Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Well, my 7 years of studying in France probably totalled less than €2000 of fees. And it was not because I went to second-grade schools.

So yes, I think it is huge to pay $6800 for one year. It's one third of the median income!

I guess there is a major cultural difference there. It doesn't cost that much to train as a medical practitioner here. But then, they do not demand as crazy fees once they are trained. This may regrettably change as neo-liberalism and individualism are catching here. But I am quite attached to that system where you don't start life burdened with debt.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 01:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really am not saying that anything that doesn't do it the USA way is second-rate. This is why I said U. Toronto is a marvelous school.

But, the level of research and development at US universities still far exceeds those elsewhere, and the classroom structures are different (at Toronto, there are 3x as many students in a class as at my school), as are the number of lectures. I know the British system requires more of a time commitment from students and instructors as far as face-to-face interaction goes, but in some European countries such as Italy and Spain, it's the reverse. Lectures are not offered three times a week.

by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 01:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, the level of research and development at US universities still far exceeds those elsewhere

Not in surface or solid state physics. Certainly not in high-energy physics.

Indeed for all of the natural sciences, it greatly depends on how much you stretch "far." In many cases even on your definition of "exceeds," if you get my drift.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 02:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm definitely referring to money and support.

Although I would point out the US system is pretty efficient, unlike our health care. We spend the most there too.

by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 04:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Normalised to population, GDP or nothing?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(n/t) signifie "non texte."

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I recently went over the different figures because our job search season is in December/January and we had two noted European scholars with whom we were discussing different systems. I was quite surprised to see the difference in expenditures, but I do not want to equate resources with quality of education, because there is not a tight correlation. For a faculty member, however, resources are always a significant factor.
by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But, the level of research and development at US universities still far exceeds those elsewhere,

That has not been my experience, it would be fair to say that US universities get more media coverage.  In terms of quality*quantity of research I've found the US about what you'd expect for its population.

by njh on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 03:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
EU2020 says that US investment in research at the level of higher education exceeds EU investment by multiples.

In terms of expenditure for higher education alone (i.e. including but not limited to research) the EU has an expenditure of 1.1% GDP, while the US is 2.3% GDP.

From the EU2020 site:

"American universities have far more substantial means than European universities on average, two to five times higher spending per student. The resources brought by students themselves, including by the many foreign students, partly explain this gap. But American universities benefit both from a high level of public funding, including through research and defence credits, and from substantial private funding, particularly for fundamental research, provided by the business sector and philanthropic foundations. The big private research universities also often have considerable wealth, built up over time through private donations, particularly from graduate associations.

The growing under-funding of European universities jeopardises their capacity to attract and keep the best talent, and to strengthen the excellence of their research and teaching activities(1). Given that it is highly unlikely that additional public funding can alone make up the widening shortfall, new ways have to be found of increasing and diversifying universities' income. The Commission plans to conduct a study on the funding of European universities in order to examine the main trends in this area and identify examples of best practice."

by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
EU2020 is a political programme, not an attempt to examine reality.

That doesn't mean that the numbers are wrong, but it does mean that we need to know what they count. Particularly since they're being used as an excuse for backdoor privatisations - a use of numbers than normally means that they fall just short of being make-believe.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see. Well then, I've got nothing.

I know in relation to Canada that the funding doesn't compare. It's more than double in the US.

by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:11:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that they've made up the numbers on purpose.

It's just that this kind of international comparison is not trivial. To take an obvious example, South Korea boasts of a 20 % of GDP "education budget" - but they include primary and secondary schools in that figure!

Similarly, if less blatant, at anything below postgraduate level, there are structural and organisational differences between Europe and the US that make comparisons a non-trivial exercise.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Another thing to keep in mind is where the applied science is done. When Vestas develops a new alloy, they do it in-house. I don't know what the American system is in that respect, but given the reputation of places like Lawrence Livermore for pay-for-play research for the armaments industry, I suspect that the mix is different.

Whether it is desirable to have the applied science lodged with universities is a subject of ongoing debate, of course, but it's one of the things that needs to be kept in mind if we want to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that same article I linked to put European R&D at 2% GDP and American R&D at 2.5% so not that much of a difference at all.
by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 06:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This article is not about the topic we're discussing (only about technology transfers) but it does cite differences in total funding for higher education.

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3825

by Upstate NY on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 05:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was going on the highly biased and mostly anecdotal evidence from papers I've reviewed and read for various conferences.  No doubt the areas I have been active in are unusual.  I do question whether more money produces more quality research or merely more big toys.  The best papers in computational complexity theory for many years came from russians without even computers to work on.
by njh on Fri Feb 12th, 2010 at 06:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series