';
div.innerHTML = summary;
}
// Fin des scripts, à ne pas supprimer (voir) getBody
La science pour le plus grand nombre, pas pour l'argent
(Biblioteca dell’Università di Bologna)
Partout dans le monde, l'Enseignement Supérieur et la Recherche sont actuellement soumis à la doctrine de choc du
néolibéralisme, où la connaissance est perçue comme un simple moyen d'améliorer la compétitivité de l'économie,
comme une source possible de bénéfices et comme un outil de contrôle pour les gouvernements. Ce programme
néolibéral pour la science est mis en œuvre par un nouveau mode de gestion publique dans lequel les étudiants, les
enseignants et les chercheurs doivent devenir des entrepreneurs de leur capital cognitif et de leur réputation.
Loin des idéaux coopératifs de la science et de l’enseignement, les universités et les institutions de recherche
sont gérées comme des entreprises, en concurrence les unes avec les autres pour attirer les "meilleurs" étudiants
et chercheurs. Les groupes de recherche et les collectifs de travail sont presque systématiquement écrasés ou subvertis.
Les gestionnaires scientifiques sont censés chercher des fonds et des subventions pour employer une masse toujours
plus grande de personnel précaire, dont les bas salaires contrastent avec les revenus de plus en plus élevés d'une
nouvelle élite de gestion incarnée par les présidents et les vice-présidents d'université. La souffrance au
travail affecte la plupart de ces nouveaux prolétaires intellectuels. D'un autre côté, la folie de l'évaluation, la
pression pour "publier ou périr" et la privatisation de l'édition scientifique conduisent à un nombre croissant de
publications, ce qui menace à la fois la qualité de la recherche et la transmission ouverte du savoir. Cette guerre
matérielle dans laquelle l'austérité va de pair avec la privatisation s'accompagne d'une guerre idéologique
orwellienne où les mots, écrits dans un langage pauvre et mensonger, perdent leur sens. Le désir de reconnaissance
de chacun conduisant à la servitude de tous, les valeurs de compétition et d'utilitarisme gagnent du terrain dans
nos communautés scientifiques, où les individus sont de plus en plus isolés et craignent d'être exclus du jeu.
Heureusement, des résistances sont apparues, tant dans les pays où l'application de ces politiques était la plus
développée (Grande-Bretagne ou Chili) que dans les pays où elles sont encore moins avancées (France, Allemagne ou
Canada, notamment la région du Québec). Partout, les mobilisations proposent des alternatives à ces politiques
néolibérales, très proches les unes des autres tant en termes de valeurs que de mesures concrètes. Plus important
encore, nous sommes tous d'avis que le savoir fait partie du patrimoine commun de l'humanité et que sa valeur
dépend de son partage avec le plus grand nombre. Les autres composantes de l'alternative à la science néolibérale
découlent de ce principe.
Premièrement, l'université doit être libre. Mais la lutte pour l'abolition effective des frais d'inscription exige
aussi que l'on reconnaisse aux étudiants le droit à une allocation financière substantielle qui garantirait leur
autonomie en leur donnant les moyens de faire face à la nourriture, au logement et d'avoir du temps pour étudier.
Deuxièmement, les universitaires et les chercheurs doivent non seulement avoir des salaires et des retraites
décents, mais aussi se voir accorder des postes à part entière avec de solides garanties d'indépendance. C'est une
condition nécessaire si nous voulons éviter les conflits d'intérêts entre l'éducation, la science et les pouvoirs
de l'argent et de la politique.
Ils doivent également bénéficier de crédits à long terme, sans passer une grande partie de leur temps à demander un
nombre croissant de subventions et de projets par le biais de procédures bureaucratiques épouvantables ou à
justifier constamment l'utilisation scientifique des fonds qui leur sont alloués. Ce n'est qu'à ce prix qu'ils
pourront revendiquer leur droit au temps, sans lequel aucun progrès intellectuel réel, aucune science libre et
aucune éducation libre, solide et cohérente n'est possible.
Enfin, la démocratie doit être au cœur des universités et des institutions de recherche. Le débat critique avec les
citoyens et la collégialité des décisions doivent remplacer la gestion de haut en bas venant de bureaucrates zélés
et incompétents qui ne s'intéressent qu'à stimuler la concurrence et la soi-disant "excellence".
L'urgence sociale et écologique à laquelle le monde entier est actuellement confronté représente un intérêt général
commun qui devrait nous pousser à nous unir si nous voulons relever tous ces défis. Un développement massif des
connaissances scientifiques est aujourd'hui nécessaire pour assurer la transition écologique de nos sociétés et
échapper à la catastrophe imminente. Des investissements publics représentant 3% du PIB des nations doivent être
consacrés aux services publics de la recherche et de l'enseignement supérieur. Nous devons également riposter de
manière organisée : il est temps de construire une alternative mondiale dans laquelle les universitaires et les
scientifiques, les étudiants et les citoyens défendent les trois piliers de l'enseignement supérieur
et de la recherche : l'indépendance de la production scientifique et intellectuelle, la libre critique et la gratuité de la
transmission des connaissances.
Nous, signataires de cet appel, membres de la communauté académique et de la recherche ou du mouvement social dans
son ensemble, nous venons du monde entier. Nous nous engageons ensemble à promouvoir les valeurs de la critique, de
la collégialité et de la coopération dans le domaine scientifique et universitaire. Nous défendons des universités
et des institutions de recherche bien dotées et libres d'intérêts privés. Nous luttons contre les conditions de
travail précaires et nous promouvons un système alternatif de publication scientifique dans lequel la connaissance
est libre et ouverte. Nous appelons à la constitution d'un réseau de solidarité internationale et au développement
du savoir pour tous.
All over the world, Higher Education and Research are currently subject to the shock doctrine of neoliberalism,
where knowledge is perceived as a mere way to improve competitivity of economy, as a possible source of benefits
and as a tool of control for governments. This neoliberal agenda for science is implemented through a new mode of
public management in which students, teachers and researchers have to become entrepreneurs of their cognitive
capital and reputation. Far from the co-operative ideals of science and academia, universities and research
institutions are managed like corporations, competing with one another to attract the "best" students and
researchers. Research groups and collective bodies of work are almost systematically crushed or subverted. Science managers are
supposed to look for funds and grants to employ an ever-larger mass of precarious staff, whose poor wages contrast
with increasingly high earnings of a new managerial elite embodied in university presidents or vice-chancellors.
Suffering at work affects most of a new intellectual proletariat. On another side, the madness of evaluation, the
pressure to "publish or perish" and the privatization of scientific publishing lead to a soaring number of
publications, which threatens both the quality of research and the open transmission of knowledge. This material
war in which austerity goes along with privatization stands with an Orwellian ideological war where words, written
in a poor and lying newspeak, lose their meaning. The desire for recognition of each leads to the servitude of all,
the values of competition and utilitarianism are gaining ground in our scientific communities, where individuals
are more and more isolated and dread being excluded from the game.
Fortunately, resistance has emerged, both in countries where the application of these policies was the most
developed (Great Britain or Chile for instance) and in countries where they are still less advanced (France,
Germany or Canada, especially the Quebec region). Everywhere, mobilizations propose alternatives to these
neoliberal policies, which are very close to one another both in terms of values and concrete measures. Most
crucially, we all share the view that knowledge is part of the commons of humankind, and that its value depends on
its being shared with the greatest number. The other components of the alternative to neoliberal science stem from
this principle.
First, the university must be free. But the fight for the effective abolition of tuition fees also demands that
students be acknowledged the right to a substantial financial allowance which would guarantee their autonomy by
giving them the means to deal with board and accommodation and to spare time to study.
Second, academics and researchers must not only have decent salaries and pensions, they must also be granted full
positions with strong independence guarantees. This is a necessary condition if we want to avoid conflicts of
interests between science, and the powers of money and politics.
