More and more USA students go to tuition-free Germany for their degrees

[alhoon]

alhoon, so you think it's realistic that 90% or so of top 50 unis are anglosaxon? I myself am skeptical of the ranking methodology used.

The ranking methodology could be better, yes. But a very important criterion is citations, so that works. Another very important criterion is how good the professors are. With USA's infinite money, brain draining the best of the best is easier. Finding jobs after you finish is also another criterion. With just 5.5% unemployment, USA also holds an advantage. And Australia is practically begging scientists to come there. So Anglosaxon universities also hold an advantage there.

So, the way the ranking system works, Anglosaxon universities hold many advantages over other universities.

[Basil II the B.S]

The ranking methodology could be better, yes. But a very important criterion is citations, so that works. Another very important criterion is how good the professors are. With USA's infinite money, brain draining the best of the best is easier. Finding jobs after you finish is also another criterion. With just 5.5% unemployment, USA also holds an advantage. And Australia is practically begging scientists to come there. So Anglosaxon universities also hold an advantage there.

So, the way the ranking system works, Anglosaxon universities hold many advantages over other universities.

The 5.5% is pretty much a lie though. America has 100 million people not employed which is roughly a third of the population.
Sure only 5.5% are actively seeking a job... but I don't see how that would make anyone feel better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-m...bs-2012-5?IR=T

[Stavroforos]

Of course Anglo-American universities are ranked higher, they're the only societies which promote free speech, competition, and self-improvement.

[Condottiere 40K]

29452
I'm assured it's the generous funding, which attracts the best candidates, who publish interesting stuff, which makes the college famous, which attracts generous funding ...

[Phier]

Funny how a thread opens on this just as I was in correspondence with someone to set up this very arrangement. I absolutely refuse to go into 30K of debt without the immediate prospect of having a job in this economy. I watched my father be totally dismantled by debt and I will not make the same mistakes. Unlike what some of the more conservative Americans in this thread talk about, many of us are going there for practical degrees. I'm likely going for either Computer Science or Psychology, something general that can be applied relatively universally.

Good luck then. I'm kinda amused with the thought that 30k debt is an insurmountable burden, being my wife had that debt getting out of college in the early 90's. Since you don't seem to know what you want at all, its probably better for you.

The 5.5% is pretty much a lie though. America has 100 million people not employed which is roughly a third of the population.
Sure only 5.5% are actively seeking a job... but I don't see how that would make anyone feel better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-m...bs-2012-5?IR=T

A good portion of 16-21 year olds don't work by choice, and more women appear to be going back to a housewife role. Numbers like that need more investigation.

[Captain Jin]

Somebody mentioned that it only takes a couple of years to pay such an amount back to the bank. A European will have a degree and the car by the same time the American has finished off paying his university loans.

I hope you realize most Americans get cars in their teens and own a car when they go to Uni sooo... yah. I got my first car when I was 16.

I watched my father be totally dismantled by debt and I will not make the same mistakes. Unlike what some of the more conservative Americans in this thread talk about, many of us are going there for practical degrees. I'm likely going for either Computer Science or Psychology, something general that can be applied relatively universally.

Sorry that happened to your father. But honestly 30k is nothing. That's the cost of a decent new car. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to handle that. Btw computer science would be something practical but psychology absolutely is not. If you're just getting a four year degree in psychology you're basically wasting your time.

[alhoon]

The 5.5% is pretty much a lie though. America has 100 million people not employed which is roughly a third of the population.
Sure only 5.5% are actively seeking a job... but I don't see how that would make anyone feel better.

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-m...bs-2012-5?IR=T

And how many of them are old people and kids in schools\universities? Propably the vast majority...

Btw computer science would be something practical but psychology absolutely is not. If you're just getting a four year degree in psychology you're basically wasting your time.

I don't know the market in USA (or Europe) when it comes to psychology. Perhaps there's a need for psychologists?
After all from what I've seen from very reliable sources (i.e. tv shows ) a great deal of Americans go to psychologists. Also as far as I know, many hospitals (if not all by law) are employing psychologists to handle very sad stuff, like support the kids (and the families of the kids) that are in the cancer units. My university employs a psychologist to help stressed students. That kind of stuff.
Of course, there may be 2 psychologists for each such position from all I know. I'm just saying that psychology may not be a waste of time.

[Basil II the B.S]

And how many of them are old people and kids in schools\universities? Propably the vast majority...

Workforce participation means they are in a working age. Thus not in retirement age nor in obligatory school age.

Phier's comment is certaintly more appropriate.

[Roboute Guilliman]

I hope you realize most Americans get cars in their teens and own a car when they go to Uni sooo... yah. I got my first car when I was 16.

I got my car with 18, but that3s when you start driving here and most Europeans aswell. But frankly are we seriously arguing its better to pay 30k for something you can get for free? Because if we are, sorry I am not going to waste anymore time here.

[Border Patrol]

A bachelors degree will not get you a job in one of the most competitive, over-saturated fields in the US. I would very much recommend that you do not pursue a BSc in Psychology.

[Nevins]

I think the U.S. education system is simply flawed in it's core (talking about the land of freedom eh). Education should be 'free' for everyone, period. Just imagine the waste of potential in your system. Universities are just gigantic corporations, no different to Monsanto and the like, and they are successful because they cost so much and have billions of dollars in budget, as it has been said here already.

