“Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities.”

Rosalind Pritchard

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    28 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    What happens when a highly regulated educational system - one featuring academic freedom, a national outlook and an input-oriented state-run bureaucracy - attempts to internationalize and introduce management structures that are outcome-oriented, deregulated, and more efficient? The question is relevant in many countries where universities are trying to get out from under the state, and it is critically important in the formerly Communist systems as well as in countries where Prussian traditions have influenced the university model. In the case of Germany, examined in this article, it has long been admitted that change is needed. There is no shortage of exhortation to achieve it, both within and outside government. Yet the German model is an immensely influential one, both in Europe and the United States. Accordingly, a change in German higher education would represent a significant reconfiguration in the academic world. My purpose in this article is to explore the measures currently being taken to modernize and create a market within German universities, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The following questions are addressed:• How are marketizing trends being manifested in governance and law, management, finance, quality assurance, and human resource management? • What are the obstacles to marketizing trends? • How are these trends influencing the model of the German state in its post-war incarnation?
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages9
    JournalComparative Education Review (USA),
    Volume50
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2006

    Fingerprint

    restructuring
    university
    trend
    high German
    human resource management
    quality assurance
    management
    bureaucracy
    educational system
    shortage
    finance
    governance
    Law
    market
    education

    Keywords

    • German Higher Education
    • reform
    • Higher Education Law

    Cite this

    @article{6ebe1b476a4f46d1b837c5da9a63ad5b,
    title = "“Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities.”",
    abstract = "What happens when a highly regulated educational system - one featuring academic freedom, a national outlook and an input-oriented state-run bureaucracy - attempts to internationalize and introduce management structures that are outcome-oriented, deregulated, and more efficient? The question is relevant in many countries where universities are trying to get out from under the state, and it is critically important in the formerly Communist systems as well as in countries where Prussian traditions have influenced the university model. In the case of Germany, examined in this article, it has long been admitted that change is needed. There is no shortage of exhortation to achieve it, both within and outside government. Yet the German model is an immensely influential one, both in Europe and the United States. Accordingly, a change in German higher education would represent a significant reconfiguration in the academic world. My purpose in this article is to explore the measures currently being taken to modernize and create a market within German universities, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The following questions are addressed:• How are marketizing trends being manifested in governance and law, management, finance, quality assurance, and human resource management? • What are the obstacles to marketizing trends? • How are these trends influencing the model of the German state in its post-war incarnation?",
    keywords = "German Higher Education, reform, Higher Education Law",
    author = "Rosalind Pritchard",
    note = "Reference text: TRENDS Ulrich Teichler, and Henry Wasser (eds) German and American Universities: Mutual Influences -- Past and Present (Kassel: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum f{\"u}r Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel, 1992). Rosalind M. O. Pritchard, “Humboldtian Values and Globalisation: Staff and Students in German Universities,” Oxford Review of Education 30 (2004): 509-528. Edelgard Bulmahn, Mut zur Ver{\"a}nderung (Bonn: BMBF, 1999). Although the Minister complains of high dropout rates, in actual fact the German rate is between 28 per cent and 30 per cent which with the exception of Japan (11 per cent) is the lowest among large OECD countries. See OECD, Education at a Glance (Paris: OECD, 2000). Wissenschaftsrat, 10 Thesen zur Hochschulpolitik (Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 22.1.1993). BMBF (Bundesministerium f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung -- Zahlenbarometer 2000/2001: Ein bildungs- und forschungsstatistischer {\"U}berblick (Bonn: BMBF, 2001), 41. Detlef M{\"u}ller-B{\"o}ling, Die entfesselte Universit{\"a}t (G{\"u}tersloh, Bertelsmann, 2000): 61-64, 