education in Federal Systems. ed. Douglas Brown, Peirre Cazalis and Gilles Jasmin. Kingston: Queen’s University, Institute of Intergovernment Relations, 1992. Teichler, Ulrich, Harald Schomberg and Helmut Winkler, Studium und Berufsweg von Hochschulabsolventen.” Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft, 1992. Teichler Ulrich and Harold Schomberg, “Warum wird so lange Studiert?” Studienzeitverkürzung: Ein hocbschulpolitisches Symposizum. ed. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft. Essen: Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, 1991. Teichler, Ulrich. “The Federal Republic of Germany,” in The School and the University, ed. Burton Clark. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1985. Teichler, Ulrich. Higher Education in the Federal Republic of Germany: Developments and Recent Issues. New York/Kassel: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel and Center for European Studies, CUNY, 1986. Teichler, U. “The Federal Republic of Germany,” in Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. ed. Guy Neave and Frans van Vught. New York: Pergamon, 1991. Tromp, Bart. “Naar en dreijarige propaedeuse.” Het Parool. 19 August 1994. 2. Trow, Martin. Problems in the Transformation from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1973. Tuning Project. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report Pilot Project Phase One Available through the European Commission, Education and Culture website.http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/tuning/%20tuning_en.html. Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House). Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en kwaliteit. The Netherlands: Tweede Kamer 1985–1986, 19 253 nrs.1–2. Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House). Twee-fasenstructuur wetenschappelijk onderwijs. Tweede Kamer, zitting 1979–1980. 16 106, nrs, 1–2. “Universiteit beleeft crisis.” Het Parool, 14 January 1995. Unckel, Per. Introduction to Fria Universitet och högskolor. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, 1992. Utbildningsdepartementet, Fria Universitet och högskolor, Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet, 1992. Utbildningsdutredning, 1968: U68 års (U68). Higher Education: Proposals by the Swedish 1968 Education Commission. Stockholm: U68, 1973. van Duyvendijk, A.J. De Motivering van de Klassieke Vorming: Een Historisch-Paedagogische Studie Over Twee Eeuwen. Groningen: J.B.Wolters, 1955. van Vught, F. “The Nethelands,” in International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia. ed. Phillip Altbach. New York: Garland, 1991. van Vught, F (1989) “Higher Education in the Netherlands: An Introduction,” in Dutch Higher Education in Transition. ed. P.Maassen and F.v.Vught. Culemborg: Lemma, 1989. Vereniging van Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU). Studielast en Studeerbaarheid. Utrecht: VSNU, 1989. von Friedeburg, Ludwig. Bildungsreform in Deuschland: Geschichte und gesellschaftlicher Widerspruch. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989. von Humboldt, Wilhelm. On the Limits of State Action. Translated by J.W.Burrow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. von Humboldt, Wilhelm. “Ideen zu einem Verusch, die Gränzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu bestimmen. (1792). in A.Flitner and K.Giel (eds.) Wilhelm von Humboldt: Werke in Fünf Bänden. Werke I. (Stuttgart: J.G.Cotta’schen Buchhandlung, 1960).

