Pls explain European universities to me

[HHD]

Originally Posted by holymadness

There are no uniform laws across EU countries, and the UK is an entirely different beast. I have a friend going to Cambridge at the moment, so maybe I can ask him how it works over there.

In France tuition is heavily subsidized by the government, as are student housing and meals. The only you things for which you tend to pay full price are textbooks. Otherwise, tuition will run you about 500€ per year, you can get an HLM apartment for around 200€/mo after the CAF, and meals are around 2-3€ each in student cafeterias. Not too shabby. On the other hand, scholarships awarded for merit are very rare and difficult to obtain, but those awarded for financial need are practically given away.

The side effect of making education so easily obtainable is that degrees became somewhat devalued. When everyone you know has at least a bac+3 (bachelor's degree) and plenty have bac+5 (master's degree), it's hard to assign as much value to these accomplishments. There is thus a huge amount of competition among students to get into the best schools in Paris, especially Paris VI (Jussieu) and IV (Sorbonne), to distinguish themselves. There is also an immense drive to get ever-more advanced degrees. Contrast this with a country like Canada, which has the lowest post-graduate enrolment rate of any OECD country.

To compensate, the French have created the system of 'les grandes Ã

coles', elite institutions that are extremely exigent in terms of who they recruit and brutal in terms of curricula and workload. They include places like Sciences Po and the ENA, a degree from the latter of which is quasi-essential to have a career as a high-level government functionary. In order to get in, you need to spend a year or two doing a preparatory program before applying, plus jump through some other hoops I'm only dimly aware of since it's not something I've ever had to do. Either way, it's not easy. Etienne was thinking of applying at once point, I think, so maybe he can weigh in.

I find the whole thing interesting relative to the North American system, where tuition is ridiculously high but (increasingly insufficient) scholarships are given to A students with relative frequency. Since grades now are inflated to the point where anything below an A- is seen as an indelible blemish on a permanent record, however, I'm not sure how long that can last.

I remember reading an unflattering overview of the French university system in the Economist a couple of years ago. Open to everyone, but high drop-out rates between first and second year, overcrowded lecture halls, a surfeit of psychology graduates, rather too many people in their late twenties and early thirties "continuing" their education to no obvious end or purpose; teachers who still think it's 1968 etc.

Of course, it's possible to highlight similar faults in higher education elsewhere (why does Britain produce so many media studies graduates?). Also, the Economist's solutions are drearily predictable and about as likely to happen as France is likely to rename the Champs-Elysees Avenue Margaret Thatcher. Yet it seemed that Sarkozy was determined to shake up French higher education. I wonder what became of that?

France is not more obviously stupid than the UK or US, so they must be doing something right, somewhere.

PS Enarques can be insufferably pompous but they are exceptionally clever.

 

[Tangfastic]

Originally Posted by PaulSLH

This seems basically to stem from the British idea that uinversity is not to teach you facts, but to teach you 'to think', to teach you more general skills of research and analysis that allow you to learn independently and apply to different walks of life. This is probably partly because of the increased specialization. In the US you take lots of subjects, and learn the facts about them, but in the UK you take one subject, but in a way that allows you to apply your skills to learn about other things.
This is true. Those of us who have had the benefit of a quality free or cheap education should remember this and try to be more patient with the Americans in the CE forum

 

[olualbert]

The notion that north American university are substandard to their European counterpart is just plain nonsensical to me. Im a product of the American university and I know I worked my butts off during my undergraduate and graduate studies. I am actually nursing the idea of doing my doctoral work in England to see how I fare up. I surmised that my grades will be no different from the grades I had received in the US universities. It all depends on how you apply yourself and how serious you are in archiving your goals.

 

[PaulSLH]

Originally Posted by olualbert

The notion that north American university are substandard to their European counterpart is just plain nonsensical to me. Im a product of the American university and I know I worked my butts off during my undergraduate and graduate studies. I am actually nursing the idea of doing my doctoral work in England to see how I fare up. I surmised that my grades will be no different from the grades I had received in the US universities. It all depends on how you apply yourself and how serious you are in archiving your goals.