They must also benefit from long-term credits, without spending much of their time applying for an increasing
number of grants and projects through awful bureaucratic procedures or having to constantly justify the scientific
use of funds allocated to them. It is only at this price that they will be able to claim for their right to time,
without which no real intellectual progress, no free science and no free, solid and coherent education are
possible.
Finally, democracy must be at the heart of universities and research institutions. The critical debate with the
citizens and the collegiality of decisions must replace the top-down management coming from incompetent zealous
bureaucrats only interested in stimulating competition and the so-called "excellence".
The social and ecological emergency that the whole world currently faces represents a common general interest that
should push us to unite if we want to meet all these challenges. A massive development of scientific knowledge is
now necessary to ensure the ecological transition of our societies and escape the looming disaster. Public
investment amounting to 3% of the GDP of nations must be devoted to the public services of research and higher
education. We also have to fight back in an organized manner: it is time to construct a global alternative in which
scientists, students and citizens defend the three pillars of free higher education and research: independence of
scientific and intellectual production, free criticism, and unrestricted transmission of knowledge.
The signatories of this call, whether members of the academic and research community or of the social movement as a
whole, come from all over the world.
We commit ourselves together to promote the values of criticism, collegiality and co-operation in science and
academia. We defend well-endowed universities and public research institutions that are free from private
interests. We fight against precarious working conditions and we promote an alternative system of scientific
publishing in which knowledge is free and open.
Überall in der Welt werden Hochschulen und Wissenschaft der neoliberalen Schockdoktrine unterworfen. Erkenntnis gilt nur noch als Mittel, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit einer Volkswirtschaft zu fördern, Profite zu erhöhen, und die Gesellschaftskontrolle durch Regierungen zu erleichtern. Die Verwirklichung der neoliberalen Wissenschaftsagenda geht auch mit der Verallgemeinerung des Weltbildes des New Public Management einher: Studierende und WissenschaftlerInnen in Hochschulen und Forschunsgeinrichtungen werden zu Ich-Unternehmern des eigenen kognitiven Kapitals und des eigenen Lebenslaufes. In scharfem Kontrast zum kooperativen Ideal der freien Wissenschaft werden Hochschulen und Forschungszentren wie Großunternehmen gelenkt, und stehen jetzt in einem Wettbewerb um die “besten” Studierenden und WissenschaftlerInnen. Forschungsgruppen und Gemeinschaften werden beinahe systematisch untergraben oder zersplittert. Von der neuen Gruppe der Wissenschaftsmanagers wird nunmehr erwartet, dass sie eine immer größere Anzahl an befristetem Personal einstellen und selber nur noch nach Stipendien und Grants suchen. Die miserablen Löhne des wissenschaftlichen Prekariats kontrastieren immer mehr mit den hohen Einkommen der neuen führenden Kaste, die allzu oft von den Rektoren verkörpert wird. Arbeitsbedingtes Leiden schließlich ist das neue Los des neuen wissenschaftlichen Proletariats.
Entwickelt haben sich außerdem auch der Evaluationswahn, der Druck zum Publish or Perish und die latente Vereinnahmung der wisschenftlichen Edition durch kapitalitische Interessen. Die Folge ist eine immer höhere Anzahl an Publikationen. Dieser rasante Zuwachs stellt eine Bedrohung für die Qualität der Wissenschaft und die öffentliche Verbreitung des gemeinsamen Wissens dar. Dieser materielle Krieg, in dem Austerität und Privatisierung zusammenhängen, geht auch mit einem ideologischen Krieg einher: Wörter verlieren ihre Bedeutung, und wissenschaftspolitische Richtlinien folgen nur noch einem armen, trügerischen Neusprech Orwell’scher Prägung. Die Sehnsucht eines Jeden nach Anerkennung führt zur Unterwerfung aller, Wettbewerb und Utilitarismus prägen immer mehr das Weltbild der Wissenschaft. WissenschaftlerInnen als Personen drohen immer mehr, in die Isolierung oder gar in die Verbannung zu geraten.
Zum Glück sind neue Widerstandsformen entstanden, sowohl in den Ländern, wo diese Wissenschaftpolitik am Weitesten verwirklicht wurde (Großbritannien, Chile...), als auch dort, wo sie noch nicht ganz vollzogen ist (Frankreich, Deutschland oder Canada, vor allem Quebec). Die Protestbewegungen entwerfen Alternativlösungen zu dieser Agenda. Diese Vorschläge ähneln sich, sowohl auf der Ebene der Prinzipien als auch auf der der konkreten Maßnahmen. Wir teilen namentlich die Überzeugung, dass Erkenntnis ein Gemeingut der Menschheit ist. Je mehr eine Erkenntnis geteilt ist, umso mehr Wert hat sie. Die anderen Aspekte dieser Alternativlösungen hängen alle mit dieser Grundüberzeugung zusammen.
Erstens muss Hochschulbildung kostenfrei sein. Der Kampf um die Abschaffung von Studiengebühren verlangt auch nach der Einführung eines Studieneinkommens, das die Selbständigkeit der Studierenden gewähren würde, indem es für Kost und Logis sorgen würde und ihnen mehr Zeit fürs Studium lassen würde.
Zweitens muss das Lehr- und Forschungspersonal nicht nur einen ordentlichen Lohn und eine gute Rente verdienen, es muss auch auf festen Stellen mit starken Unabhängigkeitsgarantien beschäftigt sein. Das ist eine Voraussetzung für eine Entwicklung der Wissenschaft weit von allen Interessenkonflikten mit Politik und Wirtschaft.
Garantierte stabile Forschungskredite sind ebenfalls erforderlich. Es ist nicht anzunehmen, dass WissenschaftlerInnen ihre Zeit manchmal größtenteils mit Anträgen für immer mehr Grants oder Stipendien verbringen, was öfter einem Marathonlauf durch endlose bürokratische Verfahren ähnelt, oder dass sie sich immer wieder für den wissenschaftlichen Gebrauch der kleinsten Summe rechtfertigen müssen, die ihrem eigenen Labor zuerkannt worden ist. Nur unter dieser Bedingung werden WissenschaftlerInnen ihr Recht auf Selbstbestimmung der eigenen Zeitlichkeit beanspruchen können, ohne welche keine freie Wissenschaft, kein geistiger Fortschritt und keine freie, solide Bildung möglich sind.
Das Prinzip der kollektiven und demokratischen Selbstbestimmung muss wieder ins Zentrum der Lehr- und Forschungseinrichtungen rücken. “Top-Down Management”, also die Vollmacht bürokratischer Inkompetenten, die keine anderen Wörter als “Wettbewerb” und “Exzellenz” kennen, muss der kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit den BürgerInnen und der kollegialen Beschlussbildung weichen.
Der soziale und ökologische Notstand, vor dem die ganze Welt steht, bildet die Grundlage eines konkreten Begriffes des universalen Gemeinwohls. Dies sollte uns zur internationalen Einheit zwingen, wenn wir diese Herausforderungen meistern wollen. Ein großer Sprung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse ist nun erforderlich, wenn wir die ökologische Wende vollziehen wollen, und unsere Gesellschaften vor dem lauernden Untergang zu retten. Der öffentliche Dienst von Wissenschaft, Forschung und Akademia muss auf 3% des BIP gefördert werden. WissenschaftlerInnen, StudentInnen und BürgerInnen müssen auch gemeinsam für die drei Säulen der freien Lehre und Forschung kämpfen: Unabhängigkeit der geistigen und wissenschaftlichen Produktion, freie Kritik des jeweils aktuellen Erkenntnisstandes, und uneingeschränkten Zugang zur Erkenntnis.