90. M{\"u}ller-B{\"o}ling, p. 144, Simon Marginson and Gary Rhoades “Beyond National States, Markets and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic,” Higher Education 43 (2003): 281-309. Derek Lewis, Contemporary Germany: A Handbook (London: Sage, 1997), p. 139. Wolf D. Gruner, “Historical Dimensions of German Statehood: From the Old Reich to the New Germany,” in German Public Policy and Federalism: Current Debates on Political, Legal and Social Issues, ed. Arthur B. Gunlicks (Oxford and New York: Berghahn, 2003), p. 20. In order to assure equality of provision throughout Germany, the construction and expansion of higher education institutions are funded fifty per cent by the Federal Government and fifty per cent by the L{\"a}nder; the Bund provides framework legislation within the parameters of which the L{\"a}nder enact their more local legislation. Bob Jessop, “Conservative Regimes and the Transition to Post-Fordism: The Cases of Great Britain and West Germany,” in Regulation Theory and the Crisis of Capitalism: Four Country Studies, ed. Bob Jessop (Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA: Elgar, 2001), p. 140 . Statement of Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, Parliamentary Secretary of State, in Hochschulr{\"a}te als Steuerungsinstrumente von Hochschulen (Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, 6.2000), p. 11. Fourth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/098/1309822.pdf Hochschulrahmengesetz (HRG). Fifth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law passed by the Bundestag on 9.11.2001: Bundesgesetzblatt, 16.2.2002, Number BGBl I 2002. http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/068/1406853.pdf Professorial Emoluments Reform Act of February 2002: http://www. bmbf.de/pub/ profbesreformg.pdf The Fourth Amendment instituted BA/MA on a trial basis. See Helga Walsh, “Higher Education Reform in Germany: Reform in Incremental Steps,” European Journal of Education 39 (2004), p. 365. Sixth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law available at: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/088/1408878.pdf However most L{\"a}nder charge fees to students who substantially exceed the normal length of study period. Seventh Amendment of the Federal Framework Law available at: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/014/1501498.pdf See the Bologna Process National Report for Germany 2004-2005: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/Germany/National_Reports-Germany_050118-orig.PDF Data obtained direct from the Ministry (BMBF) in Berlin, June 2005. E.g., ZEvA Zentrale Evaluations- und Akkreditierungsagentur, Hannover. The BA gives access to the gehobener Dienst and the MA to the h{\"o}herer Dienst categories of public service. Normally an MA would be expected for access to PhD studies. Quoted by Gero Lenhardt “Europ{\"a}ische und deutsche Perspektiven der Hochschulpolitik,” die hochschule 13 (2004) p. 20. A survey conducted in 1998, reported by Alexander Dilger “Quo Vadis, Studiengeb{\"u}hr?” Forschung und Lehre 8 (1999), p. 403 reveals that most people reject fees if they believe is that the money will be absorbed into the general finances of the Land, and will lead to a reduction in state funding for higher education. Hochschul-Informations-System, Studienanf{\"a}nger im Wintersemester 2000/2001 (Hannover: HIS, 2001), p. 36. J{\"u}rgen Mlynek (ed.) Und sie bewegt sich doch! Universit{\"a}t heute: Zwischen Bew{\"a}hrtem und Ver{\"a}nderungsdruck – Finanznot und Wettbewerb als Chancen f{\"u}r Innovation? (Cologne: Hanns Martin Schleyer-Stiftung, 2004) Guy Neave, “Homogenization, Integration and Convergence: The Cheshire Cats of Higher Education Analysis,” in The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, eds. V. Lynn Meek, Leo Goedegebuure, Osmo Kivinen and Risto Rinne (Oxford: Pergamon, 1996): 26-41. Ulrich Teichler, “Diversity in Higher Education in Germany: The Two Type Structure,” in Meek and Goedegebuure, p. 118. Variously called Universit{\"a}tsr{\"a}te, Hochschulr{\"a}te or Kuratoria. The translation “Board of Trustees” has been preferred by the British author of the present paper, as a UK “University Council” is different to the German entity under discussion, for example in size. Renate Mayntz, “University Councils: An Institutional Innovation in German Universities,” European Journal of Education 37 (2002): 21-28. Michael Sieber, (Secretary of State from the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Art of Baden-W{\"u}rttemberg), “Einf{\"u}hrung von Hochschulr{\"a}ten – Chancen und Risiken,” in Hochschulr{\"a}te als Steuerungsinstrumente von Hochschulen, Beitr{\"a}ge zur Hochschulpolitik 6 (2000) ed. B. Goebbels (Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz), p 19. Sieber, p. 22 Sheila Slaughter and Larry L. Leslie, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p. 41. Burton R. Clark, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation (Oxford: Pergamon, 1998), pp. 5-6. Rosemary Deem, “New