Education Provides the Infrastructure of Tomorrow

After the American Century              

For decades, the United States had a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and while these are no longer joined administratively, politicians all too often seem to think that these three things belong together. They do not. 

Education is part of the fundamental infrastructure a nation needs for the economy to work. Nineteenth-century manufacturers understood this, and supported compulsory education beyond primary school. They did so because numeracy and literary are essential for an industrial economy. And when the US Congress created the Homestead Act of 1862, which sold land very cheaply to settlers willing to take a chance and go West, they also passed a law that gave some of the proceeds from selling that land for the purpose of creating universities. Today, some of these land-grant institutions are among the best in the world. These nineteenth century politicians understood that to develop the economy, the citizens had to be educated. 

In both the United States and Denmark recent studies have underlined the centrality of education and research to a strong economy. A US report warns that in the last decade the nation has not kept pace with others in science and technology education. A Danish study shows that people with higher educations rapidly pay so much in taxes that within just two years society has gotten back its investment in them - this in a society where there is no tuition and the state therefore knows with some precision just how much it costs to educate each student. Even humanities students, whom politicians often disparage as pursuing useless knowledge, turn out to repay the cost of their education after working for just two years, almost as quickly as the scientists and doctors, who, of course, cost more to train. 

Education is the heart of tomorrow's infrastructure. It has the power to transform people's lives, to assist people who otherwise might be helpless to make vital contributions. A blind person with a good education can work and contribute to society in many ways. I went to college with a blind man who now is a judge in the United States. Without an education, he would likely have been a lifelong recipient of welfare.

Welfare rescues people in need. Welfare may help a child to greater success later in life or help a struggling parent who later becomes self-sufficient again. But welfare is not, on the whole, an activity that can or should be justified because it is profitable. Education is another matter. A good educational system will make society more entrepreneurial, richer, more agile, more adaptable, or in short, more able to meet the challenges of the future. 

Unhappily, politicians keep forgetting this fact. The response to the world economic crisis of 2008-2009 in all too many places was to cut back on education. In 2010 California imposed severe cutbacks on its schools and universities, which already had had their spending slashed in earlier years. A state which was once a model for others, with a powerful educational sector driving economic growth, seems to have lost its way. In many schools 30% of the staff have been fired, libraries closed, and class sizes increased by 25 percent or more. At universities, required courses are not always available, and some students will not graduate on time because they literally cannot get into a course they need. And those who do get registered may not get a seat, as the classrooms often are not large enough to hold the expanded sections. 

The failure to fund education adequately is hurting the Californian economy both short- and long-term. When people do not graduate on time, they to not repay the cost of their education as quickly. And when fewer people get an education at all and more people get a compromised education, the economy will be hurt for the entire lifetime of that generation. For a state, this is not just stupid, but self-destructive. In Denmark, national and local authorities have slashed budgets, closed schools, and created a high unemployment rate among newly trained teachers. The actual number of teachers has declined by 8% in primary school, which is a sign of very real political stupidity. At universities, there is almost no hiring, and those retired are often not replaced. A generation is being thrown away, or rather being driven away.

For people with skills are mobile. A survey found that half of all Danish workers find the idea of taking their skills elsewhere in Europe attractive. In the United States, people have always been quick to pull up stakes and try their luck in another part of the country. In 2008 135,000 more people left California than moved in, a trend that is accelerating. Often those who leave are among the most talented, such as a student who gets a scholarship, or the newly graduated student. The young often vote with their feet. The old fashioned kind of infrastructure like roads and bridges stays put. But a world-class scientist can be lured away, and an unemployed PhD will not usually linger where no one wants her, and a newly trained teacher or nurse who cannot get a job may go abroad. Thousands od the best trained Greeks and Spaniards are leaving for work elsewhere, and quite possibly they will never come back.

If education is infrastructure, it is mobile infrastructure. A society that cuts education will lose not only the skills of (and the higher taxes that would have been paid by) those it never trained - it will also lose some of the best new people it has most recently trained. Imagine that one country invests millions in a new highly mobile bridge, but then decides not to use it. Instead, another country imports this mobile bridge without paying anything for it, puts it into use and immediately begins to profit from the tolls (income taxes), and from the improved efficiency in transport that the bridge provides. Education is that kind of infrastructure. Denmark and California (and many others) have built and abandoned the infrastructure of tomorrow.

