Hans Pechar Can a research university do without admission?

Reflections on Austrias exceptionalism in higher education policy Paper presented at the Fourth International Workshop on Higher Education Reforms Dublin, September 1 2, 2007

Abstract: Austria prides itself on its open admission policy which is contrary to the selective admission procedures at Anglo-Saxon universities or the Numerus Clausus system in most European countries. All Austrian citizens who have completed the Gymnasium the elite track of the secondary school and hold a Matura the Austrian equivalent to the German Abitur are entitled to enrol in any program at any Austrian university. This paper (1) explains the logic of this policy and its historical roots, (2) demonstrates the implications of this policy under the conditions of mass higher education, and (3) discusses how this policy has triggered a conflict between Austria and the European Union. 1. Open admission: a policy based national idiosyncrasy To explain the peculiarities of the Austrian open admission system to an international readership requires an examination of the interface between school and higher education in various national systems. There are two aspects which deserve attention. First, how do national higher education systems identify the group of students who are able to enrol at a university? Second, how do national systems of higher education match the demand and supply of study places? 1.1 How to identify talent: entitlement vs entrance selection National traditions of identifying talent for postsecondary education vary significantly. One can distinguish between entitlement systems (1) and entrance selection (2). These two traditions can be assigned geographically and they correspond with other characteristics of these nations (3). Finally they have strong implications for the pedagogical logic within the education system of these countries (4). (1) Selection can be rooted in the achievements at the secondary level which are then translated into certain certificates, giving their holders an entitlement for advanced educational (and occupational) careers1. Other students, not having such certificates, are excluded from these careers. The tradition of this entitlement system2 is deeply rooted in Europe, in particular in the German speaking countries; the sending sector (the school) has the authority to vest its graduates with much sought after rights and privileges which are recognised without challenge by the receiving sector (the tertiary institutions). Entitlement systems compel universities to passively accept students who have a legally well-founded right to enrol due to their achievements in secondary school. Hence, universities do not have any control over enrolments and the number of entering students is determined by success in school-leaving examinations. As Clark (1985) points out, generally, the secondary exit examination . . .is part of the inner logic in which basic selection takes place at the entry into secondary. . . education, and in
1 2

Austrian graduates of a Gymnasium hold a general study entitlement (Allgemeine Studienberechtigung). The German term is Berechtigungswesen.

which those who enter the academic track Gymnasium (Germany), lyce (France), classical or scientific liceo (Italy) are taken to be an already purified thin stream of excellence. The exit examination is a final touch of legitimation (p. , 294). This policy rests on the premise of a highly selective school system. Decisions whether students are able to study at university are already made at the secondary level. Selection takes place at an early age; in some countries (e.g. Austria, Germany) the most important bifurcation of educational careers already occurs at the end of elementary school (age 10). The relatively small numbers of students who survive this highly selective school system are considered to be able to study any subject at any university of their country. Universities are obligated by national or state law to accept them. The entitlement system can only work properly if all sending and receiving institutions rely approximately on the same quality standards and have the same reputation. Up until the mid-1960s, the Gymnasium was a small elite institution which was completed by about 5% of the age group. Universities enrolled even a smaller percentage of the age group. Students at both elite institutions at the secondary and tertiary levels were relatively homogeneous with respect to social origin, interests, and talent. Equally homogeneous were quality standards and the academic reputation of Gymnasia and universities. Thus it was reasonable to assume that final examinations at all Austrian Gymnasia were more or less based on the same standards of quality. Hence universities could rely on those judgements and were relieved of developing their own admission procedures. Entrance selection by each tertiary institution made little sense since different universities had more or less the same reputation and relied on the same quality standards. The adventure of mass higher education and other policy changes during the last decades have effectively undermined the homogeneity of the elite system. (2) An alternative way to decide about suitability for tertiary education is entrance selection by the institutions of the receiving sector. Under such conditions the coupling of secondary and tertiary education is much looser than in an entitlement system. Of course students acquire competences, knowledge, skills, and credentials that are necessary prerequisites for admission at the tertiary level. School certificates are necessary, but they are not recognised by the tertiary institutions as sufficient evidence of potential success at university. Where entrance selection predominates, universities actively admit students from a pool of applicants on the basis of specified admission criteria. Universities usually have the power to define these criteria, which in most instances refer to the achievements of secondary education, sometimes combined with the results of entrance tests, interviews, or other evidence. (3) There is a clear geopolitical division between countries relying on entrance selection or on entitlements3. On the one hand, all Anglo-Saxon countries have entrance selection, even if there are important differences in the details how universities admit students. On the other hand, entitlement systems are deeply rooted in the educational history of the European continent. This division goes back to early modern European history, when England was the exception to the mainstream European development of a strong absolutist regime that transformed universities into state agencies. By contrast, Oxford and Cambridge maintained the legal status of independent corporations based on royal charters. English universities maintained their privilege to admit their students, while on the European continent universities became an
3