Bibliography

166

von Mitius, Albert. “Der Bildungsgipfel: Much about nothing?” Semester Tip. Nr. 7 December/January 1994. Wachelder, Joseph C.M. Universiteit tussen vorming en opleiding: De modernisiering van de Nederlandse universiteiten in de negentiende eeuw. Hilversum, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Verloren, 1992. Weil, Hans. Die Entstehung des deutschen Bildungsprinzips. Bonn: 1967. Weijers, Ido. “Politieke discussie over universiteit krijkt dubieus niveau,” Trouw. 12 January 1995. Wesel, Uwe. “Geisterstunde: Trotz guten Willens von allen Seiten droht der (Ost-) Berliner Humboldt-Universität die völlige Entmündigung,” Die Zeit. Nr. 25, 21 June 1991, 16 Wieviorka, Michael. “Case Studies: history or sociology?” in What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, ed. Charles Ragin and Howard Becker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Wilhelmi, Jutta. Krisenherd Hochschule: Deutsche Universitäten zwischen Wahn und Wirklichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz, 1993. Wissenschaftsrat Online. 7 July 2000. http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/PM/%20pressemitteilungen.html. Wissenschaftsrat. 10 Thesen zur Hochschulpolitik. Berlin: Wissenschaftsrat, 1993. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfelungen zur Entwicklung der Fachhochschulen in den 90er Jahren. Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 1991. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrat zu den Perspektiven der Hochschulen in den 90er Jahren. Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 1988. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlungen zur Struktur und zum Ausbau des Bildungswesens im Hochschulbereich nach 1970. Vol 1. Tübingen, J.C.B.Mohr, 1970. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlung des Wissenscbaftsrat zum Ausbau der Wissenschaftlichen Hochscbulen bis 1970. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1967. Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlunen zur Neuordung des Studiums an den wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen. Cologne: Wissenschafsrat, 1966. Wissenschaftsrat. Anregungen des Wissenschaftsrates zur Gestalt neuer Hochschulen. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1962.

Index

A academic idealism academic beliefs 15 Bildnmg (Sweden), 25, 28, 46 Bildung (Germany), 2, 19, 21–28, 146, 177 Bildung und Wissenschaft, 24 Humboldtian tradition, 6, 19, 26, 65, 95–97 importance of freedom, 22 importance of individuality, 21, 99 lärofrihet (Sweden), 26 Lehrfreiheit (Germany), 25 neo-humanism, 3, 16, 19–28, 61–62, 98, 147, 174 vetenskap (Sweden), 43, 53–54, 142–143, 146 vorming (Netherlands), 27–28, 61–62, 83, 88, 174 wetenschap (Netherlands) 26, 142, 152 Wissenschaft (Germany), 19, 23–26 access 25/4 rule (Sweden), 47–50 5+2 Rule (Netherlands), 82 Abitur (Germany), 92–93, 105, 107–108, 120, 123–124 centralized regulation of, 74, 105–106 constitutional right to, 105 and individual free choice, 33–37, 105 numerus clausus, 47, 104–108, 115–116, 134 restricted fields, 30, 105–106 and selection, 4, 16–17, 47, 55, 68, 71–75 and social class, 51, 91–92, 188 studentexam (Sweden), 29, 46, 49 VWO (Dutch academic preparatory schools), 61–62, 71, 74 and work experience, 17, 47–50 accreditation, see quality American Council on Education, 93 apprenticeships, 108, 123, 135–136, 146 Argadh, Carl Adolph, 26 AStA, 135 B Baden Württemberg, 99 BAföG, see financial aid; in Germany Bildt, Carl, 52

Index

168

Bologna Process bachelor’s and master’s degree, 141–142, 144, 153–158, 160, 162, 175 Berlin Communiqué, 157–159 Bologna Declaration, 152–154 common descriptors, 156–158, 160 credit accumulation, 156–158 European Higher Education Space, 152, 161 Joint Quality Initiative, 160 quality assurance, 153, 156, 158–161 transparency, 156–157 tuning, 156–159 two cycles, 141, 153, 155–156 C Cals, JML.Th., 67–68 Cambridge University, 6 Catholic University of Barbant, 90 Clark, Burton, 6, 15–17 Cohen, M., 89 Committee of 1946 (Netherlands), 62 comparative research cross-national, 9, 13 method, 10–12 in the social sciences, 9–11 variable vs. case orientation, 23, 27 compartmentalization bifurcation, 70, 85, 116, 144 development of discrete units, 3, 7, 76–77, 139–141 functional, 140–145, 154 in Germany, 128 modularization, 46–47, 58, 113, 140–143, 156 in the Netherlands, 73 occupational sectors, 72 of the study process, 68, 78, 87, 132, 139 in Sweden, 35 temporal, 140–142 total dimensioning, 39, 41 D Dahrendorf, Ralf, 98–100, 112–113, 118, 154 de-academization, 134–135, 137, 145, 148 E efficiency, 3–4, 20, 140, 147–148 in Germany, 103, 109–110, 130, 133 in the Netherlands, 62–69, 78, 85–87, 90, 94 in Sweden, 32–36, 51, 56–57 European Commission, 152, 157 European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), 152

Index

169

European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), 152, 155, 157 European Higher Education Space, 152, 161 European Network of Quality Assurance (ENQA), 159 F Fachhochschulen (Germany) academic nature of, 145 attractiveness of, 115 bachelor’s and master’s at, 155 expansion of, 129, 130 function and purpose, 111 graduates of, 116, 129 and numerus clausus, 116 status and hierarchization, 116, 155 success of, 114–116, 118, 129 Fichte, J.G., 12, 23, 25 financial aid as a control mechanism, 141 in Germany, 95, 102 in the Netherlands, 77, 81–82 in Sweden, 36, 57 fixed study courses (Sweden), 34–36, 52, 54, 57, 140–141 freedom of study, 10, 219 Lernfreiheit (Germany), 2–4, 25–27, 101–104, 110, 125, 137 studiefrihet (Sweden), 26, 30–31 34, 37, 46, 54, 57, 103, 146, 160 studievrijheid (Netherlands), 27, 63–64, 73, 86, 103 free faculties (Sweden), 30–37, change of meaning of, 37 dismantling of, 44 open access of, 36, 47 problems of, 33 French Revolution, 36 full-time study, see part-time study G German Basic Law, 92, 102 German Democratic Republic, 119–120 German Enlightenment, 20 German Higher Education Framework Law (Hochschulrahmengesetz) law of 1976 102, 107, 121, 113–114, law of 1985, 114, 117–119 law of 1998, 154 Gesamthochschule (German comprehensive university), basic principles of, 112 different models of, 113–114 differentiated study paths, 113 Gesamthochschule Kassel, 113 as national model, 111 reasons for failure as national model, 114

Index

170

Goethe, 25 Göttingen, University of 20, 24 grandes écoles, 20, 26, 95–96 Gymnasia basic principles of, 28 Germany, 93, 107, 112, 123 Netherlands, 61–62, 71 Sweden, 29–30, 36, 38–39 H Halle, University of, 20 HBO (Dutch universities of professional education) academic nature of, 145 bachelor’s and master’s degree at, 154 and the Bologna Process, 154 origin of, 70 status of, 116 status of graduates, 85, 154 vocational purpose of, 72, 144, Hessen, 113 higher education definition of, 2 Europeanization of, 229, 235, 238 and international competition, 59, 91, 153 redefinition of, 42, 58, 69, 125 Hochschul-Informations-System (HIS), 127 Hochschulrahmengesetz (HRG), see German Higher Education Framework Law Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (German Council of University Rectors), 129, 133 Honnefer Model (Germany), 95 Humboldt, Willhelm von, 21–25, 166 Husén, Thorsten, 31, 37 J Joint Quality Initiative, 160 K KMK (German Ministers of Culture and Education), 95, 115, 128–131, 133, 154–155 Kohl, Helmut, 133 L Liedmann, Sven-Eric, 31, 37, 52 Limberg, University of, 89 Limits of State Action, 24 long-term students, 122 Lund, University of, 31 M Meynen, J., 63 multiple qualitifications, 121–123, 128, 136, 146

Index

171

Munich, University of, 106, 126 N Napoleon, 20 National Socialist Party (Germany), 91 Neave, Guy, 3, 17 Netherlands Accreditation Organization, 160 North Rhein Westfalia, 113, 130–132 O OECD, 5, 12, 35, 37, 64, 85–86, 103 Open University (Netherlands), 70–71 Oxford University, 6 P Pais, A., 68–70 Palme, Olaf, 39, 41 part-time study in Europe, 157 and full-time study, 3, 30, 47, 76 in Germany, 47, 121, 122, 126–128 lack of conception of, 23, 136, 142 in the Netherlands, 38, 76–77 in Sweden, 30, 35, 47 phantom students, 121, 125–126 policy balance of responsibility, 31, 54, 64, 147–151, 161 centralization, 33–34, 41, 74, 102, 106, 133 expansion without change, 97–98 external control mechanisms, 37, 81, 101, 141, 148 national goal setting, 18, 137, 139, 160 quantitative planning, 41–42 rational planning, 5, 32, 57 preparatory phase Grundstudium (Germany), 110, 113, 131 grundutbildning (Sweden), 34 propaedeutic phase (Netherlands), 67–69, 74–76, 88 Zwischenprüfung (Germany), 100 Prodi, Romano, 152–153 Q quality and accreditation, 87, 133, 159, 161 assurance of, 58, 137, 153, 156, 158–161 control of, 55, 87–88, 133, 148 indicators of, 3, 56, 58, 81, 87, 133, 158 and market forces, 148 as policy, 146