Denmark: Kickstarting the Economy?

After the American Century

A few words on the depressing state of Danish politics. For weeks there seem to be two stories. The first is that the ruling coalition is unable to define and put through its pet project, one of no interest to the majority of the country outside Copenhagen, namely to charge drivers tolls when they drive in and out of the city. This should not be a national issue. It should not be a headline every day, as it has been. It should not clog the radio waves. But the government did not have a clear plan when it began,  the coalition is not united, and the government is so myopic, it takes an enormous interest in all things to do with Copenhagen. Even worse, it now appears that after months of wrangling, nothing will be done except to find a new tax somewhere, no doubt paid by all Danes not just those in Copenhagen, so the city's bus fares can be reduced instead. Pathetic politics. Disturbing lack of perspective.

The second political topic is more general, namely that so many Danes are unemployed or otherwise living on some form of state subsidy. Before the election, the now governing coalition proclaimed that they would "kickstart" the economy by spending more money on all sorts of wonderful projects. Most of them would be projects that needed to be done anyway in the next decade, but they would be moved forward. Kickstart! We heard that word every day during the campaign. Once they got elected, however, the new government discovered that they could not spend more money without creating a larger deficit than was acceptable to the EU. This was awkward with Greece tottering on the edge of bankruptcy, especially as Denmark took over as temporary leader of the EU from January to June of 2012. So instead, the government has been busy kicking various groups in the face. They have not kicked them literally, of course, but one group after another is being blamed for draining the public coffers. The government has attacked the old for retiring too soon, the young who are not getting an education, the unemployed (even though more than 150,000 jobs have disappeared), the hospitals for being inefficient, and so on. 

The real meaning of "kickstart"

The new target is the universities. It is suddenly their fault that the young are not working. They are accused, rather vaguely, of not training people in the right fields. The rather absurd argument is that new graduates - who began their university education in 2006 during a world-wide boom and cannot find jobs today during a European bust - would have gotten jobs if the universities had done something (what exactly is not clear) differently. In 2006 the former government pressed universities to take in as many people as possible. The headlines then insisted that there would soon be an acute shortage of labor as the baby boomers began to retire. One "expert" after another proclaimed that there would be a dire need for highly trained people. Denmark would not have enough school teachers, gymnasium teachers, university lecturers, and researchers. It would need to import thousands of people from abroad to staff its hospitals and to keep its industries competitive, And so on.

The students who began in 2006 are emerging with their MA degrees into a much different economic situation than the one predicted. The government is forcing older people to work longer before they retire. It is firing hundreds of school teachers. It is firing lawyers and economists from the ministries. It is generally cutting budgets, like most other European countries. And in this situation the new graduates are not finding work. But it is more than absurd, it is hypocritical and beneath contempt for the government to blame the universities for unemployment. They have trained people as they were asked to do. It takes 5 or 6 years to do the job. During those years the world was convulsed by an economic contraction. Jobs disappeared, but the Danish universities were not responsible for that.

More generally, the government got itself elected by sounding as though they would adopt a Keynesian economic policy. It claimed it would kickstart the economy through deficit spending, as Roosevelt did in the United States during the New Deal or Kennedy did in the early 1960s. But once in power the new government proved to have quite a different economic policy. They are in fact going to run the Danish economy more according to the Chicago School, or the Milton Friedman brand of economics. I wish they would listen to Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist whose articles in the New York Times continually have criticized the EU for adopting cutbacks as a "cure" for weak economies. This policy resembles the ancient practice of bleeding patients who are ill.

Deficit spending therefore is not on the Danish agenda. Instead of a kickstart, apparently it is time to cut the budget and kick the victims. So, blame the unemployed, blame the young, blame the pensioners, blame the universities, and believe it or not, to some extent even blame the handicapped and the mentally ill. 

This is a socialist government in name only.

Denmark Expells Educated, Danish-Speaking Immigrant, 28 Years Old

After the American Century

Denmark had an election recently, and one of the issues was the poor treatment of immigrants. But nothing seems to have changed.  They are still treated badly, regardless of their education, ability to speak Danish, or integration into society. And the authorities continue to take many months longer to decide cases than they are supposed to, according to their own rules.

The latest case concerns the son of the former Albanian ambassador to Denmark. He came when 18 years old, studied in gymnasium, learned Danish, graduated, was admitted to Copenhagen University, and has all but completed his MA in Economics. He has been in Denmark for ten years. As these facts would suggest, his Danish is reportedly excellent, He has also been working part time, gaining experience he will need after completing his MA thesis, to be turned in shortly.  For those readers who can follow this story in Danish, see the story in Politiken.

This young man would seem to be a model of integration based on hard work and education. He has received his university training free from the Danish state. Now, just as he is ready to work and contribute to society, he has been told to leave the country. The government authorities took 10 months to handle his case, instead of the three months that they are supposed to abide by. This case is obviously is enormously complex! Should a talented, multilingual immigrant who speaks Danish be allowed to stay or should the investment made in his education be thrown away, by expelling him?

Such cases are warning to all who think of coming to work or study in Denmark. The new government has not yet been any better than the xenophobic government it replaced. Even those who learn the language and obviously have skills can be expelled based on complex rules that the bureaucracy seems unable to interpret in a timely fashion. And so, a young man has been told to leave with less than 30 days notice. Instead of writing the last pages of his MA thesis, due in 22 days, he has been sent packing. By tomorrow, the shortest day of the year, he must be out of the country. 

I suppose the only "good" thing one can say is that the poor treatment of immigrants is absolutely even-handed, with the same slow decision-making and expulsions for all, regardless of class or social standing. In this case, being the son of an ambassador and working part-time at the Albanian Embassy was no help to him.

The new government continues to disgrace itself. The rhetoric is that the country wants to attract highly qualified immigrants. The reality is that the slow-moving bureaucracy remains as xenophobic as ever. What is Denmark doing to itself?

Knowing of such cases, what am I to say to the foreign students currently enrolled in the MA program I helped to establish in 2002?  What about the prospects for foreign students who may enroll in the new BA program that begins in the fall of 2012? What am I to say to those who write asking for information, with plans to apply for next year?  Will they be given a chance to stay, when they complete their degrees, or will they be summarily expelled?

New Danish Government Breaks its Word and Slashes University Teaching Budgets

After the American Century                          

Many hoped that the new socialist-led government would offer a dramatic improvement over the previous right-wing coalition. But in many areas where they promised change, they have continued the old policies. Some of the promises they have broken were made with extreme clarity, and then forgotten immediately after they came to power.

One of the most notorious examples was the promise, given in writing as an unshakeable commitment, that the hospital emergency room in Svenborg would not be closed. It serves several islands and the southern part of the larger island where I live, This signed promise was broken as soon as they took office. Now they declare it will be closed. I firmly believe that some people will die because it will take them over an hour from the time an ambulance arrives until they can get to the only emergency room left on these islands, in Odense, where I live. This is a blow to a beleaguered area that already has trouble attracting residents. Before the election, the Socialists claimed they would help such outlying areas, and not continue the policy of centralization that is undermining them.

Likewise, the new Socialist-led government promised to roll back a large cut to the university budgets proposed by the old government before the election. In Denmark a certain amount is paid to each university for every student it matriculates. The old government proposed to cut this amount by 3000 kroner per student, and the new government now agrees. In 2012 Danish universities will find their teaching budgets reduced by c. 600 million kroner, or more than 100 million dollars. (Those who read Danish, see the news stories here, and here) To put this another way, support in most of the humanities will fall by 6.5% per student, but given rising costs the effect will feel like a 10% reduction. This decision will force universities to cut the number of teaching hours, put students into larger classes, fire some faculty, and slow down the purchase of essential equipment. UPDATE, October 2012. These things are all happening. There are now "language" classes, focused on improving oral proficiency, with more than 30 students, in some cases more than 40. This means that during an entire semester a student in such a class will only speak English for about 20 minutes each, at most about two minutes per week. It means that new BA programs are implemented without hiring any additional faculty or providing any additional money in the budget, while announcing goals that cannot possibly be met given the faculty and resources.