This does not exclude the possibility of some overlap or blending. In the recent past, governments in some European countries have diluted the entitlements of secondary graduates by granting universities limited rights to select students.E.g. Sweden clearly comes from an tradition of entitlements, however, after the 2nd World War it has increasiningly adopted elements of entrance selection.

element of state dependent education system where the government set the rules for admission. This difference had major implications for the formation of national traditions and systems of higher education in subsequent centuries. The English higher education tradition was passed on to the settler colonies of the British Empire that, over the centuries, have evolved into the major knowledge economies of today. (4) The way in which education systems identifiy talent at major junctures has important implications for the mission of education institutions and the pedagogic logic they apply. Thus corresponds to the distinction between internal and external examinations (Eckstein & Noah, 1993). Systems with entrance selection have a tendency to rely on external examinations, whereas entitlement systems tend to combine the teaching and assessment function within schools. The logic of the internal examination rests on the assumption that teachers/instructors at the sending institutions have important insights into the cognitive/moral development of their students and hence are in a superior position to assess their achievements than any external examination body. This logic is easily compatible with that of entitlement system4 but it is incompatible with the logic of entrance selection. In the latter case, certificates of the sending institutions strongly influence university admission, but the cannot predetermine it in the same way as do entitlement systems. This has implications for the pedagogical ethos of schools. When the teaching and assessment function is combined, schools take over a more active role in educational selection that in the case of external assessment. This limits the capacity of teachers to act as advocates of their students and to emphasize their support function. They have to make compromises between their support and selection function and shape their self-image accordingly. In school systems that are relieved from the function of hard selection this restriction does not exist. This difference is blurred by the fact that failure and drop out exist in both systems. However, there is a considerable difference between failure as an unfavourable or inevitable consequence of misbehavior (of either student or/and teacher) or lack of talent, and (a certain amount of) failure as a system requirement. In an entitlement system it is impossible even under the most favourable conditions that all students succeed. This would undermine the logic of the systems because entitlements became redundant. 1.2 Numerus Clausus vs Open Admission Identification of talent in general terms is just one aspect of the admission procedure. Apart from that, decisions are required to match demand and supply of study places. In countries with entrance selection this decision is made at the institutional level: each university and each field of study respectively has a limited capacity of study places (however this capacity is defined). A university will accept as many students as it can (and sometimes less), but not more. In entitlement systems, the matching procedure is more complicated. After all it is the government that grants entitlement to secondary graduates and that limits the room for decision making at the institutional level. How do institutions deal with the not at all unlikely situation that demand in a particular discipline at a particular university drastically exceeds the number of study places? Common sense has prevailed in that governments in such cases allow for an emergency break to the automatism of the entitlement system. They usually introduce a Numerus Clausus in those fields of study where the number of applicants permanently and significantly is higher than the number of study places policy makers are willing to fund. A
4

However, there is no clear-cut correspondance. In France an entitlement tradition prevails, but the the Baccalaureat, the finl exam of the elite secondary track, is external.