Wir, die UnterzeichnerInnen dieses Aufrufes, sind Mitglieder der akademischen bzw. wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft, oder AktivistInnen der sozialen Bewegung. Wir kommen aus der ganzen Welt. Wir versprechen, die Prinzipien der freien Kritikäußerung, der kollegialen Beschlussbildung und der Kooperation in Hochschulen und Wissenschaft zu verteidigen. Wir fordern, dass öffentliche Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen über die notwendigen Mitteln verfügen und vor Privatinteressen geschützt sind. Wir bekämpfen prekäre Arbeitsbedingungen. Wir unterstützen ein neues wissenschaftliches Publikationssystem, in welchem Erkenntnisse frei und zugänglich sind.
In tutto il mondo, l'Insegnamento Superiore e la Ricerca sono attualmente soggette alla dottrina dello choc del
neoliberismo, in cui la conoscenza è vista come un semplice mezzo per migliorare la competitività dell'economia,
come potenziale fonte di profitto e come strumento di controllo da parte dei governi. L’agenda neoliberale
applicata alla scienza viene attuata attraverso una nuova modalità di gestione pubblica in cui studenti, insegnanti
e ricercatori devono diventare imprenditori del loro capitale cognitivo e della loro reputazione. Lontano dagli
ideali cooperativi della scienza e dell'insegnamento, le università e gli istituti di ricerca sono gestiti come
imprese in concorrenza tra loro per attirare i "migliori" studenti e ricercatori. I gruppi di ricerca e il lavoro
collettivo sono quasi sistematicamente eliminati o sovvertiti. Il personale dirigente e amministrativo delle istituzioni
scientifiche è tenuto a cercare fondi e sovvenzioni per assumere una massa sempre maggiore di personale precario, i
cui bassi salari contrastano con i redditi sempre più elevati di una nuova élite dirigenziale rappresentata da
rettori e vicerettori universitari. La sofferenza sul lavoro colpisce la maggior parte di questi nuovi proletari
intellettuali. Nello stesso tempo, la follia della valutazione, la pressione del "publish or perish" e la
privatizzazione dell'editoria scientifica determinano un numero sempre più crescente di pubblicazioni, il che
minaccia sia la qualità della ricerca che la trasmissione aperta del sapere. Questa guerra materiale in cui
l'austerità va di pari passo con la privatizzazione è accompagnata da una guerra ideologica orwelliana in cui le
parole, scritte in un linguaggio povero e fuorviante, perdono di significato. Il desiderio di riconoscimento di
ciascuno conduce alla servitù di tutti, mentre i valori della competizione e dell'utilitarismo stanno guadagnando
terreno nelle nostre comunità scientifiche, dove gli individui sono sempre più isolati e temono di essere esclusi
dal gioco.
Fortunatamente sono emerse delle resistenze, sia nei paesi dove l'applicazione di queste politiche è stata più
sviluppata (Gran Bretagna o Cile), sia nei paesi dove è ancora meno avanzata (Francia, Germania o Canada, in
particolare in Quebec). Ovunque le mobilitazioni propongono delle alternative a tali politiche neoliberali, molto
vicine tra loro sia in termini di valori che di misure concrete. Ancora più importante, tutti noi crediamo che la
conoscenza sia parte del patrimonio comune dell'umanità e che il suo valore dipenda dalla sua condivisione con il
maggior numero possibile di persone. Le altre componenti dell'alternativa alla scienza neoliberale derivano da
questo principio.
In primo luogo, l'università deve essere libera. Ma la lotta per l'effettiva abolizione delle tasse universitarie
richiede anche che agli studenti sia riconosciuto il diritto a un adeguato sostegno economico che garantisca loro
autonomia, vitto, alloggio e tempo per studiare.
In secondo luogo, gli accademici e i ricercatori non solo devono avere stipendi e pensioni dignitosi, ma anche
ottenere incarichi stabili e a tempo pieno con forti garanzie di indipendenza. Si tratta di una condizione
assolutamente necessaria se vogliamo evitare conflitti di interesse tra l'istruzione, la scienza e i poteri del
denaro e della politica.
Gli accademici e i ricercatori, inoltre, dovranno ricevere finanziamenti a lungo termine, senza spendere gran
parte del loro tempo nella ricerca di sovvenzioni e progetti attraverso spaventose procedure burocratiche, o nella
giustificazione costante dell'uso scientifico dei fondi loro assegnati. Solo a queste condizioni potranno
rivendicare il loro diritto al tempo, senza il quale non è possibile alcun reale progresso intellettuale, nessuna
scienza libera e nessuna formazione libera, solida e coerente.
Infine, la democrazia deve essere al centro delle università e degli istituti di ricerca. Il dibattito critico con
i cittadini e la collegialità del processo decisionale devono sostituire la gestione dall'alto verso il basso da
parte di burocrati zelanti e incompetenti, interessati solo a stimolare la concorrenza e la cosiddetta
"eccellenza".
L'emergenza sociale ed ecologica che il mondo intero sta affrontando rappresenta un interesse generale comune che
dovrebbe spingerci a unirci se vogliamo essere all’altezza di tutte queste sfide. Un massiccio sviluppo delle
conoscenze scientifiche è oggi necessario per assicurare la transizione ecologica delle nostre società e per
sfuggire all'imminente disastro. Gli investimenti pubblici che rappresentano il 3% del PIL delle nazioni devono
essere destinati alla ricerca pubblica e ai servizi di istruzione superiore. Dobbiamo rispondere all’offensiva
neoliberale in modo organizzato: è tempo di costruire un'alternativa globale in cui accademici e scienziati,
studenti e cittadini difendano i tre pilastri del libero insegnamento superiore e della libera ricerca:
l'indipendenza della produzione scientifica e intellettuale, la libera critica e la libera trasmissione della
conoscenza.
Noi, firmatari di questo appello, membri della comunità accademica e della ricerca o del movimento sociale nel suo
complesso, veniamo da tutto il mondo. Ci impegniamo insieme a promuovere i valori della critica, della collegialità
e della cooperazione in campo scientifico e accademico. Difendiamo università e istituti di ricerca ben attrezzati
e liberi da interessi privati. Lottiamo contro le condizioni di lavoro precarie e promuoviamo un sistema
alternativo di pubblicazione scientifica in cui la conoscenza sia libera e aperta. Facciamo appello alla creazione
di una rete di solidarietà internazionale e allo sviluppo della conoscenza per tutti.
Em todo o mundo, o Ensino Superior e a Pesquisa estão atualmente sujeitos à doutrina de choque do neoliberalismo,
onde o conhecimento é percebido como uma mera forma de melhorar a competitividade da economia, como possível fonte
de benefícios e como ferramenta de controle dos governos. Essa agenda neoliberal para a ciência é implementada por
meio de um novo modo de gestão pública, no qual estudantes, professores e pesquisadores precisam se tornar
empreendedores de seu capital e reputação cognitivos. Longe dos ideais cooperativos da ciência e da academia,
universidades e instituições de pesquisa são administradas como corporações, competindo entre si para atrair os
"melhores" estudantes e pesquisadores. Grupos de pesquisa e órgãos coletivos de trabalho são quase sistematicamente
esmagados ou subvertidos. Os gerentes de ciência devem procurar fundos e doações para empregar uma massa cada vez maior de
funcionários precários, cujos baixos salários contrastam com ganhos cada vez maiores de uma nova elite gerencial
incorporada a presidentes de universidades ou vice-reitores. O sofrimento no trabalho afeta a maioria de um novo
proletariado intelectual. Por outro lado, a loucura da avaliação, a pressão para "publicar ou perecer" e a
privatização da publicação científica levam a um crescente número de publicações, o que ameaça tanto a qualidade da
pesquisa quanto a transmissão aberta do conhecimento. Essa guerra material, na qual a austeridade acompanha a
privatização, permanece com uma guerra ideológica orwelliana, na qual as palavras, escritas em uma fala pobre e
mentirosa, perdem o sentido. O desejo de reconhecimento de cada um que leva à servidão de todos, os valores da
competição e do utilitarismo estão ganhando terreno em nossas comunidades científicas, onde os indivíduos estão
cada vez mais isolados e temem ser excluídos do jogo.
