I don't generally give a lot of credence to university ranking systems. I would argue that, past a certain point, the name on the walls--and the diploma--is less important than the quality of the people within those walls.
With that in mind, I read in one of the Moscow foreign language newspapers an article lamenting the state not only of Russian universities, but of continental Europe as a whole.
"The Decline of Europe"
The source, of course, was a series of rankings released by a firm called Quacquarelli Symonds, or QS.
Rankings
Moscow State University came in at 112 and St. Petersburg - 251. The article continues, suggesting that there are historical reasons for the low placement of universities in the former state socialist countries of Eastern Europe, evidenced by the fact that the Charles University in Prague is the only other one in the top 300.
However, it also laments that the countries of Western Europe don't, in the opinion of this ranking system, stack up well either.
My translation, which is, of course, rough:
"We can put this [the low ranking of universities in continental Europe] on the account of the supernatural force of the the American power. Effectively, beyond the celebrated schools of the Harvard sort, the humbler ones such as the University of North Carolina overshadow Europe like a mountain over the mouse." [I may have missed the exact sense of that, I'm not familiar with the idiom.]
The conclusion that the article reaches is that American universities--and by extension those of the Anglophone world--hold their advantage in sciences, humanities, and social sciences thanks to the position of English as the language of international learning, itself a product of American power.
It's something to think about, but also makes me apprehensive. We in America have built a system of education that, while imperfect, functions very well. And that system is under threat by savage budget cuts from the state governments that support it and increasing pressure to find sources of funding in the non-profit and private sector. The young and the talented come from all over the world to learn and contribute to this system, but can this system continue to function as it has, in light of this budget squeeze, post-9/11 visa regulations, and a host of other pressures?
With that in mind, I read in one of the Moscow foreign language newspapers an article lamenting the state not only of Russian universities, but of continental Europe as a whole.
"The Decline of Europe"
The source, of course, was a series of rankings released by a firm called Quacquarelli Symonds, or QS.
Rankings
Moscow State University came in at 112 and St. Petersburg - 251. The article continues, suggesting that there are historical reasons for the low placement of universities in the former state socialist countries of Eastern Europe, evidenced by the fact that the Charles University in Prague is the only other one in the top 300.
However, it also laments that the countries of Western Europe don't, in the opinion of this ranking system, stack up well either.
My translation, which is, of course, rough:
"We can put this [the low ranking of universities in continental Europe] on the account of the supernatural force of the the American power. Effectively, beyond the celebrated schools of the Harvard sort, the humbler ones such as the University of North Carolina overshadow Europe like a mountain over the mouse." [I may have missed the exact sense of that, I'm not familiar with the idiom.]
The conclusion that the article reaches is that American universities--and by extension those of the Anglophone world--hold their advantage in sciences, humanities, and social sciences thanks to the position of English as the language of international learning, itself a product of American power.
It's something to think about, but also makes me apprehensive. We in America have built a system of education that, while imperfect, functions very well. And that system is under threat by savage budget cuts from the state governments that support it and increasing pressure to find sources of funding in the non-profit and private sector. The young and the talented come from all over the world to learn and contribute to this system, but can this system continue to function as it has, in light of this budget squeeze, post-9/11 visa regulations, and a host of other pressures?
1 comment:
This is really interesting. It is rather surprising, given the successes of our primary education system, right? But I think there are three main explanations for this:
1) American Universities are extremely well financed. In fact, university presidents have time for little else than raising massive amounts of money. Would be interesting to see statistics on average professor salaries at these various institutions. American university jobs may not pay as much as other professions, but they almost certainly pay more than Eastern European universities, for example. Even though professors aren't likely to choose academia for the financial benefits, the best among academics will happily choose the higher paying job, all other things being equal.
2) This leads to my second thought: proximity. Just as cities tend to be centers of economic and cultural activity simply by virtue of how close everyone lives to one another, American universities benefit from the sheer quantity and geographic concentration of institutions of higher education in the U.S. What is true for economic activity is the same for ideas: the closer together people are, the more exchange there will be.
3) The other reason I'd point out for the success of American universities is that they do not consider themselves "American" or "national," except in so far as "global" is one of the meanings subsumed under the heading "American." Simply put, U.S. universities recruit faculty and students from every single part of the globe, bringing top talent to the United States and bringing even more diversity and brilliance to its packed university scene. What would happen if American public schools started recruiting the best teachers from China to teach math? (to make a huge generalization) There would be an absolute firestorm. Universities tend not to be held to a similar standard, because people realize that these are fundamentally different types of institutions. Perhaps if we started viewing primary education's purpose as creating visionary leaders, scientists, and other people who can change the world (as most universities view their purpose), rather than producing smaller versions of ourselves that share our "values," we'd be better off as a country.
Post a Comment