After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict. 

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well? 

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system. 

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators. 

Education: Danish Universities Need to Learn from the International Competition

After the American Century

The Danish Ministry of Research, which funds university education, is determined to "reform." To do so, it has appointed a committee to make proposals about how to improve the universities. Unfortunately, while each member of this committee is probably a reasonable choice, the group as a whole lacks breadth and international perspective. The committee does not have a single humanist and even more remarkably, not a single scientist. One member of the committee comes from the University of Bergen, but given that Norwegian universities resemble those in Denmark, this does not make the committee very international.

According the the London Times' ranking, neither Norway nor Denmark has even one university in the world's top 116. The top Danish university is the engineering school, ranked 117, and the top Norwegian institution is Oslo, ranked 185. All such surveys in recent years have concluded that the best universities in the world are in the United States, Britain, and Australia, and there is a sharp difference between those in the top twenty or so and the next twenty. Universities ranked lower than 100 are all far behind the world's elite.

One might think the Danish government would put at least one person from the world's elite institutions on the committee. There are Danes abroad who work at these top institutions. There are also expatriates living in Denmark who received their education at such schools. But none of this expertise will be on the committee. Of course, members of the committee have visited some of these elite schools, but a visit, even one lasting a semester, will not provide the same kind of insight as studying for a degree in such a place, much less being a permanent part of the faculty.

The committee is narrow in yet another way: most of them are closely associated with Copenhagen University (currently ranked 150) and they live in the same part of Denmark. (There are some who view Copenhagen as a fossilized institution because it hires much of its faculty from its own graduates.) Three of the five Danish universities are not represented at all.

No one on this committee has the daily experience of being at one of the world's best universities, and as a group they are not likely to think outside the narrow, claustrophobic and insular box administered in Copenhagen. They will likely write a report to the liking of the Minister, who has strong views, but himself does not have enough education to be hired for an entry level position by any university. That said, he is streets ahead of the political clowns who preceded him.

If a major corporation wanted to research a problem, it would not create such a homogeneous group, with no scientists, no humanities, almost no one from outside Copenhagen, and no one from the world's best institutions.

Denmark invests  a good deal in education. However, it has a problem balancing quantity and quality. It wishes to educate a high proportion of people at university, and none of them charge tuition. This makes it quite expensive. At the same time, in these egalitarian societies there is a resistance to either establishing hierarchies or to rejecting candidates. The desire for democratization of higher education tends to water down quality, because no one likes to set up barriers to entry.

Denmark has five universities and one technical university. All are public institutions, all faculty work to the same wage scale, and students receive the same amount in scholarship funding. This egalitarian approach has much in its favor, of course, but it does not necessarily push either faculty or students to do their best. The state rewards universities for quantity production of candidates, that is to say, departments receive money each time a student passes an exam or completes a degree. Whether the student has a high or low grade point average makes no difference.

In almost all educational systems, the most talented students usually do well, and the occasional genius is not really produced by the system. Getting the other 90% of the students to learn is the challenge. And here, egalitarianism and the monetary incentives to admit and pass as many as possible have encouraged Danish institutions to lower standards.

For example, in Denmark receiving a BA, no matter how poor the grades, entitles a student to go on to an MA, regardless of talent, motivation, or achievement. Automatic admission to graduate studies is hardly the norm at the world's best universities. Admitting all BAs to study for the MA is a wasteful and pointlessly egalitarian approach to education. If students knew that they had to do well at the BA level in order to go on to the MA, both undergraduate and the graduate education would be improved. And this would not cost the state more money, but less.

At the level of individual courses the Danish system is also lax. There is no requirement that students attend classes, and they do not even need to be inside the country during term. I have had students go abroad for weeks in the middle of term or miss the first week to go skiing. Since class participation cannot be counted at all in determining grades, students need not give oral presentations, nor can teachers give mid-term exams that count toward the final grade. In most courses, grades are determined entirely by a paper or exam at the end of term.  Contrast this with any of the top universities in the United States, where class participation counts and teachers have considerable freedom in developing and using various means of assessment. In Denmark, if a student seldom comes and never says anything, it has no consequences.  Passivity is therefore widespread.