Not substandard at all, in many cases better funded and better equipped, just with a different educational philosophy. It might take a few weeks to adapt, but I'm sure that in the end you would finish with equivalent grades, after all, you don't get any less intelligent just because you're in a different country.

I know of English students going to study at Ivy League colleges and being astounded when they were told off for citing sources that weren't on the reading list in an essay, and American students being horrified when presented with an essay question but no guidance on what to research. However, the English students generally find they spend longer hours working in the US because it is more structured, so at first you'll probably find the workload more relaxed, but the teaching more obtuse, but I doubt it will take long to adapt.

 

[ConcernedParent]

Originally Posted by blank

Residents in California, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia are lucky because they have competitive state schools that cost less. Applying and matriculating from out of state would cost me less than private university, but not nearly the savings of staying in-state to attend school.

UC's especially. A 3.0 gpa and a 1500 or something like that SAT guarantees you a spot at one of the UC's. If we disregard Merced- which just graduated it's first class last year, the next lowest UC on the hierarchical scale is Riverside; and ****, even Riverside is better than gaggles of private schools in the U.S (it's ranked like 75). On the otherhand, the top UC's Berkley and LA are as good as some of the Ivies/Near Ivies and even with the 33% tuition hike, are about 33% of the cost of those schools.

With that said, private school prices are ridiculous.

 

[fredfred]

Originally Posted by Étienne

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Which part? The fact that government administration costs are somewhere between 40% and 60% of program costs?

You've never been involved in a government program.

It works like this:

You run an organization. You are going to get money from the government (yeah, "free money!").

But wait, there's a catch (or two or three...). In order to get the money you have to comply with their rules. Oh, of course. That makes sense. What are the rules? Well, there's a little bit of paperwork involved. No problem, you think. We'll just hire somebody to take care of that.

Oops. That makes the cost of running your organization go UP.

Then on the government side, there's the person you send the paperwork to. They have to be paid, too. To administer the program feeding your organization with tax money. So their work is really part of running your company.

Oops. That makes the cost of running your organization go UP.

Extrapolate, create layers of oversight, throw in some graft, etc...

But no... I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have any first hand experience or anything. (sarcastically said).

 

[Althis]

Originally Posted by ConcernedParent

UC's especially. A 3.0 gpa and a 1500 or something like that SAT guarantees you a spot at one of the UC's. If we disregard Merced- which just graduated it's first class last year, the next lowest UC on the hierarchical scale is Riverside; and ****, even Riverside is better than gaggles of private schools in the U.S (it's ranked like 75). On the otherhand, the top UC's Berkley and LA are as good as some of the Ivies/Near Ivies and even with the 33% tuition hike, are about 33% of the cost of those schools. With that said, private school prices are ridiculous.
Bullshit, those are pretty much the bare minimum requirements just to apply. The main thing that can guarantee admission to at least one UC is being in the top 3 or 4 percent in your graduating class. It would be very hard to get into any UC with just a 3.0 and a 1500 SAT in these times.

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by HHD

I remember reading an unflattering overview of the French university system in the Economist a couple of years ago.
How surprising

Seriously, though, the problem with a two-tier system like we have (universities and grandes Ã

coles) is that the elite system seriously undermines the university system. Yet, if you get rid of the grandes Ã

coles system, you lose a part of the system that works very well with no guarantee that this will help the university system.

Yet it seemed that Sarkozy was determined to shake up French higher education. I wonder what became of that?

As usual with him. Apart from the rhetoric, his reforms were badly-designed. He forced a couple laws that had nothing to do with improving the system. And to top it all, his reforms were also poorly executed. Nothing good is coming out of it.

Originally Posted by fredfred

You've never been involved in a government program.
Or maybe, just maybe, I not only have direct experience but am also familiar with the economic literature on government intervention, which means that I am relying on more than a couple experiences.