Index

172

R Ragin, Charles, 10, 12 reform idealism change, 16, 17, 209 consumerism, 4, 148 equal but different, 71, 86, 113, 162 equal opportunity, 39, 91, 107, 144, 155, 162 frames of reference of, 3, 5, 16–17, 146 ideology, 6–7, 15, 163 manpower planning, 3, 20, 41, 48, 74, 146 market forces, 3, 56, 58, 133, 143, 148, 161 social equity, 1, 4, 20, 36, 149, 162 social relevance, 3–4, 53, 62, 65, 110, 142 social responsibility, 62, 64, 71 vocationalization, 15, 36, 39, 58, 86, 143–146 reform models based on the American system, 65–66, 95–96, 144 based on the French grandes écoles, 20, 26, 95–96 first and second cycles, 43, 141, 153, 155–157 separate research institutes, 95, 97 separate vocational sector, 68–71, 85, 111, 145, 155 separation of research and teaching, 35, 143 short cycle, 43 two phases, 67–69, 73, 75, 82–86, 101–102 two tiers, 95–96, 130, 144, 153 Reform of 1977 (Sweden), 39, 41, 44–46, 48–51, 146 Resolution of 1815 (Netherlands), 26 Ritterakademie (Kight’s Academy), 20, 26 Ritzen, Jo, 88 S Schelling, Friedrich von, 21, 24–25 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 21, 23, 25 secondary schools AMS (Netherlands), 62 classical academic secondary, see Gymnasia comprehensive schools (Sweden), 38 Fachoberschule (Germany), 112, 115 graduates of (Germany), 93, 115, 136 Hauptschule (Germany), 93 HAVO (Netherlands), 62, 71 MBO (Netherlands), 71 Realschule (Germany), 93, 135 ykresskola (Sweden), 39 single courses (Sweden), 44–46, 49, 51–52, 55, 58 Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister, see KMK Statute of 1852 (Sweden), 26, 29 Steffens, Henrich, 21 student career administrative structure, 3, 18, 28

Index

173

and traditional concept of definition of, 4, 66, 125, 143 European dimension of, 5, 90, 151–155, 159, 161 ideological roots, 2–3, 5, 15–16, 19–20 in Germany, 127–132 in the Netherlands, 78–81, 85, 87–90 studiability, 140, 145, 147–148, 156 in Sweden, 58 and undergraduate education, 2 university study, 1–6, 14, 17, 19–28 study parameters, 3, 147 in Europe, 159 in Germany, 126, 130–134 in the Netherlands, 73–78 normative study duration, 3, 65, 94, 130–133, 140, 159 normative study loads, 76–80, 14–142, 158–159 in Sweden, 46 Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die 134 Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics, 45 T Treaty of Amsterdam, 151 Trow, Martin, 1, 5, 6 Tuning Project, 157–158 U U55 Commission (Sweden), 32–34, 62 U63 Commission (Sweden), 34–37 U68 Commission (Sweden), 39–58, 71, 85–86, 104, 113, 140–143 United Nations, 14 V Vereiningung Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU), 78–81, 87, 90 W Westdeutsche Rektorenkonferenz, 94–95, 98, 101 WHW (Dutch Law of Higher Education and Academic Education), 69, 72–73, 76 Wissenschaftsrat origins of, 94 and reactions to early reform ideas, 95–97 recommendations for restructuring, 100–104, 104–111, 115, 117 World Bank, 14 Z Zook, George F., 93