![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
May 28, 2007
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Reviving the Sorbonne
French higher education may finally receive a desperately needed overhaul:
PARIS--The Sorbonne has no cafeteria, no student newspaper, no varsity sports, no desk-side electric plugs for laptops. France's most renowned university also costs next-to-nothing to attend, and admission is open to every high school graduate.President Nicolas Sarkozy says this picture is emblematic of much that is wrong with France, which seeks to recapture its economic luster and key role in international affairs.
[...]
High dropout rates, antiquated resources and funding cuts have so plagued the Sorbonne, like universities across France , that its president, Jean-Robert Pitte, is calling for an overhaul of the university system. He wants to make admission selective and sharply increase tuition, measures critics call "Americanization."
French universities "don't correspond to the needs of the economy, to French society, and even less to Europe and the world," Pitte said in an interview. "I'm pragmatic. I watch what happens elsewhere, and I'm for borrowing what works best."
[...]
The challenges start with egalitarian rules that govern French universities. Imposed after the student and worker uprising of 1968, they offer any student with a high school diploma a free education. Financial barriers were to be leveled with generous grants.
Nearly 40 years later, the free and democratic universities are producing far fewer graduates than their much more costly counterparts in the United States. In 2005, 14 percent of adults had a university education in France, compared to 29 percent in the United States, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pitte says the French system just produces dropouts. Forty-five percent of Sorbonne students do not complete their first year, and 55 percent do not earn a degrees. Without entrance standards, there is a "selection-by-failure" that squanders resources and professors' time on students who "have no real chance of success," he said.
The Sorbonne is all the more difficult to reform because it has an intrinsic link to Paris' Left Bank intellectual history, which students are keen to preserve.
And while French students complain about poor facilities and huge classes, they vehemently oppose change.
"Education is a public service and should be open to everyone regardless of their economic situation," said Simon Vacheron, a history student who says the solution is more public money.
Many defend the system as a true meritocracy.
"It allows everyone to take their chances," said Maxime Lonlas, president of the Sorbonne's largest student union. Instead of being judged on past accomplishments, each student "can be judged on their performance," he added.
But Pitte says annual tuition fees of less than $400 , a sum that is often waived , mean there's no financial penalty for failure.
There's even a "phantom student" phenomenon where as many as 10 percent of students on the rolls never see the inside of a lecture hall, having enrolled to get free health benefits and student discounts on everything from train travel to movie tickets.
Free universities aren't the only choice for French students. There's also a parallel system of "grandes ecoles" that educates the French elite.
With 6 percent of post-secondary students, the grandes ecoles have difficult entrance exams and charge tuition of up to $6,700 a year, but offer small classes and graduate nearly all the country's business leaders and politicians.
"We're the street-sweepers of the education system," Pitte said, picking up all those who fail to gain entrance to the grandes ecoles.
Low tuition also means universities are starved for money and short on the services that are taken for granted in the U.S. The Sorbonne has no alumni association, robbing it of essential donations. And without access to outside resources , corporate funding is prohibited , the universities are crumbling.
The University of Shanghai publishes a world ranking of universities, and in 2005, the top French university placed 46th, behind more than 30 American institutions.
Sarkozy has included university reform in his four top priorities to be passed during a parliamentary session this summer. His proposals include $20 billion for universities, which would see their budgets increase by 50 percent.
Pitte wants to limit the numbers of students in disciplines that have few job opportunities upon graduation, and introduce annual tuition fees of $4,000.
"Nobody should be prevented from doing university studies," said Pitte. But to let students who aren't cut out for it into the system "is criminal."
Egalitarianism may have its place, but it also has its limits. It is not a viable educational philosophy, nor is it a workable solution to most pressing social problems. The Sorbonne needs a merit-based system of admissions and assessment. It needs to raise tuition and allow private investment. And it also needs to be publicly accountable.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1271
Comments:
This comparison with the American system seems too simplistic. For one thing, it is misleading to talk of "the Sorbonne" scandalously lacking a cafeteria - or, God forbid, a varsity sports side - as if it were a single prestigious entity like "Stanford" or whatever. Three universities in the Paris system use ex-Sorbonne buildings and keep "Sorbonne" as part of a double-barreled name.
It is true that French universities are asphyxiating for lack of funds, although in my opinion the pressing problem is understaffing more than infrastructure (I think another specificity not picked up here is the excellent public resources Paris students have access to, such as libraries and transport). Nonetheless, the situation is critical. But switching to a user-pays system might damage aspects of French university culture that are more important than a campus refectory. There is a tradition of political activism and citizenship that continues to flourish on French campuses, visible last year in the mass mobilisations against the CPE labour deregulation law. Maybe a consumer-mentality among students is compatible with this kind of engagement and solidarity, but I don't think so.
The universal right of entry IS a joke. It's totally true that this just passes the buck of selection from the schools to the first year programs of universities. But moves to meritocracy must be complemented by aid to the school system, to assure some semblance of equal opportunity to kids from the poor suburbs and provinces.
If France really wants to Americanize, they should begin narrowing the funding gap between schools and prisons. That way, poor, unskilled people can have a guaranteed place in at least *one* institution:
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/05/29/incarceration-and-education-budgets/#comments
Something without cost is treated as if it has no value.
Imagine that.
(Just like public parks, to an unfortunately large portion of the population.
Making people pay for access makes them focus a bit more on getting value out; at very least in education it weeds out people uninterested in acquiring one.)
Not true, Sigivald. It weeds out people who cannot afford the service. Plenty of American college students who aren't really interested in learning are sent to college by mommy and daddy, who *are* willing to shell out the money. Give all the middle class and rich kids the following choice: an Ivy League degree with no work or an Ivy League degree with work. See which they choose. (If they're George Bush, they'll clearly take the "no work" option.) Then tell me that only those who really want an education get one in a pay-to-play system.
Linval wrote:
It [making people pay] weeds out people who cannot afford the service.
Are there lots of such people? Do you have figures?
I'm wondering, because it seems to me that there are innumerable ways for one to get a college education if s/he really wants one.
Perhaps one might not get into a prestigious 4 year school right off the bat (owing to grades, for example), but there are junior colleges available which are dirt-cheap to start the process, night courses are offered at major institutions for those who work during the day, scholarships and student loans are available for people who lack financial resources, and there's at least an informal affirmative action to help minority students gain acceptance, irrespective of whether or not they are impoverished.
Are there no good offices within schools to help students complete their degrees, once admitted? There were when I was in school, many years ago.
I'm not saying there aren't barriers, but it seems to me that there are ways around most of them.
I guess I wonder how many impoverished people who want to go to college can't because of their impoverishment, if that's what you're suggesting.
And I believe you make Sigivald's point when you note that the students who go to college only because mommy and daddy sent them don't value their opportunity as much as mommy and daddy value having them in college.
I agree! And that seems to me this is a perfect parallel to the Sorbonne.
Clawmute
Clawmute, we're talking about France, right? Not sure what the community college scene is like there. It could be exactly as you say. Might not be, though.
The Sorbonne as described here *is* like the sort of place Clawmute describes: an underfunded community college in America. Or some of the CUNY locations in the 70s and 80s, when the doors were opened up to more New Yorkers than ever before.
I'd also like to see the academic statistics and graduatation rates for English universities before they started charging serious tuitions. I suspect UCL was no slouch, even if it was basically free to those who tested in.
Linval wrote:
Clawmute, we're talking about France, right?
Only as an example of what motivates people to value something . . . or not value it (the "something" being education).
Clawmute
Post a comment:
