Recent Reforms of Germany’s University System:

Improving the quality of education

Alyssa N. Geiger

5.20.2010

Monterey Institute of International Studies

IPOL633 Comparative Public Administration

 Table of Contents

I. Introduction………………………………………………………………3, 4

Problem tree……………………………………………………5

II. Background……………………………………………………………..6-12

A. Overview of the German Public Administration System…………..6-10

B. The German university system ……………………………………10-12

Figure 2: Decision-making process of educational policy…….11

Figure 3: Degree Structure…………………………………….12

III. Reforms of the German university system……………………………13-20

A. The Bologna Process………………………………………………13-16

1. Description………………………………………………….13

2. Analysis…………………………………………………….14-16

B. Financing Education………………………………………………..16-20

1. Description…………………………………………………16-18

2. Analysis……………………………………………………18-20

IV. Recommendations…………………………………………………….20-25

V. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….25

Appendix A: Bologna Declaration……………………………………….26

Appendix B: Insights from the Chilean Education System……………...27

Bibliography……………………………………………………………..28, 29

Endnotes…………………………………………………………………30, 31

2
I. Introduction

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, Germany enjoyed a world-renound

reputation for quality college education. This was reflected internationally, as 45% of

Nobel prizes were being awarded to people educated in Germany. Today, however, many

German universities that were once among the top 50 in the world have since fallen

behind. In 2008, for the first time in a quarter-century, more students and faculty left

Germany than came in. Attracted by higher salaries and research opportunities

elsewhere, and as a response to overcrowding, many university students and faculty have

left Germany, highlighting the growing problem known as 'brain drain.' By 2025, a

quarter of the workforce will be older than 55, compared with 15% now, and the number

of students leaving college to enter the work force will shrink by a thirdi, meaning more

students are staying at their university longer adding to Germany’s demographic

problems. In response to these problems, Germany has adopted a ‘competition’ mantra,

undergoing reforms to its higher education system, treating it as a “production factor (to)

win back Germany’s best minds.ii” In this paper, I focus on the problem of maintaining

quality within the German university system, and how reforms to the system have

affected the quality and competitiveness of German higher education.

The first set of reforms I describe are part of the Bologna Process, which

internationalizes the German university system by adopting the Anglo-American degree

system, and intends to address the issue of brain drain by making the German university

system more competitive and appealing to the international community. My analysis of

3
the Bologna Process reveals how the current scope of the reforms compromises quality

and overlooks other areas that need improvement in the university system.

The second set of reforms to the university system concerns the financing of

education. The question of whether to raise tuition fees in order to improve quality and

competition among state universities has encouraged debate surrounding the German

Higher Education Framework Law under Article 13, which gives each German state

autonomy over how it administers its education system. The Excellence Initiative as

well as the Federal Training Assistance Act (Bundesausbildungsföderungsgesetz) or

“Bafög also represent reform efforts addressing the financing of education. My analysis

shows how these reforms are not enough.

In order to better understand these reforms as well as the underlying problems that

affect the quality of education, I first provide a general overview of the German Public

Administration system concerning the relative context and environment, including

historical, political, socio-economic, and cultural aspects. Then, a general introduction

of the University system as a subsystem will serve as a background to provide a better

understanding of its current practices. Keeping the German P.A. system and subsystem

in mind, I then describe the two major sets of higher education reforms to the university

system as outlined above, and analyze problems of these reforms regarding quality of

education. Finally, I provide recommendations for increasing the quality of the German

university system based on my analysis and discuss possible policy and management

implications.

4
 Figure 1: Problem Tree

The major root cause to the problem of quality within the German university system is a
lack of competition. Two underlying sources to the lack of competition include:
insufficient federal and state financial support for university education and the German
university system. Negative effects of brain drain and the German demographic problem
stem from this main problem. Reforms designed to address the sources of the main root
cause to the problem of quality within the university system are depicted in blue.

5
II. Background

A. Overview of the German Public Administration System

The German Public Administration System has been greatly shaped by history and

tradition. Instability brought about through breakdowns and abrupt changes in political

regimes and the economy throughout the First and Second World Wars and the German

reunification in 1990, has been balanced by the Germans' strong tradition of civil service

to the state, which has always obeyed the orders of regimes in power. There was

therefore a resistance to the wave of new public management reforms of the 1980’s, as

the reforms threatened to change the highly valued civil service system. Instead, the

public administration remained and remains to this day a “symbol of continuity and

stability in a country with such a rich background of political discontinuity and instability

in its recent history,” a reliable structure in times of uncertainty (Seibel 75). This model

represents, according to Max Weber, a “classic” administrative system of bureaucracy

that continues to keep order through a hierarchical structure. Although the central

government plays a big role in society, the German “basic law” or constitution

(Grundgesetz) has decentralized power to the sixteen Bundesländer (German states), their

federal ministries and civil servants.