Felizmente, a resistência emergiu, tanto em países onde a aplicação dessas políticas era a mais desenvolvida
(Grã-Bretanha ou Chile) quanto em países onde eles ainda estão menos avançados (França, Alemanha ou Canadá,
especialmente a região de Quebec). Em todo lugar, as mobilizações propõem alternativas a essas políticas
neoliberais, muito próximas umas das outras, tanto em termos de valores quanto de medidas concretas. Mais
crucialmente, todos nós compartilhamos a visão de que o conhecimento é parte dos bens comuns da humanidade, e que
seu valor depende de ser compartilhado com o maior número. Os outros componentes da alternativa à ciência
neoliberal derivam desse princípio.
Primeiro, a universidade deve ser livre. Mas a luta pela abolição efetiva das mensalidades exige também que se
reconheça aos estudantes o direito a um subsídio financeiro substancial que garanta sua autonomia, dando-lhes os
meios para lidar com o conselho e a acomodação e poupar tempo para estudar.
Em segundo lugar, acadêmicos e pesquisadores devem não apenas ter salários e aposentadorias decentes, mas também
devem receber cargos cheios com fortes garantias de independência. Essa é uma condição necessária se quisermos
evitar conflitos de interesses entre educação, ciência e os poderes do dinheiro e da política. Eles também devem
se beneficiar de créditos de longo prazo, sem gastar muito tempo solicitando um número crescente de doações e
projetos por meio de procedimentos burocráticos terríveis ou justificando constantemente o uso científico dos
fundos alocados a eles. É somente a esse preço que eles poderão reivindicar seu direito ao tempo, sem o qual nenhum
progresso intelectual real, nenhuma ciência livre e nenhuma educação livre, sólida e coerente são possíveis.
Finalmente, a democracia deve estar no centro das universidades e instituições de pesquisa. O debate crítico com os
cidadãos e a colegialidade das decisões devem substituir a gestão top-down, vinda de burocratas incompetentes e
incompetentes, interessados apenas em estimular a concorrência e a chamada "excelência".
A emergência social e ecológica que o mundo enfrenta atualmente representa um interesse geral comum que deve nos
impulsionar a unir se quisermos enfrentar todos esses desafios. Um enorme desenvolvimento do conhecimento
científico é agora necessário para garantir a transição ecológica de nossas sociedades e escapar do desastre
iminente. O investimento público no valor de 3% do PIB das nações deve ser dedicado aos serviços públicos de
pesquisa e ensino superior. Também temos que lutar de maneira organizada: é hora de construir uma alternativa
global em que acadêmicos e cientistas, estudantes e cidadãos defendam os três pilares do ensino superior e da
pesquisa: independência da produção científica e intelectual, crítica livre e transmissão irrestrita de
conhecimento.
Nós, os signatários deste chamado, sejam membros da comunidade acadêmica e de pesquisa ou do movimento social como
um todo, vêm de todo o mundo. Comprometemo-nos a promover os valores da crítica, colegialidade e cooperação na
ciência e na academia. Defendemos universidades e instituições de pesquisa bem dotadas e livres de interesses
privados. Lutamos contra condições de trabalho precárias e promovemos um sistema alternativo de publicação
científica em que o conhecimento é livre e aberto. Apelamos à constituição de uma rede de solidariedade
internacional e ao desenvolvimento do conhecimento para todos.
En todo el mundo, la Educación Superior y la Investigación están sometidas actualmente a la doctrina de choque del
neoliberalismo, donde el conocimiento se percibe como una mera forma de mejorar la competitividad de la economía,
como una posible fuente de beneficios y como una herramienta de control para los gobiernos. Esta agenda neoliberal
de la ciencia se implementa a través de un nuevo modo de gestión pública en el que los estudiantes, docentes e
investigadores deben convertirse en emprendedores de su capital cognitivo y de su reputación. Lejos de los ideales
cooperativos de la ciencia y la educación, las universidades y las instituciones de investigación se manejan como
empresas, compitiendo entre sí para atraer a los "mejores" estudiantes e investigadores. Los grupos de
investigación y los cuerpos colectivos de trabajo son aplastados o subvertidos casi sistemáticamente. Se supone que los
administradores de la ciencia deben buscar fondos y subvenciones para emplear a una masa cada vez mayor de personal
precario, cuyos bajos salarios contrastan con los ingresos cada vez más altos de una nueva élite gerencial
encarnada en los rectores y vice-rectores de las universidades. El sufrimiento en el trabajo afecta a la
mayoría del nuevo proletariado intelectual. Por otro lado, la locura de la evaluación, la presión para "publicar o
perecer" y la privatización de la publicación científica conducen a un número creciente de publicaciones, lo que
amenaza tanto la calidad de la investigación como la transmisión abierta del conocimiento. Esta guerra material, en
la que la austeridad va de la mano con la privatización, está acompañada de una guerra ideológica orwelliana en la
que las palabras, escritas en un lenguaje pobre y mentiroso, pierden su significado. El deseo de reconocimiento de
cada uno conduciendo a la servidumbre de todos, los valores de la competencia y el utilitarismo están ganando
terreno en nuestras comunidades científicas, donde los individuos están cada vez más aislados y temen ser excluidos
del juego.
Afortunadamente, han surgido resistencias, tanto en los países en los que la aplicación de estas políticas era la
más desarrollada (tal como Gran Bretaña o Chile) como en aquellos donde no lo están tanto (Francia, Alemania o
Canadá, especialmente la región de Quebec). En todas partes, las movilizaciones proponen alternativas a estas
políticas neoliberales, muy próximas entre sí, tanto en términos de valores como de medidas concretas. Lo más
importante es que todos compartimos la opinión de que el conocimiento forma parte del patrimonio común de la
humanidad y que su valor depende de que se comparta con el mayor número posible de personas. Los otros componentes
de la alternativa a la ciencia neoliberal provienen de este principio.
Primero, la universidad debe ser libre. Pero la lucha por la abolición efectiva de los derechos de matrícula exige
también que se reconozca a los estudiantes el derecho a una asignación financiera sustancial que les garantice su
autonomía, ofreciéndoles los recursos para la comida y el alojamiento y tiempo libre para
estudiar.
En segundo lugar, los profesores y los investigadores no sólo deben tener salarios y pensiones decentes, sino que
también se les deben conceder puestos plenos con fuertes garantías de independencia. Esta es una condición
necesaria si queremos evitar conflictos de intereses entre la educación, la ciencia y los poderes del dinero y la
política.
También deben beneficiarse de créditos a largo plazo, sin tener que dedicar gran parte de su tiempo a solicitar un
número cada vez mayor de subvenciones y proyectos a través de procedimientos burocráticos espantosos ni tener que
justificar constantemente el uso científico de los fondos que se les asignan. Sólo a este precio podrán reivindicar
su derecho al tiempo, sin el cual no es posible ningún progreso intelectual real, ninguna ciencia libre y ninguna
educación libre, sólida y coherente.
Por último, la democracia debe estar en el centro de las universidades y las instituciones de investigación. El
debate crítico con los ciudadanos y la colegialidad de las decisiones deben sustituir a la gestión de arriba hacia
abajo procedente de burócratas celosos e incompetentes interesados únicamente en estimular la competición y la
llamada "excelencia".