Managerialism in UK Universities: Manager-Academic Accounts of Change,” in Globalization and Reform in Higher Education, ed. Heather Eggins, (Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education): 55-67. Johann St{\"o}rle, “Die Entwicklung des Hochschulrechts in Bayern: 25 Jahre Bayersiches Hochschulgesetz,” Beitr{\"a}ge zur Hochschulforschung 1 & 2 2000 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning), p. 50. Ludwig Kronthaler, “Autonomie mu{\ss} gelernt werden,” in Reformuniversit{\"a}ten: Leistungsf{\"a}higkeit durch Eigenverantwortung, eds. V. Meyer-Guckel and M. Sonnabend (Essen: Stifterverband f{\"u}r Deutsche Wissenschaft, 2000): 68-73. Reinhard Kreckel, “Die Universit{\"a}t im Zeitalter ihrer {\"o}konomischen Rationalisierung,” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (2000), p. 263. Burton R. Clark, Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts (Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press, 2004), p. 120. Pasternak, 2001, p. 300-301. Graham Bannock, Ron E. Baxter, and Evan Rees, The Penguin Dictionary of Economics (London: Penguin, 1992). Diethard Kuhne, “Erfordert die Haushaltsbudgetierung ein neues Personalmanagement an den Hochschulen?” hochschule ost 3-4 (2000): 93-105. Federal Framework Law 2001, Article 3 and 42 Zielvereinbarungen T Sch{\"o}ck, “Ziele vergeben, Budgets bereitstellen,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2002):180-182. See Lydia Hartwig, National Report of Germany for the OECD/IMHE-HEFCE Project on Financial Management and Governance of Higher Education Institutions (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2004). Hartwig, pp. 14-36 Sigrun Nickel and Lothar Zechlin, “Zielvereinbarungen,” in Hochschulen Managen? Zur Reformierbarkeit der Hochschulen nach Managementprinzipien,” ed. A. Hanft (Neuwied: Luchterhand, 2000):153-169. Hanns H. Seidler, “Tendenzen eines neuen Hochschulrechnungswesens in Deutschland,” Beitr{\"a}ge zur Hochschulforschung 1 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2001): 70-77; M{\"u}ller-B{\"o}ling, pp. 58-61. Tony Coady, (ed.) “Universities and the Ideals of Enquiry,” in Why Universities Matter, ed. Tony Coady (St. Leonards (NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2000), p. 10 Brett, Judith, “Competition and Collegiality,” in Why Universities Matter, ed. Tony Coady ( St. Leonards (NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2000), p. 152. Ruth Wagner, “Zielvereinbarungen,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2000), p. 188. Hubert Detmer, “Zielvereinbarungen und Leistungsvertr{\"a}ge mit Hochschullehrern -- oder: Wieviel Vertragsfreiheit vertr{\"a}gt das Amt des Universitatsprofessors,” in Die Macht des Geistes: Festschrift f{\"u}r Hartmut Schiedermair, eds Dieter D{\"o}rr, Udo Fink, Christian Hillgruber, Bernhard Kempen and Dietrich Murswiek (Heidelberg, C.F.M{\"u}ller, 1999): 605-621. David Dunkerley and Wai Sum Wong, Global Perspectives on Quality in Higher Education (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). Jethro Newton, “Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality? Academics’ Perceptions of Quality Assurance and Quality Monitoring,” Quality in Higher Education 6 (2002): 153-163. Bavarian Higher Education Law version of 2nd October 1998. Gerdi Stewart, “Focus auf die Lehre: Lehrberichte an bayerischen Universit{\"a}ten,” Beitr{\"a}ge zur Hochschulforschung 23 ((Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2001): 58-79. H. Gralki, ‘Professor Mustermann hat es nicht leicht… Evaluation der Lehre an der Freien Universit{\"a}t Berlin,” Forschung und Lehre 3 (1999):128-129. Klaus Landfried, “Conditions for Successful Quality Assurance in Study and Teaching” in Much Ado about Nothing? Evaluation of Learning and Teaching and its Consequences, ed. G. Schreier (Bonn: Hochschulkonferenz, 1999), p. 26 Maike Bu{\ss}, “Wissenschaftsfreiheit ade,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2000): 190-192. Mary Henkel, Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2000). This view is consistent with the international study by John Brennanand Tarla Shah, Managing Quality in Higher Education (Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, 2000). Maurice Kogan, “Academic and Administrative Interface,” in Changing Relationships between Higher Education and the State, eds Mary Henkel and Brenda Little (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1999): 263-279. The Fachhochschulen (FHS) (Universities of Applied Science) do not have a Mittelbau and one view is that the MA qualification of a FHS should not be recognised as being of the same standard as that of a university in cases where BA and MA are offered. Peer Pasternak, “Juniorprofs: Junior-ProfessorInnen oder verj{\"u}ngte Professorenschaft?” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (2001), p. 185. “When compared with other countries, we note that German junior staff feel they have the least influence in this respect. … Junior staff at German universities feel less free than their colleagues in all the other countries surveyed in determining the focus of their research…. It is the German professors who perceive themselves as having the greatest control in determining their core activities, whereas the junior staff feel the least free.” J{\"u}rgen Enders and Ulrich Teichler, “The Academic Profession in Germany,” in The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (Princeton, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996), 465 and 468. Rainer Kuhlen, “Berufungsverfahren an deutschen Universit{\"a}ten -- eine gravierende Strukturschw{\"a}che,” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (1999):159-170. Federal Framework Law, 2001: Articles 44 & 47. HdaV{\"A}ndG 2004: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/041/1504132.pdf BMBF Pressemitteilung. Gro{\ss}e Resonanz auf millionenschweres BMBF-F{\"o}rderprogramm f{\"u}r Juniorprofessuren, 29.11.01. The basic salary groups in monthly amounts are (as of August 2004): scale W1 3405.34 Euros (US$ 4068); W2 3890.03 Euros (US$ 4647); W3 4723.61 Euros (US$5643). The previous maximum for a C4 professor from the age of 49 was 5782 Euros (US$ 6939) though of course the W3 the basic salary may be raised by performance-enhanced supplements. Data from “Die ,neue‘ Professorenbesoldung” by Hubert Detmer and Ulrike Prei{\ss}ler, Forschung und Lehre 5 (2005):256-258. The ceiling must not normally exceed the difference between the W3 and the B10 scales, which in August 2004 was 5,241.48 Euros (Detmer and Prei{\ss}ler Forschung und Lehre, 5, 2005, page 257). Ewald Berning, Louis von Harnier and Yvette Hofmann, Das Habilitationswesen an den Universit{\"a}ten in Bayern: Praxis und Perspektiven (Munich: Bayerisches Staatsinstitut f{\"u}r Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung, 2001). Henning Hopf and Wolfram Koch, “Habilitation oder Juniorprofessur -- Was sagen die Betroffenen?” Beitr{\"a}ge zur Hochschulforschung 4 2001 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning): 28-42. Back in the 1970s, an unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce assistant professors, and some fear that the junior professors will be just as unsuccessful. People likely to be in a difficult position have set up their own website (www.wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de) to collect public support for their protest against the new legislation. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 28th July 2004. Hubert Detmer and Ulrike Prei{\ss}ler, “Abenteuer W – Strategien, Risiken und Chancen: Aktuelles zur W-Besoldung,” Forschung und Lehre 6 (2004):308-310. Kritik an der Juniorprofessur, Forschung und Lehre 7 (2000): 344. Editorial: no author’s name given. Traditionally, this security of the Beamtentum has been highly valued and has deep roots in history. In 1794, the Prussian Allgemeines Landrecht (Article 73, Part 2 (12)) gave the professors and officials of the universities the right to become civil servants, and payment was according to office and qualifications rather than achievements (W. L{\"o}wer, “Notwendigkeit oder Privileg? Berufsbeamtentum f{\"u}r Professoren,” Forschung und Lehre 10 (2000), p. 522 & 555). Article 48 (3) of the Federal Framework Law states that junior professors may be offered an ‘employee status’ (Angestelltenverh{\"a}ltnis) instead of full civil servant status, and even for full professors, civil service status may be time-limited. Meek and Goedegebuure, p.12. Lenhardt, p. 22. As Kuhlen (163) remarks, “there is no will to keep potential academic recruits at the very location where they have demonstrated their brilliance.” “Exzellenzinitiative und Pakt f{\"u}r Forschung und Innovation starten.” BMBF Press release 147/2005 of 23rd June 2005. Karl Ulrich Mayer, “Yale, Harvard & Co: Mythos oder Modell f{\"u}r Deutschland?” in Glanzlichter der Wissenschaft – Ein Almanach, published by the Deutscher Hochschulverband (Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius):71-82. Dieter Lenzen, “Universitas: Nicht ohne Medizin,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2002): 189-190. As Karl Ulrich Mayer comments: “The state is far from being willing to give up its higher education administrative responsibilities and trusts neither the leadership teams of the HEIs nor the accreditation authorities.” In “Mi{\ss}trauen im Reformproze{\ss}, Forschung und Lehre 6 (2002), 299. Karl Ulrich Mayer, “ Das Hochschulwesen,” in Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Strukturen und Entwicklungen im {\"U}berblick, eds Kai S. Cortina, J{\"u}rgen Baumert, Achim Leschinsky, Karl Ulrich Mayer, & Luitgard Trommer (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2003): 581-624. Jessop, p. 122 and 140. Simon Marginson and Gary Rhoades. “Beyond National States and Systems of Higher Education,” Higher Education 43 (2003): 281-309.",
    year = "2006",
    language = "English",
    volume = "50",
    pages = "9",
    journal = "Comparative Education Review",
    issn = "0010-4086",
    number = "1",

    }

    “Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities.”. / Pritchard, Rosalind.

    In: Comparative Education Review (USA), Vol. 50, No. 1, 2006, p. 9.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - “Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities.”

    AU - Pritchard, Rosalind

    N1 - Reference text: TRENDS Ulrich Teichler, and Henry Wasser (eds) German and American Universities: Mutual Influences -- Past and Present (Kassel: Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule Kassel, 1992). Rosalind M. O. Pritchard, “Humboldtian Values and Globalisation: Staff and Students in German Universities,” Oxford Review of Education 30 (2004): 509-528. Edelgard Bulmahn, Mut zur Veränderung (Bonn: BMBF, 1999). Although the Minister complains of high dropout rates, in actual fact the German rate is between 28 per cent and 30 per cent which with the exception of Japan (11 per cent) is the lowest among large OECD countries. See OECD, Education at a Glance (Paris: OECD, 2000). Wissenschaftsrat, 10 Thesen zur Hochschulpolitik (Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat, 22.1.1993). BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung -- Zahlenbarometer 2000/2001: Ein bildungs- und forschungsstatistischer Überblick (Bonn: BMBF, 2001), 41. Detlef Müller-Böling, Die entfesselte Universität (Gütersloh, Bertelsmann, 2000): 61-64, 90. Müller-Böling, p. 144, Simon Marginson and Gary Rhoades “Beyond National States, Markets and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic,” Higher Education 43 (2003): 281-309. Derek Lewis, Contemporary Germany: A Handbook (London: Sage, 1997), p. 139. Wolf D. Gruner, “Historical Dimensions of German Statehood: From the Old Reich to the New Germany,” in German Public Policy and Federalism: Current Debates on Political, Legal and Social Issues, ed. Arthur B. Gunlicks (Oxford and New York: Berghahn, 2003), p. 20. In order to assure equality of provision throughout Germany, the construction and expansion of higher education institutions are funded fifty per cent by the Federal Government and fifty per cent by the Länder; the Bund provides framework legislation within the parameters of which the Länder enact their more local legislation. Bob Jessop, “Conservative Regimes and the Transition to Post-Fordism: The Cases of Great Britain and West Germany,” in Regulation Theory and the Crisis of Capitalism: Four Country Studies, ed. Bob Jessop (Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA USA: Elgar, 2001), p. 140 . Statement of Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, Parliamentary Secretary of State, in Hochschulräte als Steuerungsinstrumente von Hochschulen (Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, 6.2000), p. 11. Fourth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/13/098/1309822.pdf Hochschulrahmengesetz (HRG). Fifth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law passed by the Bundestag on 9.11.2001: Bundesgesetzblatt, 16.2.2002, Number BGBl I 2002. http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/068/1406853.pdf Professorial Emoluments Reform Act of February 2002: http://www. bmbf.de/pub/ profbesreformg.pdf The Fourth Amendment instituted BA/MA on a trial basis. See Helga Walsh, “Higher Education Reform in Germany: Reform in Incremental Steps,” European Journal of Education 39 (2004), p. 365. Sixth Amendment of the Federal Framework Law available at: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/14/088/1408878.pdf However most Länder charge fees to students who substantially exceed the normal length of study period. Seventh Amendment of the Federal Framework Law available at: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/014/1501498.pdf See the Bologna Process National Report for Germany 2004-2005: http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/Germany/National_Reports-Germany_050118-orig.PDF Data obtained direct from the Ministry (BMBF) in Berlin, June 2005. E.g., ZEvA Zentrale Evaluations- und Akkreditierungsagentur, Hannover. The BA gives access to the gehobener Dienst and the MA to the höherer Dienst categories of public service. Normally an MA would be expected for access to PhD studies. Quoted by Gero Lenhardt “Europäische und deutsche Perspektiven der Hochschulpolitik,” die hochschule 13 (2004) p. 20. A survey conducted in 1998, reported by Alexander Dilger “Quo Vadis, Studiengebühr?” Forschung und Lehre 8 (1999), p. 403 reveals that most people reject fees if they believe is that the money will be absorbed into the general finances of the Land, and will lead to a reduction in state funding for higher education. Hochschul-Informations-System, Studienanfänger im Wintersemester 2000/2001 (Hannover: HIS, 2001), p. 36. Jürgen Mlynek (ed.) Und sie bewegt sich doch! Universität heute: Zwischen Bewährtem und Veränderungsdruck – Finanznot und Wettbewerb als Chancen für Innovation? (Cologne: Hanns Martin Schleyer-Stiftung, 2004) Guy Neave, “Homogenization, Integration and Convergence: The Cheshire Cats of Higher Education Analysis,” in The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, eds. V. Lynn Meek, Leo Goedegebuure, Osmo Kivinen and Risto Rinne (Oxford: Pergamon, 1996): 26-41. Ulrich Teichler, “Diversity in Higher Education in Germany: The Two Type Structure,” in Meek and Goedegebuure, p. 118. Variously