Numerus Clausus approach specifies restrictions to admissions in those countries where certification earned at the secondary level entitle individuals to tertiary entry. It is the exception from the rule of a general entitlement that is justified by pragmatic reasons (imbalance between demand and supply of seats). Medicine in all European countries with the exception of Austria has introduced Numerus Clausus, but many countries have restricted access in many more fields of study. Even if universities do not have the right to admit students, government guards higher education institutions from unmanageable numbers of students over seats by restricting access to certain fields. Austrias exceptionalism surrounding admission policy can be defined in terms of complete neglect of this aspect. Policy makers in this country have made entitlements of secondary certificates absolute without taking into account the availability of resources. Until recently, the government categorically rejected Numerus Clausus at any field of study. Only in 2005, as a result of a conflict between Austria and the European Union regarding discrimination of European citizens, a Numerus Clausus was introduced in exactly the same disciplines where Germany applies this restriction (cf. paragraph 3). Hence, many actors in Austrian higher education consider this change to be imposed upon its country by the European Union. 2. The Impact of Open Admission Policy on the Conditions of Universities 2.1 Conditions in overenrolled disciplines In recent decades, expansion of higher education has resulted in a significant decline of funding per student. Austrian universities share this annoying, but apparently inevitable, development with many of their counterparts in other European countries. Unique to Austria, however, is the variance in study conditions across the different disciplines. In some disciplines, student demand persistently and strongly outgrows the supply of study places. While, on average, there are 24 students per faculty member, about a third of all enrolled students have student/faculty ratios that are at least twice as high (Pechar 2007, 39). In other countries, universities respond to this imbalance by either establishing more study places or applying highly selective admission procedures. Austrian universities can implement neither of these. Hence, the student/faculty ratios in some fields of study are extremely high. The over-enrolled disciplines (or mass disciplines, as they are called in Austria) are characterised by study conditions where, in the worst cases, there are as many as 400 students per faculty member. Such conditions not only undermine the quality of teaching, they also result in severe restrictions for academics to do research. As a consequence, cynicism among faculty and student is widespread. Only research universities are subject to this open admission policy. In all other sectors of the tertiary system, institutions have the right to admit students according to available resources. It is seldom discussed why governments mandate universities to depart from this rule. Partly it is the heritage of and nostalgia for a small elite system at a time when universities were able to manage student admission with informal rules. In addition, the symbolic dimension of open access to the most prestigious education is probably an important aspect. While trivial matters such as teacher training or training at technical schools can be made contingent on the availability of study places, the top of the educational and cultural hierarchy should be in principle open for everyone. The burgeoning demand on over-enrolled disciplines demonstrates that policy makers did not succeed in matching principles and reality 2.2 Confirmation of laissez-faire attitudes 4

One major problem of Austrian universities is the laissez-faire style of teaching and learning. The traditional pre-Bologna teaching culture left it up to students to decide to take an examination at the end of the course or to delay this decision to a later semester potentially an open-ended process. The traditional pattern is now increasingly challenged by the implementation of the Bologna process; however, it still exercises significant influence. The laissez-faire culture allows students to determine the pace of their studies and not all of them opt for vigorous learning. Such a large amount of freedom seems to be strongly advantageous for students; hence, it is not surprising that student unions defend this practice. However, one could paint a more sceptical picture. The laissez-faire conditions for students are matched by laissez-faire conditions for academics. Neither of the two sides has formal obligations vis--vis the other in the way it occurs in the higher education systems of the Anglo-Saxon world. Since monitoring the progress of students is not considered an obligation of the university and its instructos, it very easy for academics not to care about student needs. One ideological pillar of the laissez-faire culture is the Humboldt Myth that insistently ignores the fact that Humboldts ideals were created for a university at which at most 1% of a given age group studied, and therefore bear little relation to the realities of present-day mass higher education, especially in German-speaking Europe (Ash 2006, 248). The mythical evocation of Humboldtian ideals is an attempt to maintain the informal academic culture of a small elite system for modern mass higher education. This ideology is reinforced by the policy of open admission, because this policy is based on the renunciation of any commitment for adequate government support. It confirms the culture of low accountability at the level of teaching and learning. If the government constantly pays lip service to universities allowing every applicant to enrol without providing the money why should student and academics not act accordingly? As a matter of fact, most Austrian universities would simply break down if all students suddenly began studying vigorously. The laissez-faire culture is an euphemistic response to the misery of overenrolled disciplines. It is a vicious circle where noncommittal attitudes of government, students, and faculty reinforce each other. 2.3 Open admission does not foster increase of participation rates The previous paragraphs have demonstrated, that the open admission policy inflicts serious damage on Austrias universities. The main justification by which its advocates try to overrule all objections and criticism is the claim that this policy fosters expansion of the higher education system. It is therefore only fair to evaluate the success of this policy on the basis of indicators for expansion. It turns out that in a comparative perspective Austria has remarkably low participation and graduation rates. Baseline OECD indicators reveal that Austria ranks near the bottom in terms of entry rates into tertiary education (OECD 2008a, p.58) and graduation rates (OECD 2008a, p.72). Even though there was a low level of expansion in the 1990s, there was almost no increase in entry and graduation during the last decade. In its thematic review on tertiary education, the OECD has identified expansion as one of the most significant trends Austria being an exception. The expansion of tertiary education has been remarkable in recent decades. () Average annual growth in tertiary enrolment over the period 1991- 2004 stood at 5.1% worldwide. (...) Austria was the only OECD country where the absolute number of tertiary students did not increase in this period (remained constant). (OECD 2008b, p.41) As a consequence, the share of population that has attained at least tertiary education is comparatively low and it has increased at a lower rate than in most other OECD countries 5