La emergencia social y ecológica a la que se enfrenta actualmente todo el mundo representa un interés general común
que debería impulsarnos a unirnos si queremos hacer frente a todos estos retos. Ahora es necesario un desarrollo
masivo del conocimiento científico para garantizar la transición ecológica de nuestras sociedades y escapar de la
catástrofe que se avecina. La inversión pública, que tiene que ascender al 3% del PIB de las naciones, debe
dedicarse a los servicios públicos de investigación y educación superior. También tenemos que contraatacar de
manera organizada: es hora de construir una alternativa mundial en la que académicos y científicos, estudiantes y
ciudadanos defiendan los tres pilares de la educación superior y la investigación: independencia de la
producción científica e intelectual, crítica libre y transmisión ilimitada del conocimiento.
Nosotros, los firmantes de este llamamiento, miembros de la comunidad académica y de investigación o del movimiento
social en su conjunto, venimos de todas partes del mundo. Nos comprometemos juntos a promover los valores de la
crítica, la colegialidad y la cooperación en la ciencia y la academia. Defendemos universidades e instituciones de
investigación bien dotadas y libres de intereses privados. Luchamos contra las precarias condiciones de trabajo y
promovemos un sistema alternativo de publicación científica en el que el conocimiento es libre y abierto. Pedimos
la constitución de una red de solidaridad internacional y del desarrollo del conocimiento para todos.
Aux quatre coins de la planète, des étudiants, des universitaires, des chercheurs, mais aussi des lycéens ou des enseignants, se mobilisent pour s’opposer aux politiques néolibérales et conquérir de nouveaux droits. Et la plupart du temps, nous n’en savons rien ou si peu…
Nous nous proposons donc de tenir sur ce blog une « météo des luttes », organisée sous la forme de textes courts, de « brèves », suivis de liens à consulter ou de documents à télécharger.
Dans ce bulletin météo, nous vous signalons quelques-uns de ces combats, locaux et universels...
All over the world, students, academics, researchers, as well as high school students and teachers are mobilizing to oppose neoliberal policies and conquer new rights. But most of the time, we hear little or no wind of it...
We therefore propose to keep on this blog a “barometer of struggles” organized in the form of news in brief, followed by links to consult or documents to download.
In this weathercast, we signal to you a few of these recent fights, local and universal…
Überall auf der Welt kämpfen Studierende, Lehrende und Forschende, aber auch SchülerInnen oder gar Eltern, gegen neoliberale Politik und für neue Rechte. Davon erfahren wir in der Regel nur wenig…
Auf dieser Seite verzeichnen wir also einen wissenschaftlichen Streikwetterdienst aus kurzen Texten und Meldungen mit Links und Dokumenten zum Herunterladen.
In diesem Bericht stellen wir Euch einige dieser lokalen und allgemeinen Kämpfe vor.
En todas partes del mundo, estudiantes, académicos, investigadores, pero también estudiantes y profesores de secundaria se movilizan para oponerse a las políticas neoliberales y conquistar nuevos derechos. Pero la mayor parte del tiempo, no sabemos nada o muy poco....
Por lo tanto, proponemos mantener en este blog un "barómetro de las luchas", organizado en forma de resúmenes, seguidos de enlaces para consultar o documentos para descargar.
En este reporte meteorológico, señalamos algunas de estas luchas, locales y universales…
In tutto il mondo, studenti, accademici, ricercatori, ma anche studenti delle scuole superiori e insegnanti si stanno mobilitando per contrastare le politiche neoliberali e conquistare nuovi diritti. E il più delle volte non ne sappiamo nulla, o molto poco...
Proponiamo quindi di tenere su questo blog un "meteo delle lotte", organizzato in forma di brevi testi, seguiti da link da consultare o documenti da scaricare.
In questo bollettino meteorologico, diamo notizia di alcune lotte, locali e universali…
Em todo o mundo, estudantes, acadêmicos, pesquisadores, mas também estudantes do ensino médio e professores estão se mobilizando para se opor às políticas neoliberais e conquistar novos direitos. E, na maioria das vezes, não sabemos nada ou tão pouco acerca disso...
Propomos portanto manter neste blog um "clima das lutas", composto por textos curtos, "resumos", seguidos de links para consulta ou documentos para download.
Neste boletim meteorológico, relatamos algumas dessas batalhas, locais e universais…
Monde
La lutte mondiale des jeunes pour le climat s’intensifie
Une semaine mondiale d’action est organisée du 20 au 27 septembre 2019 avec grève scolaire mondiale le 20 septembre et grève totale le 27 septembre.
Afrique
Guinée
Plusieurs blessés étudiants et gendarmes lors des heurts à l’université de Labé, située dans la province de Hafia.
Sénégal
Un étudiant de l’université Assane Seck de Ziguinchor a été blessé par balle lors des affrontements entre la police et les étudiants le 15 juin. Ces derniers manifestent depuis plusieurs mois pour obtenir le paiement de leur bourse.
Amérique du Sud
Brazil
Nationwide Student Strike began in Brazil Over Bolsonaro’s budget cuts. Many demonstrations took place on May 15, in 15 on 17 of Brazil’s states with particularly large ones in major cities like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia and Belo Horizonte. Despite the cuts affecting only federal institutions, the protest movement has been joined by many private universities such as Rio’s Pontifical University which voted last week to join the nationwide demonstration. Em defensa da universidades públicas brasileiras, circulam petições. A de Daniel Peres, (Salvador-Bahia) dirigida em particular ao Congresso Nacional, já recolheu mais de um milhão e meio de assinaturas.
TheGuardian 30.05.2019, Tens of thousands of students, academics and teachers have taken to the streets of Brazil for their latest mass protest against what they call far-right president Jair Bolsonaro’s assault on education. Up and down the country – from Amazon cities to small towns in Brazil’s deep south – demonstrators turned out to condemn Bolsonaro’s highly controversial moves to slash funding for public education and science.
The Conversation 05.06.2019, Tens of thousands of students and professors protested nationwide on May 30 against a Jair Bolsonaro administration proposal to slash Brazil’s public education budget and starve university humanities departments of resources. It was the second mass demonstration in two weeks against the education policies of Brazil’s divisive new president. Protesters in cities and towns across Brazil took to the streets to condemn an education ministry proposal to reduce funding for Brazilian public universities by 30% during the remainder of 2019. The ministry is also considering withdrawing financing entirely from the philosophy and sociology departments of public universities. The objective would be to “focus on areas that generate immediate return to the taxpayer such as veterinary, engineering and medicine,” Bolsonaro wrote on Twitter on April 26.
Chile
En todo el país, se contesta mucho la Reforma de la Educación Superior y de Universidades Estatales llevada por el Mineduc (Ministerio de Educación). En Santiago el 6 de junio, profesores y estudiantes marchan contra el presidente Piñera que mantiene su silencio frente a las demandas. "Nos estamos manifestando por los problemas graves de la educación pública", dijo durante la marcha Mario Aguilar, presidente del Colegio de Profesores, mientras un docente grita "Chile no es una empresa y nosotros no somos los empleados de su empresa". "Avanzar hacia una educación pública, gratuita y sin deuda" es el lema bajo el cual miles de estudiantes universitarios y secundarios del país se movilizaron el 20 de junio a la llammada de la Confech (Confederación de Estudiantes de Chile).
Honduras
El Heraldo, 22.05.2019 Tegucigalpa. Este miércoles, un nutrido grupo de docentes, médicos y estudiantes del sector público llevaron a cabo desde horas de la mañana una marcha para evitar la supuesta privatización del sistema educativo y exigir la derogación de los decretos ejecutivos que le dieron vida a las comisiones especiales de transformación en las secretarías de Salud y Educación. Los maestros y docentes son apoyados en sus pretensiones por estudiantes, padres de familia y sindicatos. Las universidades, colegios y escuelas de la capital cerraron sus puertas en Tegucigalpa y muchos lugares del territorio hondureño. El caos, zozobra y vandalismo se apoderó de la capital este jueves (30 mayo). Un grupo de manifestantes protagonizó violentos enfrentamientos con policías, enfrente del Aeropuerto Internacional Toncontín, en la capital de Honduras.