called Universitätsräte, Hochschulräte or Kuratoria. The translation “Board of Trustees” has been preferred by the British author of the present paper, as a UK “University Council” is different to the German entity under discussion, for example in size. Renate Mayntz, “University Councils: An Institutional Innovation in German Universities,” European Journal of Education 37 (2002): 21-28. Michael Sieber, (Secretary of State from the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Art of Baden-Württemberg), “Einführung von Hochschulräten – Chancen und Risiken,” in Hochschulräte als Steuerungsinstrumente von Hochschulen, Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik 6 (2000) ed. B. Goebbels (Bonn: Hochschulrektorenkonferenz), p 19. Sieber, p. 22 Sheila Slaughter and Larry L. Leslie, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p. 41. Burton R. Clark, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation (Oxford: Pergamon, 1998), pp. 5-6. Rosemary Deem, “New Managerialism in UK Universities: Manager-Academic Accounts of Change,” in Globalization and Reform in Higher Education, ed. Heather Eggins, (Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education): 55-67. Johann Störle, “Die Entwicklung des Hochschulrechts in Bayern: 25 Jahre Bayersiches Hochschulgesetz,” Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 1 & 2 2000 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning), p. 50. Ludwig Kronthaler, “Autonomie muß gelernt werden,” in Reformuniversitäten: Leistungsfähigkeit durch Eigenverantwortung, eds. V. Meyer-Guckel and M. Sonnabend (Essen: Stifterverband für Deutsche Wissenschaft, 2000): 68-73. Reinhard Kreckel, “Die Universität im Zeitalter ihrer ökonomischen Rationalisierung,” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (2000), p. 263. Burton R. Clark, Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts (Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press, 2004), p. 120. Pasternak, 2001, p. 300-301. Graham Bannock, Ron E. Baxter, and Evan Rees, The Penguin Dictionary of Economics (London: Penguin, 1992). Diethard Kuhne, “Erfordert die Haushaltsbudgetierung ein neues Personalmanagement an den Hochschulen?” hochschule ost 3-4 (2000): 93-105. Federal Framework Law 2001, Article 3 and 42 Zielvereinbarungen T Schöck, “Ziele vergeben, Budgets bereitstellen,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2002):180-182. See Lydia Hartwig, National Report of Germany for the OECD/IMHE-HEFCE Project on Financial Management and Governance of Higher Education Institutions (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2004). Hartwig, pp. 14-36 Sigrun Nickel and Lothar Zechlin, “Zielvereinbarungen,” in Hochschulen Managen? Zur Reformierbarkeit der Hochschulen nach Managementprinzipien,” ed. A. Hanft (Neuwied: Luchterhand, 2000):153-169. Hanns H. Seidler, “Tendenzen eines neuen Hochschulrechnungswesens in Deutschland,” Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 1 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2001): 70-77; Müller-Böling, pp. 58-61. Tony Coady, (ed.) “Universities and the Ideals of Enquiry,” in Why Universities Matter, ed. Tony Coady (St. Leonards (NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2000), p. 10 Brett, Judith, “Competition and Collegiality,” in Why Universities Matter, ed. Tony Coady ( St. Leonards (NSW: Allen and Unwin, 2000), p. 152. Ruth Wagner, “Zielvereinbarungen,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2000), p. 188. Hubert Detmer, “Zielvereinbarungen und Leistungsverträge mit Hochschullehrern -- oder: Wieviel Vertragsfreiheit verträgt das Amt des Universitatsprofessors,” in Die Macht des Geistes: Festschrift für Hartmut Schiedermair, eds Dieter Dörr, Udo Fink, Christian Hillgruber, Bernhard Kempen and Dietrich Murswiek (Heidelberg, C.F.Müller, 1999): 605-621. David Dunkerley and Wai Sum Wong, Global Perspectives on Quality in Higher Education (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). Jethro Newton, “Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality? Academics’ Perceptions of Quality Assurance and Quality Monitoring,” Quality in Higher Education 6 (2002): 153-163. Bavarian Higher Education Law version of 2nd October 1998. Gerdi Stewart, “Focus auf die Lehre: Lehrberichte an bayerischen Universitäten,” Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 23 ((Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, 2001): 58-79. H. Gralki, ‘Professor Mustermann hat es nicht leicht… Evaluation der Lehre an der Freien Universität Berlin,” Forschung und Lehre 3 (1999):128-129. Klaus Landfried, “Conditions for Successful Quality Assurance in Study and Teaching” in Much Ado about Nothing? Evaluation of Learning and Teaching and its Consequences, ed. G. Schreier (Bonn: Hochschulkonferenz, 1999), p. 26 Maike Buß, “Wissenschaftsfreiheit ade,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2000): 190-192. Mary Henkel, Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2000). This view is consistent with the international study by John Brennanand Tarla Shah, Managing Quality in Higher Education (Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, 2000). Maurice Kogan, “Academic and Administrative Interface,” in Changing Relationships between Higher Education and the State, eds Mary Henkel and Brenda Little (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1999): 263-279. The Fachhochschulen (FHS) (Universities of Applied Science) do not have a Mittelbau and one view is that the MA qualification of a FHS should not be recognised as being of the same standard as that of a university in cases where BA and MA are offered. Peer Pasternak, “Juniorprofs: Junior-ProfessorInnen oder verjüngte Professorenschaft?” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (2001), p. 185. “When compared with other countries, we note that German junior staff feel they have the least influence in this respect. … Junior staff at German universities feel less free than their colleagues in all the other countries surveyed in determining the focus of their research…. It is the German professors who perceive themselves as having the greatest control in determining their core activities, whereas the junior staff feel the least free.” Jürgen Enders and Ulrich Teichler, “The Academic Profession in Germany,” in The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries (Princeton, New Jersey: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996), 465 and 468. Rainer Kuhlen, “Berufungsverfahren an deutschen Universitäten -- eine gravierende Strukturschwäche,” hochschule ost 3 & 4 (1999):159-170. Federal Framework Law, 2001: Articles 44 & 47. HdaVÄndG 2004: http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/041/1504132.pdf BMBF Pressemitteilung. Große Resonanz auf millionenschweres BMBF-Förderprogramm für Juniorprofessuren, 29.11.01. The basic salary groups in monthly amounts are (as of August 2004): scale W1 3405.34 Euros (US$ 4068); W2 3890.03 Euros (US$ 4647); W3 4723.61 Euros (US$5643). The previous maximum for a C4 professor from the age of 49 was 5782 Euros (US$ 6939) though of course the W3 the basic salary may be raised by performance-enhanced supplements. Data from “Die ,neue‘ Professorenbesoldung” by Hubert Detmer and Ulrike Preißler, Forschung und Lehre 5 (2005):256-258. The ceiling must not normally exceed the difference between the W3 and the B10 scales, which in August 2004 was 5,241.48 Euros (Detmer and Preißler Forschung und Lehre, 5, 2005, page 257). Ewald Berning, Louis von Harnier and Yvette Hofmann, Das Habilitationswesen an den Universitäten in Bayern: Praxis und Perspektiven (Munich: Bayerisches Staatsinstitut für Hochschulforschung und Hochschulplanung, 2001). Henning Hopf and Wolfram Koch, “Habilitation oder Juniorprofessur -- Was sagen die Betroffenen?” Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 4 2001 (Munich: State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning): 28-42. Back in the 1970s, an unsuccessful attempt was made to introduce assistant professors, and some fear that the junior professors will be just as unsuccessful. People likely to be in a difficult position have set up their own website (www.wissenschaftlichernachwuchs.de) to collect public support for their protest against the new legislation. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 28th July 2004. Hubert Detmer and Ulrike Preißler, “Abenteuer W – Strategien, Risiken und Chancen: Aktuelles zur W-Besoldung,” Forschung und Lehre 6 (2004):308-310. Kritik an der Juniorprofessur, Forschung und Lehre 7 (2000): 344. Editorial: no author’s name given. Traditionally, this security of the Beamtentum has been highly valued and has deep roots in history. In 1794, the Prussian Allgemeines Landrecht (Article 73, Part 2 (12)) gave the professors and officials of the universities the right to become civil servants, and payment was according to office and qualifications rather than achievements (W. Löwer, “Notwendigkeit oder Privileg? Berufsbeamtentum für Professoren,” Forschung und Lehre 10 (2000), p. 522 & 555). Article 48 (3) of the Federal Framework Law states that junior professors may be offered an ‘employee status’ (Angestelltenverhältnis) instead of full civil servant status, and even for full professors, civil service status may be time-limited. Meek and Goedegebuure, p.12. Lenhardt, p. 22. As Kuhlen (163) remarks, “there is no will to keep potential academic recruits at the very location where they have demonstrated their brilliance.” “Exzellenzinitiative und Pakt für Forschung und Innovation starten.” BMBF Press release 147/2005 of 23rd June 2005. Karl Ulrich Mayer, “Yale, Harvard & Co: Mythos oder Modell für Deutschland?” in Glanzlichter der Wissenschaft – Ein Almanach, published by the Deutscher Hochschulverband (Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius):71-82. Dieter Lenzen, “Universitas: Nicht ohne Medizin,” Forschung und Lehre 4 (2002): 189-190. As Karl Ulrich Mayer comments: “The state is far from being willing to give up its higher education administrative responsibilities and trusts neither the leadership teams of the HEIs nor the accreditation authorities.” In “Mißtrauen im Reformprozeß, Forschung und Lehre 6 (2002), 299. Karl Ulrich Mayer, “ Das Hochschulwesen,” in Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Strukturen und Entwicklungen im Überblick, eds Kai S. Cortina, Jürgen Baumert, Achim Leschinsky, Karl Ulrich Mayer, & Luitgard Trommer (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2003): 581-624. Jessop, p. 122 and 140. Simon Marginson and Gary Rhoades. “Beyond National States and Systems of Higher Education,” Higher Education 43 (2003): 281-309.