(Figure 1). The OECD average tertiary graduation rate for the 55 to 64-year-old population is 19%; for the 25 to 34-year-old population this rate is 33%. In other words, the average graduation rate has increased by 14% over the last three decades. For Austria, the corresponding rates are 14% (55 to 64-year-olds) and 19% (25 to 34-year-olds). The increase over the last three decades was only 5%. It is illuminating to compare this with the Anglo-Saxon countries that have entrance selection policies. The graduation rate of the 25 to 34-year-old population varies between 55% (Canada) and 37% (UK); it is in all Anglo-Saxon countries above OECD average. Figure 1: Population that has attained at least tertiary education (2006)
Percentage, by age group

Source: OECD 2008, 32

In addition to the baseline information provided by the OECD indicators more complex comparative information is made available in two of recently published system rankings5. The Educational Policy Institute (2005) surveyed different higher education systems with respect to affordability and accessibility6. Accessibility is defined by four different measures which, taken together, also provide a weighted overall accessibility ranking. The authors supplement the more obvious definition of accessibility (participation and attainment rates) by indices of educational equality and gender parity. The educational equality index, measures accessibility as a ratio of socio-demographic characteristics (specifically, parental education) of students to socio-demographic characteristics of the entire population. (p. 39) Austria is ranked last out of the thirteen countries: At the very bottom of the rankings are Germany, Belgium and Austria. All three of these countries fare well in terms of the gender parity index, but are at or near the bottom on the other three accessibility measures. None has a particularly high participation or
5

The aim of these rankings is not to identify institutional excellence but the performance of national higher education systems. 6 The accessibility section of the report looks at accessibility of higher education in thirteen countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.