These cuts are twice as large as the increases announced for research, amounting to c. 300 million kroner for 2012. These funds are not all funneled to the universities, however. For example, some research money will go to hospitals or other institutions. In any case, the research funds that do go to universities cannot be used for teaching. The plans for 2013 call for even larger reductions for teaching, which will create a severe crisis.

Before the election the Socialists said (or rather they pretended to believe) that increased funding for education was essential, because the only real asset Denmark has is its people. A highly educated and skilled population will be needed to compete in the global market. But this new government, like the old one, now is unwilling to pay for it.  SDU's Rektor Dr. Jens Oddershed, speaking for the rektors of all the universities, declared that the government had broken its word. He was being diplomatic. A more objective view would be that the Socialists are cynical prevaricators.

Readers inside Denmark know that these are just two of many examples of the socialist-led government's unapologetic refusal to honor campaign promises. Like the previous government, the Socialists lack integrity. They proclaim one thing, but do quite another. In a few areas they are better, but in general it seems that, as George Orwell put it in the conclusion to Animal Farm, "The pigs have become men."

Where might the money come from to support hospitals and education? This government has refused to roll back tax cuts given to the wealthy by the previous right-wing government. Anyone can now see that the cuts were based on miscalculations and that they were un-financed.

Why should universities and hospitals be cut instead of rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy? This is not even remotely a socialist program. It is not even an intelligent capitalist program. The new government has been a severe disappointment.

World University Rankings, 2011- 2012: USA still dominates, Europe and Asia lag

After the American Century

The London Times has released its annual assessment of the world's universities, and the United States still dominates the list, both in terms of quality and quantity. The following graph summarizes the results for the first 100 on the list:

 

Not only are 52 of the top-ranked universities in the US, but eleven of the top 15 and 21 of the top 30. Europe has only one university in the top 30, the technical university in Zurich. Likewise, Asia has only one in the top two groups, and only ten in the top 100.The UK and its former colonies Australia and Canada, taken together, do very well, as they have 19 of the top 100 universities, double that of all Asia. Moreover, the Commonwealth grouping, to give it a name, are strongly represented in the top 30.

One can quibble about various aspects of these rankings, but having lectured widely and visited many universities as part of my research, I am not surprised by these results. Whatever the precise order, California Institute of Technology (1), Harvard (2), Stanford (3), Oxford (4), Princeton (5), Cambridge (6), MIT (7), Imperial College, London (8), Chicago (9), and Berkeley (10)  deserve to be in the top ten. Pity poor Yale (11) which fell one notch since last year. It will have to watch out that Columbia (12) does not get ahead next year. Columbia is a rising star, having moved up six places in a single year.

Likewise, it is my impression that Michigan Ann Arbor (18) deserves to be ranked higher than New York University (44), and that Cornell (20) clearly is better than the University of San Diego (33) or Santa Barbara (35). In other words, one might argue for slight movements up and down the table, but the approximate placement seems correct.

My admittedly subjective and partial impressions of European universities also correspond with these results. Of the German universities I know, Munich (45) does seem the best. And I would agree that no Italian university that I know deserves to be in the top 200.

This leads me to suspect that the Times is also right to rank three Swedish universities in the top 100, but not a single Danish university higher than 125 (Aarhus), with Copenhagen (135) placed better than I would have thought possible after the research scandals that have shaken it during the last academic year, and which have never been entirely resolved.

The government's refusal to fund Danish universities adequately over the last  decades has harmed their international reputation, compared to the Karolinska Institute (32), Lund (80), Uppsala (87) or Helsinki (91).  The Danes remain snared in the mediocrity of the Jantelaw, which roughly can be translated into belittling talent, top-down control, and second-class resources provided equally to all. But my subjectivity is no doubt getting the better of me.