Philosophy at the university: the bureaucratic fiction
I was studying philosophy and physics, when the new German system of higher education was first rolled out; when we moved away from diplomas, towards the international standard of Bachelor and Master. In fact, the transition fell right in the middle of my studies.
In typical German fashion, it was what one of my professors in philosophy called a “bureaucratic fiction”. Suddenly, instead of having to have proven successful participation in five higher-level seminars, in order to be allowed to enter the final exams, a credit system was established, that put an school-like system in place, put overwhelming weight on presence time. We moved away from self-study, self-responsible education in the second half of studying the subject of philosophy, and introduced a school-like organization of higher education, where presence was required and controlled, where an essay gave you x, and a thesis y credits: which lead to an overnight, drastic and dramatic change: instead of participation on five higher-level seminars, you now needed twelve: a multiplication by a factor of 2.4. That meant, a student had no longer time to do philosophy on his/her own, let his/her thoughts mature, sophisticate, grow. Moreover, nothing was suddenly free to choose or free to do anymore. You had to have certain subjects covered, couldn’t focus on what you wanted anymore. It was the downright opposite of the self-determined, self-reliant system of choice, that had individuality and personal responsibility at its core, which had persisted before. I am not saying this system was perfect: but it was something that – like everything else in life – has grown and developed throughout its history. Self-reliance, and hence the ability to think critically, choose, study and live for yourself – were one of the major strengths and historic hallmarks of Germany’s model of higher education. And historically, this system has been proven to be successful: in physics, for example, the most profound changes, the revolutions of the past century – quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity – all took place, were developed and invented in Germany. Why exactly do we feel the need to adapt to some international standard, that is neither compatible with the traditions that have evolved over centuries, nor has been proven to be particularly successful when it comes to academic achievements? Did we succumb to some sort of international peer pressure at the highest level possible? Overall, the model now in place seems, at least to me, to put too much weight on pressing as much factual knowledge as possible down student’s throats, instead of of cultivating self-motivated and -reliant thought.
Physics at the university: weeding out the non-able
In physics, I found a high discrepancy, felt a strong hierarchy present: professors seemed to me like universal rulers, like kings with treasures of knowledge, who were unable or unwilling to give away any of their treasured possessions. They seemed to care little about pedagogical or didactic concepts; hardly any emphasis at all was placed on these issues, which, in a complex and difficult subject like physics, would not only have been helpful, but would have been absolutely essential. But the professor-kings merely presented topics like quantum theory however they pleased, paying little attention to whether the way, mode, speed or contents of the presentation was didactically suitable or not. In fact, the system was designed to do the opposite: the whole experience of studying physics was a painful process, designed to be painful, to weed out those who did not quite have the stamina, will, or intellectual ability to follow. Only those who had one or more of these things remained at the end; from my class, only about 15 percent of the original attendants actually graduated. So many were lost along the way by homework, that was not designed to let students process or extend what had been presented in the lecture, let alone repeat or enforce knowledge – but totally new and often unrelated physical phenomena to the ones presented in class were found in the homework sheets, where students had to spend endless hours in the library to get the hang of it – if they ever could.
It is no wonder that Germany has a lack of the so-called MINT-students (an acronym for maths, information technologies , i.e. computer science, natural sciences (i.e. physics, biology, chemistry) and technology, which largely means engineering). We do not have a system in place that enables a higher percentage of students to graduate – the downright opposite is the case. We confront and overwhelm students, just in order to see if the student has the ability to bleed – metaphorically speaking – for an academic title in these disciplines.
“Excellence initiatives”
The various “excellence initiatives” that sprung up in nearly all universities, and many academic disciplines, are again, mere bureaucratic inventions, that do nothing but apply the old phrase: “sh** always rolls downwards” – meaning that next to nothing was done on the administrative or didactic or any other side of things – just that those, who wished to participate in such an excellence program, found themselves confronted with nearly twice the workload. Excellence initiatives may look nice pamphlets and billboards, which are strategically placed all across the university. But no real effort from the universities side – in any substantial way – was undertaken, other than creating the advertisements and rules of engagement for these initiatives. A teacher I befriended formulated the calamity this way: “one can create the expected heights of excellence by simply weaning away the soil surrounding the hills.” In physics, virtually all these initiatives accomplished, was to enforce and even exacerbate the policy of separating wheat from weeds: I personally know of highly talented individuals that enthusiastically enrolled in the excellence initiatives – only to later, disillusioned and hopelessly overworked, give up.