attainment rate and all of them have student bodies that are much more elite (relative to their national make-up) in their social origin than is the case in other countries. (p.42) The same conclusion was reached by a system ranking by the Lisbon Council (2008). The authors assess higher education systems7 with regard to their contribution to human capital formation. Austria is ranked last but one among 17 countries, a major reason being the limited inclusiveness and accessibility: Austria and Germany suffer because of the restrictiveness of their educational system; they turn away the most number of students from higher education, and as a result offer higher education to a relatively low number of people. (p.5) The authors define access as the ability to accept low levels of scholastic aptitude from secondary schools (p.3) and use PISA data to measure this ability. By counting down the percentiles of the share of tertiary degree graduates from among the PISA distribution, it is possible to derive how good a student must be in a given country in order to be able to graduate from that countrys tertiary education system. The lower the threshold, the less good the student needs to be when entering the tertiary system, and thus the better for the country. Again, Austria ranks second to last before Germany with a minimum of 590 math scores as threshold of skill aptitude required for tertiary graduation. What the authors say about Germany equally applies to Austria: German professors typically see their duty to be kicking out as many students as they can early on, in order to allow only the best to move on to a degree. A strategy based on over-educating some while leaving others to go horribly under-educated has led to ever growing pockets of social exclusion in some quarters and a chronic shortage of talent available to the German economy as a whole. (p. 11) To summarize, a variety of different measures point to a coherent and consistent conclusion: regarding expansion of tertiary education, Austria ranks at the bottom of OECD countries. To justify open admission policy as a means to foster expansion contradicts all available empirical evidence. 2.4 Inconsistencies between governance and admission policy Until recently, Austrian higher education policy was dominated by an egalitarian approach in that all universities had more or less the same status. The second reform cycle, which began in the 1990s (Pechar, 2004), changed this. Policy-makers opened up the opportunity to build distinct institutional profiles. In 2002, a major reform of governance strengthened the institutional autonomy of universities. Universities are now corporations of public law (Sebk, 2002). However, universities are still deprived of decision making power in some crucial areas. The new governance model has established a stranger inconsistency between the image of a powerful university management and the actual limitations to decide core academic issues at the institutional level. In this context, the issue of admission is most important. Although universities are now expected to strengthen their institutional profiles, there are obvious limitations to do so if they are not able to admit students on their own terms. Universities are now increasingly held accountable for study conditions over which they have no influence. In the old regime, when universities were state agencies, it was obvious that governments were responsible for the study conditions resulting from a chaotic open admission policy. In the new regime the government still sets the rules for admission, but now universities are increasingly blamed for the ensuing chaos over which they have little influence.
7

The countries, according to their rank are, Australia, UK, Denmark, Finland, USA, Sweden, Irland, Portugal, Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Spain.

In some instances students who due to over-enrolment were required to wait for access to laboratories, have taken legal action against their university8. 2.5 Attitudes of the Main Actors towards open admission Although the damage it inflicts on research universities clearly out weights its benefits, the open admission policy is still popular among large parts of the general public and among students. This can be mainly attributed to the magic of the term openness and the liberal associations it emanates. Coverage of the issue in the quality press is extensive. The focus of the reports, however, is shifting. Until a few years ago the media was sympathetic to the open admission policy; more recently, critical coverage has increased. Within the higher education community there are polar opposite attitudes towards open admission. Rectors and other leading academics with formal responsibilities are increasingly opposed to this policy, not least because they have to take the blame for the inconsistency of open admission. Based on an extensive study (Badelt et.al. 2007) the Rectors Conference has urged the government to take the issue seriously (Austrian Rectors Conference, 2006) with little success so far. Students at least representatives of student unions unconditionally support open admission. They emphasise the ostensible advantages of this policy without recognising its hidden costs and injustices. Academics have mixed feelings about open admission. Many sympathise with the laissez-faire culture of Austrian universities, not least because it minimizes their obligations towards students. However, those who are affected by the unfavourable study conditions of over-enrolled disciplines advocate a policy change. Why does the government sustain open admission? In the 1970s and 1980s policy makers were convinced that this policy was the correct way to modernize and democratize Austrian higher education. Nobody is so nave to believe this any more. Today, political parties adhere to this policy because it is a convenient way not to bumble through a conflict-riddled area. Governments are not ready to raise funding for universities, but they are also afraid of provoking student protest. Open admission is an easy way to pay lip service while neglecting funding. 3. Conflict between Austria and the European Union on Admission Policy Although Austrian governments systematically belittle any claims of harm of open admission for universities, they have been aware of the dire consequences of unrestricted admission not only for Austrians, but also for foreign citizens. Germany, with a tenfold population and the same language, has restricted access in Medicine and many other disciplines through a Numerus Clausus. According to an estimate in 2005 (Pechar 2007), a waiting list of 80,000 German applicants for Medicine has accumulated over the years. These persons were rejected by the Numerus Clausus procedures of German universities, and a large number of them are waiting for second and third chances. It was always evident that, if they had access, a significant share of this group would enrol at Austrian universities. In order to prevent German Numerus Clausus refugees to worsen the already strained conditions of overenrolled disciplines in Austria, in the 1980s the government limited its open access policy to Austrian citizens9. Other citizens had to prove a study place in their country.
8 9

E.g. the Austrian Student Union vs Medical University of Graz in 2006 (Pechar 2006). Austrian authorities did not explicitly make access dependent on citizenship knowing that this would be a violation of the non-discrimination regulation of the EU. However, they limited open admission the individuals