Germany’s federal system reflects its history of feudalism, rooted in a tradition of

local autonomy and authority. The “Basic Law” gives each of the individual states

(Länder) jurisdiction over their administrative activities, allowing the Länder more

autonomy in interpreting and carrying out policies. Policies in each Land can therefore be

very different and remain highly influenced by the local ruling political party. The central

government presides over the legislative branch, which makes policy decisions to be

6
interpreted by the Länder who then act as “vehicles for administration.” This keeps

policy-making initiatives decentralized at the level of the Länder, which receive little

policy direction from the top (Heady 5, 207). This autonomy gives each state a larger

working capacity than the federal level. As a result, domestic policy-making functions are

for the most part bottom-up, with 90% of all German bureaucracy existing in the

administrative services of the Länder. Federal ministries behave more along the lines of

policy-makers instead of bureaucrats, while public officials behave according to state as

well as political interests of a particular party, serving as state-political bureaucrats.

The bureaucracy in the German public administration system, is mainly made up of

the social elite, a reflection of a socio-economic system that is based on academic

achievement.iii Access to policy-making positions higher in the civil service remains open

only to those with a university degree. The civil service is generally made up of self-

selected individuals who are performance-motivated, carrying personality traits of

rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity, traits that have shown not to be conductive to

active policy-making (Heady 5, 209). However, this is changing as the younger

generation enters the service.

Although this decentralized policy-making process brings about more responsiveness

and flexibility for each state, it also creates some fragmentation in the system. Achieving

political consensus from the bottom up is extremely difficult, leaving unresolved policy

issues to be dealt with by the bureaucracy by default. Many decisions are made at the

state level despite challenges that each Land faces concerning the whole German

academic system. In both governments of the Länder and at the federal level are made up

of either one ruling party with the majority of the votes or coalition so that political

7
consensus may be achieved. Coalition governments are much more likely at the federal

level because there are more political parties represented, making it more difficult for one

party to receive more than 50% of the votes, whereas one particular party might be able

to dominate and maintain more authority over the local level for a greater length of time.

Much of this has to do with the participatory process of how the authorities are elected.

Officials for Germany’s parliament, Bundestag, are directly elected by the people of

Germany. Each voter has two votes in the elections to the Bundestag; the first allows

them to first elect their local representatives, deciding which candidates are sent to the

Parliament from the constituencies, the second allows them to choose a particular party,

determining the strength and representation of the parties represented in the Bundestag.

Federal authorities, such as the Federal Chancellor who heads the executive branch of the

Federal Government, are elected by and responsible to the Bundestag. Individual federal

states (Bundesländer) work together with political leadership but are also bound by local

political constraints. To address impediments of the policy process caused by a lack of

coordination amongst the Länder, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education

and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (Kultusministerkonferenz-KMK) exists as a permanent

secretariat uniting the ministers and senators of the Länder to discuss and reach common

policies on issues concerning education, higher education, research and cultural affairs.

The current political system of the Federal Republic of Germany favors competition

amongst parties in order to provide for popular representation and political accountability

for government action. Under Article 21 of the Basic Law, "the political parties shall

participate in the forming of the political will of the people. They may be freely

established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles.” Only

8
parties with at least five percent of the vote are allowed to have representation in national

and Land parliaments. Currently, the political system is led by a coalition government

consisting of the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the conservative Christian

Democratic Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU). Political parties in the

opposition include a left-wing Social Democrat Party (SPD) and the Green Party.

Coalition leadership relies on a focused network in order to form consensus and pass

laws.

Historical political and economic instability has created a culture that places a high

value on order and stability, and is cautious and resistant to general change, especially if

it involves uncertainty. Germans have a tendency to keep resisting change, especially if it

comes from outside Germany, until a certain point. The Economist accurately

summarized how the Germans react to change in a recent special report: “Change, if it

must happen, is painstakingly negotiated by everyone concerned, from political parties to

the governments of the 16 Länder to the “social partners” (trade unions and employers’

representatives)”iv to ensure that it is done right. By following their own approach, they

embark on what is known as a Sonderweg (German special path)*, which aligns with

their own Weltanschauung (world view)*. The “Rule of Law” manifests itself in a

cultural belief: Ordnung muss sein (there must be order). Germans may seem, at times,

obsessed with adhering to rules and regulations. It has been observed that many Germans

“often view giving up certain individual rights as a fair trade in creating a better and more

ordered society” (Nees, 49). Thus, there is a value orientation towards egalitarianism as

well as hierarchy. A general lack of trust in globalization as well as the free market has

led to the German society’s tendency towards heavy reliance on the government. For

9
example, the public service sector is huge because it is comprised of mainly health and

education at the Länder level, which are often privatized in other countries.

B. The German university system

German higher education is regulated partly at the federal and partly at state level.

Despite federal regulations, under the Basic Law, each Land essentially maintains

complete autonomy over its education policy. The system was built on an principle of

equal opportunity rather than differentiation, supported by Article 13v of the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which guarantees the right to

education as a human right. Some Länder have, in the name of Article 13, prohibited

college tuition fees all together, while others have not, and this has been the subject of

much debate, prompting reform (which will be addressed later). Another difference in

policy at the Länder level has to do with the number of private vs. public universities, and

the amount of financial support allocated to each. Private universities are sanctioned by

the government, and some remain partially funded by the Länder themselves.

Educational policies concerning both the Länder and the German government are

widely discussed at the Standing Conference, where the senators and ministers of the

Länder liase with each other and represent their common interests at the federal level and

the European Union, as well as other supraregional institutions and associations. Each

Land has one vote, and resolutions are adopted by a majority vote in some cases and only

by unanimity in cases involving financial relevance or educational sector mobility. As the

Standing Conference is challenged with the new joint task of “determining the efficiency

of the educational system in international comparison”vi in the educational sector, it

10
continues to support the Bologna Process by achieving the highest degree of mobility for

students and teaching personnel.

Figure 2: Decision-making process of educational policy

Decision-making of educational policy occurs at the local level by the Länder, who form
and interpret policies as well as determine the types of educational institutions who
charge or do not charge tuition fees (as seen by the dashed lines). The Länder also
discuss and agree on educational policies with the Federal Government at the Standing
Conference and may be influenced by the European Union’s educational policies.

11
 Universities, including various specialized institutions, offer a range of academic

disciplines. In the German tradition, university study can be a very lengthy process. A

high value is placed not only on the teaching of concepts, but on research methods, from

very basic techniques, on up to highly specialized applied instrumentation. Students are

given a high level of responsibility to direct their own course of study and deepen their

level of understanding by pursuing their own learning outside of the classroom. Adhering

to a principle, “unity of research and teaching, Germany’s universities are not only

teaching establishments for students, but also research intensive centres.”vii Figure 3 from

qrossroad outlines the current degree structure at the university level, which reflects the

newly introduced master and bachelor degree program from the Bologna Process.

Figure 3: German Degree Structure

12
III. Reforms of the German university system

A. The Bologna Process

1.) Description

Launched in 1999, the Bologna Process is a series of reforms intended to modernize

and internationalize higher education in Germany. The aims of the process are outlined in

Appendix A. Through the creation of a Common European Higher Education Area by

2010, the Bologna Process hopes to succeed in the “international competition for the best

brainsviii” and offset the growing problem of 'brain drain.' The largest result of the reforms

includes the adaptation of the Anglo-American two-cycle study system of bachelor's and

master’s degrees in Germany. This serves to internationalize its education system and

increase mobility by providing comparable qualifications, a credit transfer system, and

enhanced quality assurance which stems from standardization. The system is also

designed to reduce the length of studies and enhance employability (Federal Ministry of

Education and Research). Since the beginning of 2008/2009, 75% of all courses at

German higher education institutions have been converted to BA/MA courses,

accompanied by an increase of new courses of study by 20% (Federal Ministry of

Education and Research or BMBF). The Bologna Follow-up Group holds at least two

meetings a year at the Conference of Ministers in order to assess and evaluate the

Bologna Process’s implementation, progress and outcomes. “Stocktaking,” by way of

national reports by Member States has become a crucial component of the process. The

German Federal Government and the Länder are in charge of implementing the reforms.ix

13
2.) Analysis

Through implementing the Bologna Process reforms, Germany has gone against

traditional cultural values, such as adhering to what is traditionally German in terms of

the education system, an aversion to change, inflexibility and rigidity and pessimism

(Angst). Instead, Germany is looking towards the future at the opportunities and

possibilities that moving towards a Common European Higher Education Area presents.

Adapting to the Anglo-American degree system by way of the Bologna Process and

internationalizing its university system has made Germany more competitive within the

European Higher Education Area. As was intended, joining the European Credit Transfer

System (ECTS) has increased mobility, standardization has led to higher quality

standards, and qualifications are becoming more commonly recognized. By offering

more universally recognized degrees and new courses of study, Germany seeks to offset

brain drain. Success of the Bologna Process in terms of these outputs has already been

measured in the large aforementioned increases in the number of BA/MA converted

courses and in the number of new courses offered. Focus on the outcomes of these

outputs in terms of the influence on the quality of education has not been explored

enough. The BMBF declared that, “Germany has taken advantage of the biggest higher

education reform for decades to improve the quality of study courses.x” However, this

approach remains heavily focused on the assumption that increasing the quantity of

educational offerings will lead to an increase in the quality of education, especially in the

German university system.

The Bolonga Process’s greatest emphasis involves raising levels of efficiency

within the system through standardization, reduced length of study time and enhanced

14
employability, so that, especially in Germany, students are able to enter the workforce

right away to help the economy and assuage Germany's demographic problem. This

emphasis has come at the cost of undermining Germany’s cultural tradition of life-long

learning and the older German university system's intensive research focus that

dominated all levels of education. It removes this life-long learning and research focus to

the last possible stage in higher education, Phd, which would have otherwise provided

valuable learning and growth opportunities throughout a students higher education. The

shortened length of study time at the university under the new BA/MA system may not

afford students the necessary amount of research hours that is typically equated with

traditional German education as it is held in such high regard. If Germany wants to

continue to remain competitive in this regard as a beacon for quality research and

learning, it would be a loss to sacrifice these valuable traditions for the sake of efficiency

without taking measures to preserve them in some way.

Enacting these major changes to the German degree structure and course offerings

has introduced a number of internal structural, methodological and economic problems

that will need to be addressed in the coming years. Many traditional German professors

are not professionally prepared to develop the new curricula for the shorter degree

programs. New accreditation procedures, quality control measures, and standardization

will necessitate a change in teaching style that may require more frequent student

assessments, more interactive and experiential instructional methods, and a change in the

traditional lecture format. Students of this new system must also prepare to change their

study habits and approach to learning. They likely will have to prepare for more tests and

routine assignments designed to assess learning outcomes, leaving less time for

15
involvement in long-term research. The Bologna Process has not adapted other practices

from the Anglo-American system besides the BS/MA degree track. For instance, many

professors, cannot afford the time to hold office hours for more than eight hours per

month due to the amount of administrative work that is now required of them. Little time

is left for the development of teacher-student relationships, out-of-the-classroom

learning, and teacher-student feedback

It remains questionable to what extent universities under the reforms of the

Bologna Process will be able to contribute to the larger strategies of qualifying their

students for employment and effectively preparing them for the German job market,

which is likely to be slow to warm up to the new BA/MA degree system. Employers in

Germany are used to graduates who have studied longer and who have acquired practical

experience through research and internships. Although the graduates of new degree

system will be more competitive internationally, it could potentially worsen the brain

drain problem. This could be an unfortunate and unintended side-effect of Germany's

'competition mantra.'

B. Financing Education

1.) Description

The German public university system is based on widely available government

funding, in accordance with Article 13, supporting education as a basic human right. A

2005 rulingxi concerning the Higher Education Framework Law in article 13.2.C. deemed

the current legislation of the SPD, which in 2002 prohibited tuition fees, unconstitutional

because it challenged the authority of each Bundesland to decide its education policy.

16
Some state legislatures have passed laws regulating university tuition fees. In some states,

universities are now allowed to demand tuition up to a certain limit, such as 500 euros,

but are not allowed to increase the tuition more than 1.5 times the headline of inflation.

Five of the sixteen Bundesländer charged tuition fees in 2010xii, a change that is mostly

supported by the conservative parties of the CDU/CSU and opposed by the SPD.

Universities in former East German states do not plan on raising tuition regardless of the

political party in power, in order to be competitive and attract students who are unwilling

to pay the tuition fees. Raising tuition fees has been met with an increasing number of

student protests, most notably in Frankfurt and Hesse, where fees were raised hastily in

the range of 1500 euros.

In 2007, the government and federal states implemented a four-year performance-

based program, the Initiative for Excellencexiii (Excellenzinitiative), designed to boost

excellence and incite academic competition among private and public universities by

rewarding academic achievements with funding and prestige. This initiative is part of the

government's current effort to increase the competitiveness of German higher education.

Public universities do not offer scholarships or financial aid. Instead, it is private

non-German institutions as well as German public institutions like the German Academic

Exchange Service (DAAD) that are taking the lead role in distributing scholarships to

students, covering the cost of living and books. The Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz,

the Federal Training Assistance Act (Bafög), is a reform ensuring each applicant equal

distribution of financial aid in the form of stipends or low interest loans. The Federal

Government contributes nearly 1.5 billion euros annually to Bafög, while the Länder

contribute around 8 billion euros (Federal Ministry of Education and Research). The

17
amount students receive from this stipend program will be increased once the 22nd

Amendmentxiv of the Bafög has passed. Advancement to the university level remains

based on achievement.xv

2.) Analysis

Reforming how education is financed in Germany is necessary due to the lack of

adequate funding from the government. The current reforms in place have not gone far

enough to improve the quality of the education system for many reasons.

The old system, founded on principles of equity instead of differentiation as seen in

Article 13, conflicts with the very mantra of competition Germany is currently promoting

within the Common European Higher Education Area through the Bologna Process. As

Min Kyung-kuk points out in his article “College tuition ceiling: a product of immature

thinking,” the tuition ceiling that some of the states have implemented is in fact a price

controlxvi that has negative consequences for competition. Although Min Kyung-kuk

argues that price control will result in poor quality and reduced supply in educational

services and research activities, the prohibition of tuition fees had already led to a

decrease in quality of education and innovation. With the recent introductions of and

increases in tuition fees, German professors who had left Germany seeking more

competitive salaries now have more incentive to return. In this way, these new laws are

helping to offset further brain drain. The effectiveness of implementing and increasing

tuition fees in elevating the quality of education and creating competition has has yet to

be evaluated. So far, the university system, even with the Bologna Process and tuition

18
reforms, is still struggling to transform its role as a mere public service provider to a

system of enterprises held accountable to the needs of students.