Furthermore, Danish students have the right to re-examination at no cost if they fail a course, and they  can take any exam three times, even if they did nothing but turn in a blank sheet of paper on the first and second attempts.  If they fail three times, they can petition for the right to retake the exam (or turn in the paper) a fourth time. Contrast this with top universities around the world, which often do not have re-examination at all but tell students to retake the course and pay the fees again, or in some cases charge a fee for a second (and usually final) attempt to pass a course.

When Danish students take a term abroad in Britain or the United States, they all come back saying that they had to work much harder there. Few fail their courses, because they know that they cannot take those exams over again.

Danish universities also have problems in the way faculty are recruited, retrained, and rewarded,  and they could learn much from the international competition. There are foreigners like myself who have been in Denmark for years, who understand alternative systems, and who could make constructive suggestions for improvements. However, my experience is that no one listens to such suggestions. Danes seem congenitally unable to hear comments from outsiders.

In short, if the Danes really want to improve their universities, they do not need to spend vast additional sums of money. But they do need to learn from the best practices at the best universities. They need to demand from students attendance, participation, and real attempts to complete courses. They need to set better norms for behavior and set higher standards for admission to the MA. They need to open the PhD to more students and learn how to make use of PhDs in the broader labor market.

These are just some of the things that Danish universities could change to raise their international ranking. It is unfortunate that their system is so centralized and so controlled by bureaucrats, especially since most of the staff of the Ministry itself do not have a PhD much less any teaching experience or academic publications. It seems unlikely that any worthwhile ideas will emerge from the Ministry.  One can only hope that somehow its homogeneous committee will develop an international perspective. 

Education: World University Rankings, 2013: US at the top

After the American Century                                                                                                                                                         

 

The 2013 world university rankings from The Times resemble the list for years past, with some slight movement  up and down. The same universities are in the top ten as two years ago, though in a slightly different order. and there are no major changes in the top twenty, except that Duke has moved up from 22 to 17, while University College, London, has fallen from 17 to 21. The top 20 are, with the single exception of the technical university in Zurich, exclusively in Britain and North America. According to The Times, twenty-two of the top thirty universities and thirty of the top fifty, are in the United States. Britain is also strongly represented in the top fifty, with the rest of Europe dominant in the rankings between fifty and one hundred.

The highest ranking universities in Asia are Tokyo (23) and Singapore (26). The highest ranked in the EU outside Britain are the Karolinska Institute in Sweden (36) and the University of Munich (55).  The only African University ranked in the top 200 is the University of Cape Town (126). No university in all of Latin America is in the top 200, and only three are in the top 400.

University                   score              ranking, 2011-12

1. Cal Tech               94.9                1
2. Harvard                93.9                2
3. Oxford                  93.9                4
4. Stanford                93.8                3
5. MIT                      93.0                7
6. Princeton              92.7                5
7. Cambridge            92.3                6
8. Berkeley               89.9               10
9. Chicago                87.8                 9
10. Imperial College  87.5                 8
11. Yale                      87.4                11
12. UCLA                  86.3                13
13. Columbia              85.2               12
14. ETH Zurich          84.5               15
15. Johns Hopkins      83.7               14
16. Pennsylvania        81.0               16
17. Duke                     79.3               22
18. Michigan              79.2               18
19. Cornell                  79.1               20
20. Toronto                 78.3               19

The point spread between the top ten universities is only 7.4. Evidently, these ten are all on a very high plane. The fall in the next ten is larger, 9.1, and for the following ten it is 7.2.  After that, however, the differences between universities are smaller, and if graphed would show a flattening line. Between ranking 30 and 50 the fall is only 6.6, and from 50 to 100 it is but a little more than 10. 

Aside from looking at location, one can say that there are about 20 universities in a class by themselves, and about 30 more are quite strong and conceivably could move up, followed by 50 strong universities. After the first hundred it levels off. The scores of universities ranked between 100 and 200 drop less than the difference between numbers 1 and 10. 

The Times also ranks universities from 200 to 400, but does not issue scores, presumably because they are clustered so tightly together. Instead, groups of 25 are listed together.  To see the complete list and other information, click here.

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.

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.