“A minefield of drunken gropings and sexual assaults.” That’s the picture painted of American universities, and it’s partly true, says Amanda Foreman. But there’s something even more striking about US campus life: it’s “jaw-droppingly luxurious”. To take two examples: the University of Missouri boasts an indoor beach club, modelled on one in the Playboy mansion, with its own waterfall and grotto; while Texas Tech has a two-acre water park. The fact is, US colleges are far richer than British ones; and they compete in an “amenities arms race”. Cambridge, our richest university, has almost £5bn ($7.5bn) in endowments; by contrast, Harvard and Yale have $32bn and $20bn respectively. US colleges also offer students another enviable luxury – “total freedom of intellectual exploration”. In the UK, students have to specialise: there, they can select courses from a range of disciplines. As an undergraduate in the US, my studies included philosophy, music and chemistry. Leicester University is now switching to this more flexible system: let’s hope others follow. If we can’t give our students water slides, let’s at least give them a rounded education. (Amanda Foreman, The Sunday Times).
The problem with this interpretation is that there is an arms race among American universities to provide amenities that are (excuse me, Ms. Foreman) quite unnecessary to actual education and which push up the cost to students and their worried parents. The Great Further Education Bubble involves chasing the increasingly fewer people who can afford them. If and when some of these outfits go bust they cannot use the facilities for anything else – there is no “resale value” to a college campus. Yes, I like the more rounded educational possibilities (in theory), and wish I had not specialised as much in my time. But at $50-60,000 a year, (unless you get a scholarship and depending whether we are talking about public or private colleges), then yes, the American system is great; if Mum and Dad have the money; if you don’t mind lectures given graduate students and part- time, underpaid adjunct teachers; and if you seldom even see a professor, let alone hear words of wisdom from him or her. No quite as attractive as Ms. Foreman makes out!
As far as degree content is concerned, I think there are benefits to the American system. As someone currently undergoing a joint honours degree, I enjoy the broader perspective an interdisciplinary approach provides. At Exeter, there are two American-style degrees: Natural Sciences and Liberal Arts. In these, students can pick from an array of modules in the sciences or arts respectively. They then have to pick two subjects in which to major and minor in, and sometimes they can choose to study over an American-style four year period. I’m glad people have this option, but I’m also glad that people have the choice to study only a single subject. The long and short of it is that British universities are not as inflexible as Ms. Foreman claims. Its just that most people don’t yet choose to take those more flexible courses.
Having said that, its not the British way to splash out on unnecessary luxuries, nice as they may be. Given the choice, most students would rather graduate with less debt, even if the student experience isn’t quite as exciting. What British universities do well is the small size of seminar groups, particularly at Oxford and Cambridge. If money ought to be spend, teaching quality should be the main priority.
The fact is, British students from wealthier backgrounds are already far more likely to get into the best universities than their poorer counterparts. http://thetab.com/2015/11/10/how-private-school-is-your-uni-2-61597 Increasing fees would only make this worse. Its also clear that all this extra money disproportionately benefits those who do sport competitively. As someone who doesn’t, I don’t think spending on sport ought to be a priority, particularly when the library is often overcrowded and there aren’t enough cafes and study spaces.