Private universities, such as the Max Planck Institute, have been able to excel in

research and other subject areas requiring a large amount of funding for experienced

faculty, equipment and facilities. Public institutions, on the other hand, remain at a

disadvantage due to inadequate funding. The higher quality of education at Germany’s

private universities, in comparison to the lower quality of education at public universities

represents a vast inequality that is built into the German university system. The system

has come to favor elite universities with no tuition caps, who embody Germany’s plan to

become more competitive in the area of higher education, reinforcing the shift from

egalitarian to elitist. The German university system for now, seems to have found its

Sonderweg, where it allows public universities to exist along side private ones in a

dynamic that varies within each state according the local laws on tuition fees. The tuition

fees allow for some increase in education quality and prevention of brain drain, while the

tuition ceiling keeps tuition affordable but also hinders true competition. Other states

prohibiting tuition fees can remain competitive enough to attract those who rely on

equity-based admission, but quality is sacrificed. This Sonderweg has led to much

criticism.

The fact that there are many student protests against tuition fees and tuition fee

increases signals other underlying problems. Since tuition fees have not existed for forty

years in Germany, a strong sense of entitlement to education has developed over the

years. Since only high achieving students are allowed to study at the university, now that

they have reached the university level and are asked to finance their education, they

19
maintain a “group think” mentality and are reluctant to pay. Many students have grown

accustomed to being taken care of by big government with highly affordable, if not free

education and support from Bafög. After all, they pay incredibly high taxes in

comparison to the rest of the world. The backlash can be explained by expectations;

many students were not expecting tuition fees or an increase in fees, since it was not done

incrementally or with enough warning. Students having to pay tuition fees or higher

tuition fees do not see where the tuition fees are going and what the fees are doing to

better the quality of their education. If students were able to see that over time the quality

of education at their university had been decreasing, and if they were able to actually

notice the improvements that their higher fees afforded, would they still resist the

changes? This is hard to say, considering that change itself is not readily accepted in the

German system. Even still, many students, such as Friederike Rass, a theology student in

Hamburg, Germany, do not want or need more money from the Bafög for tuition. Instead,

they would rather the money go towards ensuring that underprivileged students have

access to education.xvii An important question is raised: Access to what quality of

education? Is keeping the public university system accessible by prohibiting or even

having capped tuition fees worth the trade-off with quality and forgone competition?

IV. Recommendations

In order to increase the effectiveness of the aforementioned reforms to improve

the quality of education, I recommend the following:

20
A study of the current quality of education
First and foremost, a study of the current quality of education at the university

level must be conducted throughout Germany. The data from the study must be analyzed

and evaluated. Public and private universities should be compared, with attention paid to

the presence or absence of tuition fees, and implications from the findings should be

drawn. This study will be invaluable in informing states with differing policies exactly

how their current policies are affecting the quality of education.

An awareness campaign
Results from the study exposing differences in quality between different

universities, especially regarding research, should be highly publicized in an awareness

campaign. This alone will not be sufficient in changing a problematic mental model of

entitlement and ‘group think’ mentality, but it will elicit public reaction and government

response, much like the results of the Pisa Study in 2003.xviii The “Pisa Shock” prompted

the sixteen Bundesländer to pass measures moving their lower education systems from an

input-controlled to a more output-controlled format that is based on empirical research.xix

Such a campaign could also drive the priority of maintaining quality of education within

the university system onto the government’s agenda, so that further steps can be taken to

address the issue. I recommend that the results of this study be discussed amongst the

Bundesländer within the Standing Conference, so that a consensus can be reached on how

best to solve the problem of a lack of quality in the university system as a result of non-

competitive educational policies. The Federal Government should try to exert more

pressure on the Länder to better align their policies with its own ‘competition mantra’ to

ensure consistency.

21
Focus on effectiveness, outcomes and results: a needs assessment

If the Conference's current key task concerns mobility, its current focus on

efficiency and outputs should be balanced with a focus on effectiveness in terms of

outcomes and educational needs assessment. This would more thoroughly address the

decline of quality of education within the German university system.

Instead of an output-controlled format, I would recommend the higher education

system move towards more of an outcomes- and results-based format so that the inputs

and outputs into the system can be better justified according to needs. Student, faculty,

business and community needs assessments and analyses must be conducted in order to

see what their concerns are regarding the Bologna Process, as well as education finance.

Finding out if they are satisfied with the value and level of service they are now receiving

from the system in the context of the above reform measures is crucial information

needed to justify the implementation of or increase in tuition fees. Finding out what

services need to be added or improved is also necessary to increase the quality of

education.

Adopt positive aspects of the Anglo-American university system

For example, the Bologna Process has not yet adopted many positive aspects of

the Anglo-American university system, which could further enhance the quality of

education internally. The use of T.A.’s and other administrative assistants would free up

professors so that they can hold office hours more frequently and better attend to the

22
needs of the students. Although this seems like a small reform, it would have a sizable

impact on helping the students transition and adapt to the new demands of their changing

learning environment. Professional development training and workshops that are

frequently offered in the Anglo-American system could be provided in order to help

teachers adapt their methods of teaching to the new system. These workshops would be

well received because they fit into the German ethic of life-long learning. In order to

address the ineffectiveness of the Bafög program to help those who are actually in great

financial need, I would recommend abolishing equal financial disbursements and making

Bafög available only on a needs basis much like the U.S. FASFA (Free Application for

Federal Student Aid) system.