Santo Domingo
Noticias SIN, 06.06.2019, Santo Domingo. Tras intentar cruzar el cerco de seguridad, la situación pasó de pacífica a disturbios. Los manifestantes lanzaban botellas de agua a los policías pero cuando comenzaron a lanzarles piedras, los agentes respondieron con bombas lacrimógenas. Las pedradas alcanzaron la cara de uno de los uniformados. La escuela de medicina de la UASD y el Colegio Médico se oponen al proyecto de ley porque aseguran que este quitará a la universidad del Estado la potestad de impartir y calificar la prueba para dejarlo en manos del sector privado.
Contre la Réforme Blanquer, les enseignants des filières professionnelles et générales poursuivent leur lutte. Certains s’organisent pour une grève des corrections ou une rétention de notes du baccalauréat. Rappelons qu’en 2019, ce sont 743 000 élèves, qui passent cet examen final remis en cause par la réforme Blanquer dès la rentrée 2020. On ne lâchera pas ! Un programme d’action bien rempli en ce mois de juin pour défendre les filières professionnelles. Les professeurs d’histoire-géographie des filières générales de l’académie de Dijon votent quant à eux pour une rétention des notes comme moyen d’action. Dans l’académie de Créteil, les professeurs de philosophie votent également pour une rétention des notes pour une durée illimitée.
Assembly of the World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW)
Assemblée Générale de la Fédération Mondiale des Travailleurs Scientifiques (FMTS)
The 22nd General Assembly of the World Federation of Scientific Workers met in Dakar on December 8th, 2017. It agreed to call upon governments, the world scientific community and all the inhabitants of our planet facing a serious environmental crisis, in order to launch an exceptional research project to an amount of about 1200 billion euros per year, based on the principles of cooperation and solidarity. It is a global and urgent requirement.
Climate, biosphere, oceans…, the Earth system is destabilized. It enters unknown territory. The living conditions of all humanity and even that of all animal and vegetal beings are threatened. Ultimately, the very survival of the human species could be posed. The way that human activities are currently carried out is at the root of this situation. A rapid and deep transformation of how these activities are being developed is indispensable. A technical, ecological and even civilizational transition, that benefits all human beings, must bring about a change in the relationship between humanity and the Earth system, ensuring the conditions for its survival, for peace, well-being and life fulfillment of all populations. These stakes are global. They require a takeover by and mobilization of all nations, all populations and all sectors of activity. Such a transition requires that: – the principles of solidarity and cooperation overcome the principle of competition; – new financing and technology transfer mechanisms be implemented adapted to the needs and trajectories of the different countries; – procedures be developed that take into account the needs, uses and specific knowledges of populations; – inequalities be reduced.
A major contribution of research – including the social and human sciences – is essential for such a transition. With that aim, it is important to put an end to policies primarily focused on meeting the demands of multinational companies and on promoting the competitiveness of the territories subject to extreme international economic competition created by free trade agreements. Key sectors, such as education, energy, health, agriculture, food, industry, are strategic for the future of humanity. They require the establishment, under the umbrella of the United Nations, of an agency, with the necessary legal and financial resources, responsible for an international program of the transition, based on global aims and with enough flexibility to consider, and be enriched by, local and national specificities. This transition program must include exceptionally major research programs of a size unmatched by current ones, and subordinated to the principles of cooperation and solidarity. Such major international research programs shall also be supported by current national and international research networks and programs. It is urgent to reach exceptional levels of financial investments of the order of 1200 billion euros, about the 2% of the world PIB, to mobilize the world scientific power towards these projects, without any exclusion, allowing for the participation of all countries.
At stake it is the achievement of the following objectives: – increasing energy efficiency and reducing cost of generating, storing and transporting renewable energy, while drastically minimizing adverse environmental and health effects; stopping all exploitation of fossil fuels as soon as possible; – increasing uptake of carbon dioxide by agricultural soils and through reforestation, and using CO2 as a raw material to obtain carbon based chemicals, fuels and materials; – reducing agricultural methane emissions; improving the nutritional and sanitary quality of the diet; strongly reducing the negative effects on health and the environment resulting from human activities; – preserving freshwater sources, rivers and oceans and allowing universal access to drinking water; preserving biodiversity; – developing technologies and techniques adapted to the diversity of local situations, especially in their cultural, environmental and climatic conditions (for instance, housing or energy).
In this twenty-first century, the preservation of the Earth system and of all the common goods of humanity, the lasting well-being and the life fulfillment of all human beings, shall be the objectives and the compass that guide the scientific community, and beyond it all the human community. The World Federation of Scientific Workers (WFSW) works to define, promote and implement strategies to achieve the above mentioned goals. It calls on scientists from all countries to be committed to this task and, in cooperation, contribute to the achievement of these goals, and more broadly to the development of an unstoppable international movement capable of achieving them. The WFSW will direct this call to UN organizations and promote it through international NGOs, regional and international labor movements and labor confederations, and appeal to the world citizens to bring the call to the attention of their respective governments.
La 22e Assemblée Générale de la Fédération Mondiale des Travailleurs Scientifiques (FMTS) s’est tenue à Dakar, en décembre 2017. Face à la crise environnementale, elle a décidé d’appeler la communauté scientifique et toutes les populations de la planète à la mise en place d’un projet de recherche international exceptionnel, d’une hauteur de 2% du PIB mondial, soit environ 1200 milliards d’euros annuels, fondé sur les principes de coopération et de solidarité. Il s’agit d’une exigence mondiale et urgente.
Climat, biosphère, océans…, le système Terre est déstabilisé. Il entre dans une ère inconnue. Les conditions de vie de l’ensemble de l’humanité et des autres espèces animales et végétales sont menacées. A terme, la survie même de l’espèce humaine est posée. Le type d’activités humaines actuel constitue la cause de cette situation. Une transformation rapide et profonde de celles-ci est indispensable. Une transition technique, écologique et civilisationnelle, bénéficiant à tous les êtres humains, doit permettre une évolution du rapport entre l’humanité et le système Terre, assurant à l’humanité les conditions de sa survie, de la paix, du bien-être et de l’épanouissement de chacune de ses populations. L’enjeu est planétaire. Il exige une appropriation et une mobilisation de l’ensemble des nations, des populations et des secteurs d’activité. Il nécessite : – que les principes de solidarité et de coopération doivent supplanter celui de concurrence ; – la mise en œuvre de mécanismes de financement et de transfert de technologies adaptés aux besoins et aux trajectoires des différents pays ; – le développement de dispositifs permettant de prendre en considération les besoins, les usages et les savoirs des populations ; – une réduction des inégalités.
Une contribution majeure de la recherche – y compris en sciences humaines et sociales – est indispensable à cette transition. Pour ce faire, un terme doit être mis aux politiques qui tendent à principalement orienter la recherche vers la satisfaction des demandes des entreprises multinationales, et vers le soutien à la compétitivité des territoires soumis à une concurrence économique internationale aggravée par les accords de libre-échange. Des secteurs clés tels que l’éducation, l’énergie, la santé, l’agriculture, l’alimentation, l’industrie, sont stratégiques pour le devenir de l’humanité. Ils nécessitent la mise en place, sous l’égide de l’ONU, d’une agence – disposant des moyens juridiques contraignants et financiers nécessaires – en charge d’une programmation internationale de la transition, fondée sur des objectifs globaux et sur une flexibilité permettant de prendre en considération – et de s’enrichir- des spécificités nationales et locales. Cette programmation doit inclure des programmes de recherche internationaux d’une ampleur exceptionnelle, sans commune mesure avec les programmes actuels, organisés selon les principes de coopération et de solidarité. Ces programmes de recherche internationaux doivent être soutenus par les programmes et les réseaux de recherche internationaux et nationaux existants. il est urgent de passer à un niveau exceptionnel d’investissement financier – de l’ordre de 1 200 milliards d’euros, soit 2 % du PIB mondial – pour mobiliser les forces scientifiques mondiales dans ces projets, sans exclusive, avec la participation de tous les pays.
Il s’agit de contribuer à la réalisation des objectifs suivants : – augmenter l’efficacité énergétique et diminuer le coût de la production, du stockage et du transport des énergies renouvelables tout en réduisant drastiquement les effets négatifs aux plans environnemental et sanitaire ; cesser au plus vite toute exploitation d’énergies fossiles ; – augmenter la captation de dioxyde de carbone par les sols agricoles et la reforestation, utiliser le CO2 comme une matière première pour produire des composés chimiques, des combustibles et des matériaux à base de carbone ; – réduire les émissions agricoles de méthane ; améliorer la qualité nutritive et sanitaire de l’alimentation ; réduire fortement les effets négatifs aux plans environnemental et sanitaire de l’ensemble des activités humaines ; – préserver les sources d’eau douce, les rivières et les océans et assurer un accès universel à l’eau potable ; préserver la biodiversité ; – développer des technologies et des techniques adaptées à la diversité des situations locales, notamment dans leurs dimensions culturelle, environnementale et climatique (par exemple dans les domaines de l’habitation ou de l’énergie).
En ce XXIe siècle, la préservation du système Terre et de l’ensemble des biens communs de l’humanité, le bien être durable et l’épanouissement de l’ensemble des humains, constituent les objectifs et la boussole devant orienter la communauté scientifique, et au-delà l’ensemble de la communauté humaine. La Fédération Mondiale des Travailleurs Scientifiques (FMTS) se mobilise pour la définition, la promotion et la mise en œuvre de stratégies visant ces objectifs. Elle appelle les scientifiques de tous les pays à s’engager dans des coopérations contribuant à la réalisation de ces objectifs, et plus largement dans le développement d’un mouvement international puissant en capacité de les atteindre. La FMTS portera les exigences de cet appel auprès des organisations de l’ONU et en fera la promotion auprès des ONG internationales et des fédérations et confédérations syndicales internationales et régionales. Elle appelle les citoyens du monde à porter cet appel devant leurs gouvernements.
Before the automobile, before the Statue of Liberty, before the vast majority of contemporary colleges existed, the rising cost of higher education was shocking the American conscience: “Gentlemen have to pay for their sons in one year more than they spent themselves in the whole four years of their course,” The New York Times lamented in 1875.
Decadence was to blame, the writer argued: fancy student apartments, expensive meals, and “the mania for athletic sports.”
Today, the U.S. spends more on college than almost any other country, according to the 2018 Education at a Glance report released this week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
All told, including the contributions of individual families and the government (in the form of student loans, grants, and other assistance), Americans spend about $30,000 per student a year — nearly twice as much as the average developed country. “The U.S. is in a class of its own,” says Andreas Schleicher, the director for education and skills at the OECD, and he does not mean this as a compliment. “Spending per student is exorbitant, and it has virtually no relationship to the value that students could possibly get in exchange.”
Only one country spends more per student, and that country is Luxembourg — where tuition is nevertheless free for students, thanks to government outlays. In fact, a third of developed countries offer college free of charge to their citizens. (And another third keep tuition very cheap — less than $2,400 a year.) The farther away you get from the United States, the more baffling it looks.
This back-to-school season, The Atlantic is investigating a classic American mystery: Why does college cost so much? And is it worth it?
At first, like the 19th-century writer of yore, I wanted to blame the curdled indulgences of campus life: fancy dormitories, climbing walls, lazy rivers, dining halls with open-fire-pit grills. And most of all — college sports. Certainly sports deserved blame.
On first glance, the new international data provide some support for this narrative. The U.S. ranks No. 1 in the world for spending on student-welfare services such as housing, meals, health care, and transportation, a category of spending that the OECD lumps together under “ancillary services.” All in all, American taxpayers and families spend about $3,370 on these services per student — more than three times the average for the developed world.
One reason for this difference is that American college students are far more likely to live away from home. And living away from home is expensive, with or without a lazy river. Experts say that campuses in Canada and Europe tend to have fewer dormitories and dining halls than campuses in the U.S. “The bundle of services that an American university provides and what a French university provides are very different,” says David Feldman, an economist focused on education at William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. “Reasonable people can argue about whether American universities should have these kind of services, but the fact that we do does not mark American universities as inherently inefficient. It marks them as different.”
But on closer inspection, the data suggest a bigger problem than fancy room and board. Even if we were to zero out all these ancillary services tomorrow, the U.S. would still spend more per college student than any other country (except, again, Luxembourg). It turns out that the vast majority of American college spending goes to routine educational operations — like paying staff and faculty — not to dining halls. These costs add up to about $23,000 per student a year — more than twice what Finland, Sweden, or Germany spends on core services. “Lazy rivers are decadent and unnecessary, but they are not in and of themselves the main culprit,” says Kevin Carey, the author of The End of College and the director of the education-policy program at New America, a nonpartisan think tank.
The business of providing an education is so expensive because college is different from other things that people buy, argue Feldman and his colleague Robert Archibald in their 2011 book, Why Does College Cost So Much? College is a service, for one thing, not a product, which means it doesn’t get cheaper along with changes in manufacturing technology (economists call this affliction “cost disease”). And college is a service delivered mostly by workers with college degrees — whose salaries have risen more dramatically than those of low-skilled service workers over the past several decades.
College is not the only service to have gotten wildly more expensive in recent decades, Feldman and Archibald point out. Since 1950, the real prices of the services of doctors, dentists, and lawyers have risen at similar rates as the price of higher education, according to Feldman and Archibald’s book. “The villain, as much as there is one, is economic growth itself,” they write.
This all makes sense, if we just focus on the U.S. But what about the rest of the world? These broader economic trends exist there, too. So why does college still cost half as much, on average, in other countries?
One oddity of America’s higher-education system is that it is actually three different systems masquerading as one: There is one system of public colleges; another of private, nonprofit institutions; and one made up of for-profit colleges.
The biggest system by far is the public one, which includes two-year community colleges and four-year institutions. Three out of every four American college students attend a school in this public system, which is funded through state and local subsidies, along with students’ tuition dollars and some federal aid.
In this public system, the high cost of college has as much to do with politics as economics. Many state legislatures have been spending less and less per student on higher education for the past three decades. Bewitched by the ideology of small government (and forced by law to balance their budgets during a period of mounting health-care costs), states have been leaving once-world-class public universities begging for money. The cuts were particularly stark after the 2008 recession, and they set off a cascading series of consequences, some of which were never intended.
The easiest way for universities to make up for the cuts was to shift some of the cost to students — and to find richer students. “Once that sustainable public funding was taken out from under these schools, they started acting more like businesses,” says Maggie Thompson, the executive director of Generation Progress, a nonprofit education-advocacy group. State cutbacks did not necessarily make colleges more efficient, which was the hope; they made colleges more entrepreneurial.
Some universities began to enroll more full-paying foreign and out-of-state students to make up the difference. Over the past decade, for example, Purdue University has reduced its in-state student population by 4,300 while adding 5,300 out-of-state and foreign students, who pay triple the tuition. “They moved away from working to educate people in their region to competing for the most elite and wealthy students — in a way that was unprecedented,” Thompson says.
This competition eventually crept beyond climbing walls and dining halls into major, long-term operating expenses. For example, U.S. colleges spend, relative to other countries, a startling amount of money on their nonteaching staff, according to the OECD data. Some of these people are librarians or career or mental-health counselors who directly benefit students, but many others do tangential jobs that may have more to do with attracting students than with learning. Many U.S. colleges employ armies of fund-raisers, athletic staff, lawyers, admissions and financial-aid officers, diversity-and-inclusion managers, building-operations and maintenance staff, security personnel, transportation workers, and food-service workers.