This preference to its own citizens was perfectly legitimate as long as Austria was completely autonomous in its higher education policy. When it became a member of the European Union in 1995, however, it abdicated parts of its national sovereignty and became subject to European law. In order to foster mobility within Europe, the European Union has ruled a nondiscrimination policy among its member states. According to this policy, each member state must treat all European citizens in the same way as it treats its own citizens. There is controversy how the non-discrimination regulation must be applied to higher education policy. According to several decisions of the European Court, European law does not require that individual nation states apply its policies on student aid to all European Union citizens. With respect to access to public universities, however, all European citizens must be treated equally. The limitation of open admission to Austrian citizens violates this rule. Despite extensive public debate on this issue within Austria (cf. Pechar 1992), the government never took the implications of European Union-membership on the admission policy seriously and instead tried to dodge the issue. In 1999 the European Commission started a legal procedure against Austria for its discriminating practices against European citizens. In 2005, the European Court convicted Austria of discriminatory treatment of other citizens and ruled that the country must grant the same conditions of access to all European Union citizens. As an immediate response, the Austrian government introduced restricted access in precisely those elds of study where a Numerus Clausus applies in Germany. The issue is delicate in two respects. First, there is dispute among legal experts whether to European Union (and the European Court respectively) has exceeded its legal jurisdiction. After all, education at all levels, as defined by the Maastricht Treaty, is the responsibility of national governments. The European Commissions legally specified jurisdiction in the education sphere is based on Article 149 of the European Union Treaty which entitles the Community no more than to contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between member states. How, then can the Commission challenge Austrias admission policy? The Commission argues, that it does not interfere with the national governments authority of education policy making. Rather it objected the discriminatory policy of Austria through its legitimate role as advocate of unrestricted mobility of students10. Obviously there is no definite solution to this controversy because there are no clear cut areas of regulatory power but a rather significant amount of overlap between the European Union and the member states. The reaction in Austria was refusal and outrage and the decision of the European Court was and continues to be considered as an unjustified intrusion in domestic affairs. The case has resulted in pronounced deterioration in the attitudes of the Austrian population toward the European Union. There is widespread belief especially among students that the European Union has forced Austria to abolish its superior open admission policy. The case is sensitive for a second reason. It reveals substantial weaknesses and incoherencies of the concept of the European Higher Education Area. Grand as it might be, this vision clashes with the reality of higher education systems that are funded by national governments. The concept of an fully integrated European Higher Education Area where all students can move freely across national borders rests on the assumption that, in the long run, inflows and outflows of students will eventually equalize for every nation and hence no unacceptable burden will occur for any country. Austrias experience with German Numerus Clausus refugees
with a secondary certificate that was issued from Austrian authorities. 10 The main route for the European Union to gain influence in higher education policy making was the year abroad scheme. The Socrates-Erasmus scheme provides financial support to students who take part in exchange programs and study for a limited period in countries other than their own within the European Union.