Transparent and accountable funding

Following the needs assessments, I recommend an initiative that requires the

publicizing of exactly where the money from tuition fees or tuition fee increases is going

to and why. Transparency and accountability are essential in order to justify paying more

money in the minds of students. A cost-benefit analysis of the present conditions at

universities would ensure the most effective use of the money by linking the money

directly to desired student needs and learning outcomes. This way, students who are

forced to pay more than they would like could actually see and benefit from

improvements to the system, and have the right expectations for what changes to their

tuition is accomplishing. This will help to avoid a backlash to sudden increases in tuition,

which we're already seeing in Germany, and which recently occurred in California where

the tuition suddenly increased by 30% without being tied to any results. As an input into

23
the system, the money should be spent on outputs such as new research facilities or

programs that are visible to students and are closely linked with the results-based format,

addressing the final desired outcomes of students' learning needs. Students who are able

to notice how the necessary extra funding positively impacts their education will be more

likely to accept the reforms.

Transitioning to a tuition-based university system

Because of the resistance we are seeing to the reforms, and to avoid a short-term

loss of students before the increase in quality of education materializes as the effects of

the tuition increases take hold, I highly recommend the Federal Government step in to

ease this transition. Although the Federal Government itself will not be able to directly

change the mental models of its citizens, it’s important for it to realize the important role

it has played and continues to play in the creation of them. The Federal Government

needs to come up with a course of action that will continue to support its citizens while

slowly stepping back and lowering their expectations to ones which are more realistic. It

needs to play a more active role in encouraging and empowering them to be more self-

reliant and responsible for themselves and to ensure a future of long-term stability and

prosperity in Germany. The government could help states achieve the standards of the

Bologna Process by assisting them in transitioning their higher education system to a

tuition-based system more smoothly by inputting enough extra funds into the public

university sector to cover the first few years, and having tuition fees subsidized over a

certain amount of time so that the student's fee increases will occur more slowly

overtime. With this approach, Germans will feel supported by the government enough to

24
accept the change, since it will not feel as drastic. This change, in fact, will come to be

seen as a necessity, in order to ensure the sustainability of Germany's education system

by addressing its impending demographic problem.

V. Conclusion

Steps towards balancing education quality at public universities with that of

private universities have been taken by way of introducing tuition fees at the public level.

Abstaining from further privatization has allowed universities to keep education

affordable and keep research from becoming too interest-based. Capping tuition fees,

however, remains a short-term policy answer to the larger long-term problem of limited

competition and quality of education at public universities. Given widespread reform

policies and goals at the federal level aimed at making Higher Education in Germany

more attractive and competitive to the global market, it is important for each

Bundesländer to painstakingly negotiate and come to a consensus on exactly how best to

reach these goals so that federal reform policies can actually be effective in leading

towards increased competition and quality.

25
 Appendix A

Since the 1999 Bologna Declaration, the aims of the process have been constantly amended at the
Conferences of Ministers to include:

• The introduction of a system of easily understandable and comparable degrees (Bachelor

und Master's), the inclusion of the doctoral phase as the third cycle of the Bologna
Process, and its recognition as early stage employment
• The definition of a framework of comparable and compatible higher education
qualifications at national and European level (qualifications framework) and the
introduction of a credit transfer system (ECTS)
• The promotion of mobility through suitable measures, e.g. the introduction and
intensification of cooperation between higher education institutions, including joint
degrees, and the removal of obstacles to mobility
• Improvements to the recognition of degrees and academic achievements by ratifying and
implementing the Lisbon Convention; the introduction of transparency instruments such
as ECTS and the Diploma Supplement.
• European cooperation in the field of quality assurance and the promotion of quality
assurance at institutional, national and European level; the implementation of the
standards and guidelines for quality assurance agreed in Bergen, inter alia by establishing
a European Quality Assurance Register EQAR to which quality assurance agencies
which work in accordance with the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the
European Higher Education Area may apply for admission
• Promotion of the European dimension in higher education
• Integrating Bologna in the concept of lifelong learning by creating flexible higher
education study courses or through processes involving the recognition of existing skills,
including those gained in a non-university environment.
• Involving students in the Bologna Process, strengthening the social dimension of higher
education through participative equity.
• Enhancing the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area in the global
context. The European Higher Education Area wants to remain attractive and open to
people from all over the world. The "Strategy for the European Higher Education Area in
a Global Setting", which was approved in London, will improve the provision of
information on the Bologna Process, strengthen cooperation based on partnership and
ensure progress in recognizing qualifications and phases of study
• Greater focus must be placed on the vocational qualifications/employability of
graduates from all three cycles. The higher education institutions must provide a broad
knowledge base as well as prepare students for the labour market. The most talented
young researchers must be equipped for an outstanding academic career.

Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/3336.php April 18th, 2010

26
Appendix B: Insights from William Toerpe’s: The Chilean Education System

William Toerpe’s paper: The Chilean Education System investigates how

efficiency, effectiveness and equity of the system can be improved by looking
at the Swedish educational voucher system. Although the paper focuses on
K-12 education instead of higher education, it has given me several insights.

• Defining efficiency, effectiveness, equity vs. equality and how each

term is applied to education is important in conveying meaning for the
reader

• Privatization as a means of inducing competition in the public sector in

the case of Chile, can lead to socio-stratification and inequality; it is
not the only way (German Excellence Initiative, Bologna Process).

• Increasing choice in education to be competitive focusing on outputs

by itself does not lead to desired meaningful outcomes=effectiveness
(in the case of Chile, parents could not afford the extra cost of
transportation to the different schools, and were uncomfortable with
the interview process with upper-class staff at other schools; this led to
more socio-stratification. More expensive private schools were
inefficient, proving ineffective at achieving value-added).

• Chilean voucher system fails in a similar way to Bafög, in that each

student gets an equal amount regardless of real financial need which
can increase socio-stratification

• Chile: education is an individual right; Germany: a human right. This

important difference leads to a customer/service orientation towards
education vs. a sense of entitlement

• Even a Swedish voucher system, where “independent” private schools

are subsidized and accept students on a first come first serve basis is
unrealistic and unsustainable for Germany given its particular
demographic problem.

• Comparing the socio-stratification in Germany that is caused by a K-

12 system (Gymnasium) based solely on academic achievement with
aspects of the Chilean system would be helpful to look at and learn
from should Germany decide to change/privatize Gymnasium.

27
 Bibliography

De Pommereau, Isabella. To halt brain drain, Germany adopts ‘competition’ mantra. The
Christian Science Monitor. 9.02.2005 http://csmonitor.com/2005/0201/p07s01-woeu.htm

European Commission. Focus on the Structure of Higher Education in Europe 2004/2005:

National Trends in the Bologna Process. Eurydice European Unit 2005

Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/892.php April 18th, 2010

Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/3336.php April 18th, 2010

Heady, ch. 5 “Administration in More Developed Nations: General Characteristics and Classic
Administrative Systems. Ch. 6, “Administration in More Developed Nations: Some Variations in
Administrative Systems”

Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology cooperation

http://www.feast.org/countries/germany/highered

Internet: Qrossroad
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.qrossroads.eu/admin/files/assets/cms/foto_12
10321424.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.qrossroads.eu/higher-education-in-europe/germany-
59&usg=__4iNR_rAlEyE-
4g_qYLfxS7SuH6c=&h=383&w=427&sz=17&hl=en&start=2&itbs=1&tbnid=FxfNdgUzLobw1
M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGerman%2BHigher%2BEducation%26hl%
3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1

Kehm,
Barbara
M.
Tuition
Fee
Reform
in
Germany
International
Higher
Education.
Number
45,

Fall
2006
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number45/p2_Kehm.htm

Klask, Fabian and Markus Verbeet. Reich wider Willen. Spiegel Online.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,688665,00.html April 12th, 2010

Kulturminister Konferenz: Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural

Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany http://www.kmk.org/information-in-
english/standing-conference-of-the…

Leutner, Detlev & Joachim Wirth What we have learned from PISA so far: A German
Educational Psychology Point of View. Duisburg-Essen University KEDI Journal of Educational
Policy Vol.2 No.2 2005 39-56

Lykins, Chad R., Stephen P. Heyneman. The Federal Role in Education: Lessons from Australia,
Germany and Canada. Vanderbilt University. November, 2008.

Mole, J. (2003). Mind Your Manners - Managing business culture in the new global Europe.
Nicholas Brealey Publishing

28
Min Kyung-kuk, Professor of economics at Kangwon University. CFE Viewpoint: College
Tuition Ceiling: a product of immature thinking.
http://eng.cfe.org/mboard/bbsDetail.asp?cod=mn2007713123749&idx=1910 2/28/2010

Nees, Greg. (2000). Germany: Unraveling an Enigma. Intercultural Press, Inc.