Education: Germany vs. USA
I was lucky enough to study physics in the US, and was astonished by the difference in academia – Germany vs USA. Professors were actual, palpable people you could talk to and ask for help. Classes were designed deliberately with didactics in mind, so the complex issues were easy to follow. Homework consisted of natural extensions of classes, and was doable without having to spend endless hours in the library first, researching a subject. It was an eye-opening experience, both on the subject of physics, as well as the difference in academia in general. Professors were eager to share their knowledge the best way they could, and I must say I learned more in a year abroad in the US than I did in four years in Germany.
In philosophy, the effect was not as obvious, but one aspect was relatively clear: original thought was not only welcome, but actively encouraged. Journals were to be kept of inspirational moments, and student’s ideas were extensively discussed in class. In Germany, I always felt I was only supposed to learn what others had to say, but never encouraged me to actually doing philosophy, i.e. trying to create my own notions, concepts and theories.
Germany: the remnants of a class based system
I feel like an Preussian, hierarchical, almost feudalistic system still lingers on in Germany, where everyone who ever achieved anything, wants to sit on his or her treasure and carefully guard it – never to give away anything of it unless necessity absolutely dictated it. It is the remnants of an old class-based system, that can be seen in many other aspects of life in Germany outside of academia. For example, while I hold a couple of university degrees, including a PhD, I can’t just walk into a supermarket and ask for a job, for example, as a cashier: I would be turned down, citing I don’t have the right qualification for it. There is a special certificate available just for that particular job in a supermarket. And while I am clearly overqualified, I would not be able to get a job because my personal certificates don’t match. I don’t seem to belong to that particular class. And while some might say I should be happy I do not, the fact that one needs the right certificates for a multitude of jobs, worries me: it hinders what is called “social mobility”, i.e. a person’s ability to get ahead in life, to improve oneself’s abilities and knowledge: to me, it seems, your life is locked down to the education and certificates you can present: much too early, and much too rigidly, the fates of people are determined. And, also to my worry, most people seem to be – at least somewhat – fine with it: they find a certain niche, and they stick with it. But what if you change as person, what if you desire to explore new horizons, what if you want to change careers? Yes, it is possible, but compared to the US, it is much more difficult to find a foothold in a profession you were not specifically educated for, do not possess the right certificates for, or do not have the appropriate experience. In the US, a much higher weight is placed onto things like motivation and actual performance in a job – which is, I believe, closer to the way things should be.
Bureaucracy: the high commandment of staying in your lane.
The highly regulated, bureaucratic Germany doesn’t allow (enough) for breathing room, doesn’t allow (enough) for new ideas to grow, doesn’t allow (enough) for change to happen, does not allow (enough) for synergies and crossroads – everything, from academia to a walk in the park is regulated. From personal experience, I can tell you how hard it is to get investors or venture capital for starting a business (never mind the very costly process of even registering one). No wonder Germany can’t compete in terms of innovation, when every original and self-reliant move is suffocated by a system that requires everyone and everything to stay neatly in their lane, never allowing for crossroads or synergies to occur. It is the remnants of an old class-based system that can be traced back to the medieval ages, and has only been abolished not so long ago – a bureaucratic organism still seems to be the systematic component regulating life and fate in Germany, requiring that everyone knows his or her place. Germany is – by official ranking – the hardest country in the world to advance “socially” – that is, financially, to move up the ladder, to move up a class – in a supposed non-class-based system. With the old and dusty spirits still lingering in the air that I have described here, it is no wonder that people like me will always look with longing and even envy to the US, where innovation and moving up the ladder is baked into the system itself – and where opportunity to do so is – at least in culture and hence theory – embedded in society. Of course, I am aware that the corporate ladder does not extend to the minorities and the poor. But that is a US-specific problem, and one I am not going into here. I am talking about a difference in cultures: quite so often, people forget history, and that all regulation and laws are a reflection of the cultural and social values of a country. In Germany, many things are better than in the US: healthcare, free education, and many more. But when it comes to a term like “social mobility”, a term I dislike for its euphemistic and semi-scientific ring, or even the natural change just about any person experiences in his or her life, Germany is one of the worse places among the western, civilized, “first” world: for any person, lateral and vertical movement, evolution, enhancement, and change in general, are rather being put the lid on than encouraged.