demonstrates that this assumption does not hold. A closer examination would probably show that Austria is not the only country that is confronted with a systematic imbalance11. It would be worthwhile to consider mechanisms of compensation for such cases. The introduction of a Numerus Clausus, in fact, was not a sufficient protection against a huge inflow of German applicants in some fields of study in particular Medicine, dentistry, and veterinary Medicine. Over the last three years, the number of applications from Germany outgrew those from Austria. In 2005, more German than Austrian applicants passed the test which determines admission to medical school. As a consequence, the Austrian government introduced quotas that reserve three quarters of all medical study places for Austrian citizens12. Quotas based on national citizenship, however, are not compatible with the non-discrimination policy of European law, and for that reason the European Union has again threatened to start a legal action against Austria. As a consequence of strong lobbying by the Austrian government, the European Commission has delayed the decision until 2012. 4 Conclusion Austrias exceptionalism in admission policy rests on two pillars: first, the logic of entitlement; second, the objection to restrict entitlements by a Numerus Clausus in cases of a persistent imbalance between demand and supply of seats. Whereas the latter might be regarded as an ideosyncratic policy that is hardly comprehensible outside the country, the logic of entitlement deserves more seriuos debate. A hundred years ago it was arguable whether entitlement or entrance selection had more advantages. Both logics were contingent on historical developments of different countries and corresponded with other national traditions. Educational expansion and the adventure of mass higher education changed the criteria for a comparison of the two logics. Entitlement systems are tailored to small elite systems. They function satisfactorily as long as participation at advanced education levels does not exceed a certain treshold. As a consequence, entitlement systems constrain the expansion of higher education. The low paricipation and gradution rates of German speaking countries illustrate this. To the extent that expansion nevertheless takes place, entitlement systems play a dysfunctional role unless the policy adjusts them to new conditions. The consequences of radically adhering to an entitlement logic in Austria can be discussed in terms of Turners (1960) theory. Under todays conditions, when most OECD countries have comprehensive secondary systems and enroll more than half of age cohort at the tertiary level, Austria still has maintained core characteristics of sponsored mobility. Able students are identified at an early age (age ten) and sorted accordingly. This early selection eases the selective pressure at the interface between secondary and tertiary education for the elite cohort. Today, Austria has multiple tracks at the secondary level; however until recently it was a one-tier system13 (Clark, 1993) with no tracks14 at the higher education level. Advanced knowledge societies do precisely the opposite: tracking is an outcome of secondary education (Adamuti-Trache & Andres, 2008). At the tertiary level, therefore, are multiple tracks and tiers
11 12

Belgium (Fr) has experienced similar problems with Numerus Clausus refugees from France. In Medicine 75% of all seats are reserved to Austrian citizens, 20% to applicants from EU member states and 5% for students from other countries. 13 Like most countries on the European continent Austria did not distinguish an undergraduate and a graduate level. 14 Until 1993 (when Fachhochschulen were established) universities held a monopoly in what was considered higher education in Austria.

10

at. Essential to the policy debate in Austria is to connect these characteristics with the logic of entitlement. References: Adamuti-Trache, M., & Andres, L. (2008). Embarking on and persisting in scientific fields of study: Social class, gender, and curriculum along the science pipeline. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1557-1584. Ash, M G (2006) Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and historical transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and the US, European Journal of Education, vol 41(2), pp 245-267. Austrian Rectors Conference (2006): Thesen der RK zu einer Neuregelung des Hochschulzugangs: fr eine qualitative Weiterentwicklung der Studiensituation, Beschluss der Plenarversammlung der RK vom 4. Dezember 2006. available online at http://www.reko.ac.at/upload/Seiten_aus_HZinOe_FERTIG_(3).pdf Badelt, C & Wegscheider, W & Wulz, H (Eds) (2007): Hochschulzugang in sterreich. Graz: Grazer Universittsverlag. Clark, B R (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Clark, B R (ed) (1985). The School and the University. An International Perspective. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Eckstein, M A & Noah, H J (1993) Secondary School Examinations. International Perspectives on Policy and Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ederer, P & Schuller, P & Willms, S (2008) University Systems Ranking: Citizens and Society in the Age of the Knowledge, Lisbon Council Policy Brief, available online at http://www.lisboncouncil.net/media/lisbon_council_policy_brief_usr2008.pdf Educational Policy Institute (2005): Global Higher Education Rankings. Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective, available online at http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/Global2005.pdf OECD (2008a) Education at a Glance 2008. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. OECD (2008b) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. Paris: OECD. Pechar, H (2007) Der offene Hochschulzugang in sterreich. In: Badelt et.al. 2007, pp 21-81. Pechar, H (2006) Streitobjekt Uni-Gebhr: Geld oder Lehre, Der Standard, 18.5.2006 Pechar, H (2004) Austrian Higher Education Meets the Knowledge Society, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, vol 34 (3), pp 5572. 11

Pechar, H (1992) Alma Maters Gang nach Europa. Welche bildungspolitischen Folgen hat ein sterreichischer EG-Beitritt?, Zukunft 8/1992, pp 7-11 Sebk, M (2002) Universittsgesetz 2002. Gesetzestext und Kommentar. Wien: WUV Universittsverlag. Turner, R H (1960) Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System, American Sociological Review, vol 23, pp 855-867.

12