Seibel, Wolfgang. Administrative Science as Reform: German Public Administration. Public

Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 1. (Jan.-Feb.,1996) pp.74-81 American Society for Public
Administration

The Economist: A special report on Germany: Older and wiser

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15641069 Mar 11th 2010 |
From The Economist print edition

Webler, Wolff-Dietrich. German Policy Perspectives on Enhancing the Quality of Student Learning by
University Teaching. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 133, Spring 2006. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

29
 Endnotes
i
The Economist: A special report on Germany: Older and wiser
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15641069 Mar 11th 2010 | From The
Economist print edition

ii
De Pommereau, Isabella. To halt brain drain, Germany adopts ‘competition’ mantra. The Christian
Science Monitor. Pg 1. 9.02.2005 http://csmonitor.com/2005/0201/p07s01-woeu.htm

iii
Germany’s education system offers different educational opportunities for students based on individual
ability. Children start at the Grundschule and remain grouped together until the 4th grade (around 10 years
old), when they are separated according to their test scores into different school forms. The lowest-
achieving students must attend the Hauptschule to prepare for vocational school and apprenticeship training
until the age of 18. Other students either go to the Realschule leading to higher vocational schools or
continue study at a Gymnasium where they prepare for study at a university or dual academic and
vocational credential. The Educational System in Germany: Case Study Findings, June 1998. Chapter 1
“An overview of the German System of Education
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/GermanCaseStudy/chapter1a.html

iv
The Economist: A special report on Germany: Older and wiser
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15641069 Mar 11th 2010 | From The
Economist print edition
v
Im Artikel 13 des Internationaler Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte heißt es:
Die Vertragsstaaten erkennen das Recht eines jeden auf Bildung an. Sie stimmen überein, dass die
Bildung auf die volle Entfaltung der menschlichen Persönlichkeit und des Bewusstseins ihrer Würde
gerichtet sein und die Achtung vor den Menschenrechten und Grundfreiheiten stärken muss. Sie stimmen
ferner überein, dass die Bildung es jedermann ermöglichen muss, eine nützliche Rolle in einer freien
Gesellschaft zu spielen, dass sie Verständnis, Toleranz und Freundschaft unter allen Völkern und allen
rassischen, ethnischen und religiösen Gruppen fördern sowie die Tätigkeit der Vereinten Nationen zur
Erhaltung des Friedens unterstützen muss.

Die Vertragsstaaten erkennen an, dass im Hinblick auf die volle Verwirklichung dieses Rechts (…)
vi
Kulturminister Konferenz: Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the
Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany http://www.kmk.org/information-in-english/standing-
conference-of-the…

vii
Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology cooperation
http://www.feast.org/countries/germany/highered
viii
Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/3336.php April 18th, 2010
ix
The reform process is supported by a Federal Government-Länder Group on the "Continuation of the
Bologna Process", which also includes representatives of the University Rectors' Conference (HRK), the
German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), students, the two sides of industry, the German Student
Services Association (DSW) and the Accreditation Council.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/3336.php April 18th, 2010
x
Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/3336.php April 18th, 2010
xi
Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgericht: BVerfG, 2 BvF 1/03 vom 26. Januar 2005, Absatz-Nr. (1 - 94)
xii
http://www.studis-online.de/StudInfo/Gebuehren/tuition_fees.php retrieved on 2008-07-02
xiii
With a budget of €1.9 billion, the Excellence Initiative supports three universities, 18 schools of
universities (Graduiertenschulen) and 17 special clusters (Exzellenzcluster). The winners of the award
automatically gain the title of one of Germany’s “elite” universities.
Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology cooperation: Higher Education Institutions,
4/19/2010 pg 1 http://www.feast.org/countries/germany/highered

30
xiv
The 22. BAföG Amendment allows further improvements: BAföG rates are raised, the monthly limits on
additional earnings are extended to 400 Euros. Students with children are supported with a special bonus.
The first parts of the amendment became effective at the beginning of 2008. BAföG support is therefore an
important element in encouraging more young people to take up studies and undergo qualified training.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/892.php April 18th, 2010
xv
Germany’s education system offers different educational opportunities for students based on individual
ability. Children start at the Grundschule and remain grouped together until the 4th grade (around 10 years
old), when they are separated according to their test scores into different school forms. The lowest-
achieving students must attend the Hauptschule to prepare for vocational school and apprenticeship training
until the age of 18. Other students either go to the Realschule leading to higher vocational schools or
continue study at a Gymnasium where they prepare for study at a university or dual academic and
vocational credential. The Educational System in Germany: Case Study Findings, June 1998. Chapter 1
“An overview of the German System of Education
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/GermanCaseStudy/chapter1a.html
xvi
Min Kyung-kuk, Professor of economics at Kangwon University. CFE Viewpoint: College Tuition
Ceiling: a product of immature thinking.
http://eng.cfe.org/mboard/bbsDetail.asp?cod=mn2007713123749&idx=1910 2/28/2010
xvii
Klask, Fabian and Markus Verbeet. Reich wider Willen. Spiegel Online.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,688665,00.html April 12th, 2010
xviii
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of international assessments that
focus on 15-year-olds' capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy. PISA also
includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies such as learning strategies. PISA
emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of mandatory schooling
(National Center for Education Statistics). The study was carried out in 2003. According to the study,
Germany performed quit poorly with competencies in reading, mathematics, and science ranging below
the OECD average.
xix
Leutner, Detlev & Joachim Wirth. What we have learned from PISA so far: A German Educational
Psychology Point of View. Pg 1. Duisburg-Essen University KEDI Journal of Educational Policy Vol.2
No.2 2005 39-56

31