Except that some of the most successful of these "gigantic corporations" are essentially tuition free if you are not a trust fund baby. From the Harvard website:

• 20% of our parents have total incomes less than $65,000 and are not expected to contribute.

• Families with incomes between $65,000 and $150,000 will contribute from 0-10% of their income, and those with incomes above $150,000 will be asked to pay proportionately more than 10%, based on their individual circumstances. Families at all income levels who have significant assets will continue to pay more than those in less fortunate circumstances.

seems like they are pretty successful and pretty affordable after all, especially considering that your "free" higher education is paid for out of someones taxes. Much of the educational disparity linked to income comes from the free, public education system.

And just for the record, I'm not hating on them (not so much at least ). I would love to study in America as well, on one of those universities (I study physics in Zagreb), I would just have to get a scholarship first, as I simply can't affod it. But it's not that my university sucks, I'm just sayin' !!

Stick to physics bud.

[leviath]

I'm a student in France. I only pay 5€ of university fees each year. I get 160 € every month as a government help for students. I also get 327 € every month as a government help for my flat, so I only pay 100 € every month for the rent. So if you count shopping, my rent, and several bills like internet, I have to pay something like 300 € every month. So if some people think that's fine to pay 30k for a year (university fees only), well 30k is like twice what I'll pay for a master degree (university fees and daily life fees altogether). I'll finish my degree debt free. And yes, in my university we see more and more american students every year.

[Roboute Guilliman]

I'm a student in France. I only pay 5€ of university fees each year. I get 160 € every month as a government help for students. I also get 327 € every month as a government help for my flat, so I only pay 100 € every month for the rent. So if you count shopping, my rent, and several bills like internet, I have to pay something like 300 € every month. So if some people think that's fine to pay 30k for a year (university fees only), well 30k is like twice what I'll pay for a master degree (university fees and daily life fees altogether). I'll finish my degree debt free. And yes, in my university we see more and more american students every year.

So true, depending on the country you get financial aids, although these apply only for residents. Currently I am getting paid to go to university (around 3000 euros per year, it used to be 6750 last year still, shame).

[Admiral Piett]

Good luck then. I'm kinda amused with the thought that 30k debt is an insurmountable burden, being my wife had that debt getting out of college in the early 90's. Since you don't seem to know what you want at all, its probably better for you.

Says the anonymous internet poster that doesn't know anything about one's ambition and finances. $30k is a random figure mentioned earlier in the thread, the cost of going to a school like UT or TSU is around 1.5 and 2x that number and they often don't accept class credits from certain community college basic work. Stick to making assumptions and summary judgments on topic. That isn't relevant to what my post was trying to add to the discussion anyway.

[alhoon]

Workforce participation means they are in a working age. Thus not in retirement age nor in obligatory school age.

Phier's comment is certaintly more appropriate.

I didn't see any "not in retirement age" criterion in the link. It said "above 16" not "above 16 and below 65".

[Basil II the B.S]

I didn't see any "not in retirement age" criterion in the link. It said "above 16" not "above 16 and below 65".

It does say workforce participation which is the concept we are talking about. If you are too young or too old you aren't part of the workforce by definition.

[alhoon]

It does say workforce participation which is the concept we are talking about. If you are too young or too old you aren't part of the workforce by definition.

Perhaps, but the definition given is: "Specifically, these are people who are part of the civilian over-16 non-institutional population who are either unemployed or not part of the workforce. "
Also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...nal_population

There's no exclusion of the old, and of course none for the students. Since the figures are about 80% of the total population, I'm pretty sure they include those 90 year old pensioners.

[Basil II the B.S]

Perhaps, but the definition given is: "Specifically, these are people who are part of the civilian over-16 non-institutional population who are either unemployed or not part of the workforce. "
Also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...nal_population

There's no exclusion of the old, and of course none for the students. Since the figures are about 80% of the total population, I'm pretty sure they include those 90 year old pensioners.

No.
http://economics.about.com/od/unempl...abor_force.htm

[alhoon]

But... the article doesn't talk about labor force, it talks clearly about workforce participation rate. When it comes to labor force... the numbers are WAY lower than 100 millions not working.

Workforce participation rate is different and includes (apparently) the 90-year old people that are not part of the labor force. Hence... the 100 millions not working.

[Nikitn]

The ranking methodology could be better, yes. But a very important criterion is citations, so that works. Another very important criterion is how good the professors are. With USA's infinite money, brain draining the best of the best is easier. Finding jobs after you finish is also another criterion. With just 5.5% unemployment, USA also holds an advantage. And Australia is practically begging scientists to come there. So Anglosaxon universities also hold an advantage there.

So, the way the ranking system works, Anglosaxon universities hold many advantages over other universities.

Except they only count citations in English => anglosaxon schools have an unfair advantage. And there are loads of great professors in Euro countries too. I suspect distinguished people are intelligent enough to see through the rankings and go where their field is strongest. IMO the most important thing for a university is teaching quality, high standards and good research. Stuff like this can't be 100% measured by amount of $$ endowed or number of citations.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me the dominance of anglosaxon language & culture throughout the world is starting to delude even non-Americans into thinking that USA #1 in everything..