But no... I don't know what I'm talking about.

No, indeed, you very obviously don't.

 

[frederik_jon]

Originally Posted by Pezzaturra

I wonder what is the MAAD tax comes to say for income of 150,000 Euros? How much is your real estate tax in Denmark on average?
Well basically when you earn that much you would pay maximum tax which is 50 percent. That gives us alot of benefits such as free education, health care, elder care and all stuff like that. The real estate tax depends alot on the size and type of your estate.

 

[Flambeur]

Great thread, I've learned a lot.

 

[Pezzaturra]

Originally Posted by frederik_jon

Well basically when you earn that much you would pay maximum tax which is 50 percent.
That gives us alot of benefits such as free education, health care, elder care and all stuff like that.
The real estate tax depends alot on the size and type of your estate.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/A...axes-and-Costs

I came up with 47% tax on income of 150,000 if one to live in a capital of Denmark. I pay exacty the same in US when you take in consideration my healthcare and education cost plus annual RE taxes.

 

[MsMcGillicuddy]

Re: rankings, I think that they are all over the place depending on what is being measured. For example, the Times Higher Education table listed the LSE as fifth in terms of Universities for the social sciences in 2009, but it was 67th overall in 2009, partly due to the fact that it is such a specialized school.

As an aside: The Times has ended its relationship with QS and is developing a new methodology for 2010. Could be interesting.

I've attended a large public university in the US (undergrad), a large private university in the US (grad) and a small school in the UK (grad number two). The work in the UK was much more challenging, and allowed me to really get into and explore topics. The quality of the professors varied more within each university than among them, however; I think there are excellent and crap professors at all institutions (even the prestigious ones). I found my UK program to be oddly stressful in once sense: nothing was officially marked. They'd give us grades on essays, but they didn't count. Only the three-hour exam in June counted.

And it's true - the marking is completely different. The administration actively sought out the Americans to point out that if you get your first essay back and it was in the 60s, you should be HAPPY with that. In the states I would have been freaked out by such a grade.

 

[indesertum]

well most of the top universities in the states including harvard make sure that you can afford the education. At I think all of the top 15 or so schools if your family makes less than 65k (the limit depends ont eh school) they pay for your tuition and if you need it living expenses too. Not loans, but school grants.

I go to Cornell and I don't pay tuition. Just living expenses (although I think I get a grand or two per year to also help for living expenses)


I do know that this is a recent phenomenon as I took out maybe 10 grand my freshmen year and 6, 7 grand my sophomore year in the form of federal loans

Also this stuff about grade inflation at US universities. I dunno about other schools, but I do know that it's damn hard to get even just a B at my school. ****'s ridiculous. You work your ass off but you get a B because the standard they set is incredibly high. Standards are so high that classes are curved upwards just to compensate for the lack of people that ever reach it. Even when the classes are curved upward everybody else works just as hard as you do and it's tough to beat people who are as smart or smarter than you that work as hard or harder than you.

The only people I know that ever get As and A+s are these genius Korean Internationals who come from the single best high school in their country. Bitches always ruin the curves.

 

[makker]

So bitchy how international students (even EU) are disadvantaged when applying for undergrad in the US. Its nearly impossible to get a tuition, so you are left with paying for 50k each year on tuition for four years studying jackshit for the first two years. Four years for a bachelors degree is just way too long.

 

[indesertum]

I feel you, but the fact is that the US government is paying for the education of their own citizens. All the loans and grants that are given by individual schools are either subsidized by the government or given directly by the government.

I don't think that's at all unreasonable.

I know a lot of Korean Internationals at my school and they're either balling beyond reason (-_- dude i know drives a lotus and a bmw 3 series) or they're smart enough to get scholarships from companies or the korean government. But I do know cases where the middle class parents just tighten their belts and pay for everything. I have friends who got summer internship or coops with citigroup, BofA, etc. make a ton of money, but give it all back to their parents.