The international data is not detailed enough to reveal exactly which jobs are diverting the most money, but we can say that U.S. colleges spend more on nonteaching staff than on teachers, which is upside down compared with every other country that provided data to the OECD (with the exception of Luxembourg, naturally).
In addition, most global rankings of universities heavily weight the amount of research published by faculty — a metric that has no relationship to whether students are learning. But in a heated race for students, these rankings get the attention of college administrators, who push faculty to focus on research and pay star professors accordingly.
Likewise, the new data show that U.S. colleges currently have a slightly lower ratio of students to teachers than the average for the developed world — another metric favored in college rankings. But that is a very expensive way to compete. And among education researchers, there is no clear consensus about whether smaller classes are worth the money.
In the beginning, university administrators may have started competing for full-freight paying students in order to help subsidize other, less affluent students. But once other colleges got into the racket, it became a spending arms race. More and more universities had to participate, including private colleges unaffected by state cuts, just to keep their application numbers up. “There is such a thing as wasteful competition,” Charles Clotfelter, a Duke University professor and the author of Unequal Colleges in the Age of Disparity, wrote me in an email.
All that said, it’s also true that state budget cuts were uneven across the country. Today, in-state tuition in Wyoming is about a third of the cost of Vermont, for example. In places where higher education has not been gutted and the cost of living is low, an American college degree can still be a bargain — especially for students who don’t mind living at home and are poor enough to qualify for federal aid. Taking into account living expenses, says Alex Usher of the consulting firm Higher Education Strategy Associates, a student at a public university in Mississippi will likely end up with similar out-of-pocket costs as a student in Sweden.
Usher, who is based in Toronto, is one of the few researchers to have looked carefully at the costs of higher education globally. And much of what he finds is surprising. In 2010, he and his colleague Jon Medow created a clever ranking of 15 countries’ higher-education systems — using a variety of ways to assess affordability and access. Reading the report is like peeling an onion. The first layer focuses on the most obvious question: the affordability of college based on the cost of tuition, books, and living expenses divided by the median income in a given country. By this metric, the U.S. does very poorly, ranking third from the bottom. Only Mexico and Japan do worse.
But the U.S. moves up one place when grants and tax credits are included. “Your grants are actually really generous compared to everybody else,” Usher says. Tuition is higher in the U.S., so the grants don’t fully cover the price, but 70 percent of full-time students do receive some kind of grant aid, according to the College Board. From this perspective, sometimes called “net cost,” Australia is more expensive than the U.S.
Next, looking only at our public colleges, the U.S. rises higher still, ranking in the middle of the pack in Usher’s analysis, above Canada and New Zealand. This data is from 2010, and things may look less rosy if he were to redo the study now, Usher cautions. But still, he sounds weirdly hopeful. “The public system in the U.S. is working as well as most systems,” he says. “Parts of the U.S. look like France.”
The problem, of course, is that other parts of the U.S. look more like a Louis Vuitton store. America basically contains 50 different higher-education systems, one per state, each with public, private, and for-profit institutions, making generalizations all but impossible. The U.S. does relatively well on measures of access to college, but the price varies wildly depending on the place and the person. Somehow, students have to find their way through this thicket of competition and choose wisely, or suffer the consequences.
The more I studied America’s baffling higher-education system, the more it reminded me of health care. In both spaces, Americans pay twice as much as people in other developed countries—and get very uneven results. The U.S. spends nearly $10,000 a person on health care each year (25 percent more than Switzerland, the next biggest spender), according to the OECD’s 2017 Health at a Glance report, but our life expectancy is now almost two years below the average for the developed world.
“I used to joke that I could just take all my papers and statistical programs and globally replace hospitals with schools, doctors with teachers and patients with students,” says Dartmouth College’s Douglas Staiger, one of the few U.S. economists who studies both education and health care.
Both systems are more market driven than in just about any other country, which makes them more innovative — but also less coherent and more exploitive. Hospitals and colleges charge different prices to different people, rendering both systems bewilderingly complex, Staiger notes. It is very hard for regular people to make informed decisions about either, and yet few decisions could be more important.
In both cases, the most vulnerable people tend to make less-than-ideal decisions. For example, among high-achieving, low-income students (who have grades and test scores that put them in the top 4 percent of U.S. students and would be eligible for generous financial aid at elite colleges), the vast majority apply to no selective colleges at all, according to research by Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery. “Ironically, these students are often paying more to go to a nonselective four-year college or even a community college than they would pay to go to the most selective, most resource-rich institutions in the United States,” as Hoxby told NPR.
Meanwhile, when it comes to health care, low-income Americans tend to be less familiar with the concepts of deductibles, coinsurance rates, and provider networks, according to a variety of studies, which makes it extremely difficult to choose a health-care plan. “These are both sectors where consumers are too poorly informed and societal costs and benefits too great to leave decision-making entirely in the hands of individuals,” as Isabel Sawhill at the Brookings Institution has written.
Ultimately, college is expensive in the U.S. for the same reason MRIs are expensive: There is no central mechanism to control price increases. “Universities extract money from students because they can,” says Schleicher at the OECD. “It’s the inevitable outcome of an unregulated fee structure.” In places like the United Kingdom, the government limits how much universities can extract by capping tuition. The same is true when it comes to health care in most developed countries, where a centralized government authority contains the prices.
The U.S. federal government has historically been unwilling to perform this role. So Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals — and for college classes. Meanwhile, more and more of the risk gets shifted from government onto families, in both sectors.
At the very least, the American government could do a better job sharing information about the quality of colleges in ways everyone can understand, Schleicher says. “You can’t force people to buy good things or bad things, but they should be able to see what the value is.”
Spending a lot of money can be worth it, if you get something awesome in exchange. “America has the best colleges and universities in the world!” President Donald Trump exclaimed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year. Former President Barack Obama said the same thing before him.
But is it actually true? No meaningful data exist on the quality of universities globally. America does have a disproportionate number of elite colleges, which accept fewer than 10 percent of applicants, and these places do employ some brilliant scholars who do groundbreaking research. But fewer than 1 percent of American students attend highly selective colleges like those.
Instead, more than three-quarters of students attend nonselective colleges, which admit at least half of their applicants. No one knows for sure how good these colleges are at their core job of educating students. But in one of the only careful, recent studies on adult skills, the OECD’s Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, Americans under age 35 with a bachelor’s degree performed below their similarly educated peers in 14 other countries on the test of practical math skills. In other words, they did only slightly better than high-school graduates in Finland. America’s college grads did better in reading, performing below just six other countries, but dropped off again in another test, scoring below 13 other countries in their ability to solve problems using digital technology.
If American colleges are not adding obvious and consistent academic value, they are adding financial value. Americans with college degrees earn 75 percent more than those who only completed high school. Over a lifetime, people with bachelor’s degrees earn more than half a million dollars more than people with no college degree in the U.S. In fact, no other country rewards a college degree as richly as the United States, and few other countries punish people so relentlessly for not having one. It’s a diabolical cycle: Colleges are very expensive to run, partly because of the high salaries earned by their skilled workers. But those higher salaries make college degrees extremely valuable, which means Americans will pay a lot to get them. And so colleges can charge more. As Carey, the End of College author, summarizes: “Students are over a barrel.”
Still, the return varies wildly depending on the college one attends. One in four college grads earns no more than the average high-school graduate. Associate’s degrees from for-profit universities lead to smaller salary bumps than associate’s degrees from community colleges, which are cheaper. And two-thirds of students at for-profits drop out before earning their degree anyway, meaning many will spend years struggling with debt they cannot afford to pay off — and cannot, under U.S. law, off-load through bankruptcy.
This convoluted, complicated, inconsistent system continues to exist, and continues to be so expensive because college in America is still worth the price. At certain colleges, for certain people. Especially if they finish. But it doesn’t have to be this way, and almost everywhere else, it isn’t.