    PY - 2006

    Y1 - 2006

    N2 - What happens when a highly regulated educational system - one featuring academic freedom, a national outlook and an input-oriented state-run bureaucracy - attempts to internationalize and introduce management structures that are outcome-oriented, deregulated, and more efficient? The question is relevant in many countries where universities are trying to get out from under the state, and it is critically important in the formerly Communist systems as well as in countries where Prussian traditions have influenced the university model. In the case of Germany, examined in this article, it has long been admitted that change is needed. There is no shortage of exhortation to achieve it, both within and outside government. Yet the German model is an immensely influential one, both in Europe and the United States. Accordingly, a change in German higher education would represent a significant reconfiguration in the academic world. My purpose in this article is to explore the measures currently being taken to modernize and create a market within German universities, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The following questions are addressed:• How are marketizing trends being manifested in governance and law, management, finance, quality assurance, and human resource management? • What are the obstacles to marketizing trends? • How are these trends influencing the model of the German state in its post-war incarnation?

    AB - What happens when a highly regulated educational system - one featuring academic freedom, a national outlook and an input-oriented state-run bureaucracy - attempts to internationalize and introduce management structures that are outcome-oriented, deregulated, and more efficient? The question is relevant in many countries where universities are trying to get out from under the state, and it is critically important in the formerly Communist systems as well as in countries where Prussian traditions have influenced the university model. In the case of Germany, examined in this article, it has long been admitted that change is needed. There is no shortage of exhortation to achieve it, both within and outside government. Yet the German model is an immensely influential one, both in Europe and the United States. Accordingly, a change in German higher education would represent a significant reconfiguration in the academic world. My purpose in this article is to explore the measures currently being taken to modernize and create a market within German universities, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The following questions are addressed:• How are marketizing trends being manifested in governance and law, management, finance, quality assurance, and human resource management? • What are the obstacles to marketizing trends? • How are these trends influencing the model of the German state in its post-war incarnation?

    KW - German Higher Education

    KW - reform

    KW - Higher Education Law

    M3 - Article

    VL - 50

    SP - 9

    JO - Comparative Education Review

    T2 - Comparative Education Review

    JF - Comparative Education Review

    SN - 0010-4086

    IS - 1

    ER -