I spent an enjoyable couple of days in Lithuania last week, at a meeting of the EU’s Directors General of Higher Education. I was there to talk about some research we at HESA (along with some colleagues from DZHW in Germany) are doing for the European Commission, assessing the impact of cost-sharing on institutions and students. Unsurprisingly, at the margins of the conference (and occasionally within its proceedings), what really drove conversation were tales of austerity, and their effects on higher education.
One thing I hadn’t previously understood was just how different the dynamics of cutbacks are in continental Europe. In many countries, professors are civil servants; that is, they are employed by the government rather than their institution. This means that governments can impose salary adjustments directly, rather than faffing about giving a cut to institutions, and then letting universities hash it out with academic unions. And hand out salary cuts they have: in Portugal, the cut was around 15%; in Greece, 25%. I wonder how that would play out in Canada?
(This, by the way, is why one should take care in interpreting news of “cuts” to European universities. University budgets in some countries exclude professors’ salaries, because those are paid directly to the professors. In such places, a 10% cut to university budgets actually just means a reduction in non-salary items, or about 5% in our terms.)
Even among the minority of countries which have managed to keep their budgets stable, or increased them a bit, there is a new mood of ruthless efficiency. Finland, for instance, while still being flush in relative terms, hacked 20% from the Polytechnics’ budget because they were thought to not be delivering the goods on employability. Waste not, want not.
The problems mostly came at dinner, when I was asked about conditions at Canadian universities.
“Not bad,” I said. “Weathered the storm so far. Just starting to head into the difficult bits now.”
“How difficult?” I was asked.
“Oh, well, um… we have some freezes in government funding now. But institutions can still get to 2.5% growth through tuition increases.”
Frowns aplenty. A 2.5% increase in revenue is not “difficult” in Europe.
“But wait”, I said. “In some provinces, we have actual cuts. Alberta, for instance, had a 7% cut.”
At this point, everyone around the table chimed in with the cuts they’ve had: “Ten!” “Fifteen!” “Eighteen”. Alberta wasn’t impressing anyone.
“But isn’t Alberta quite rich?” someone asked.
“Well, yes,” I said. “And they do spend a lot on higher education. Over $19,000 per student. But that was before the cut”.
At this point, frowns were replaced by jaws hitting the floor. The European average is about half that.
Nothing like going abroad to get some perspective.
Actually, back in the 90’s UPEI was treated as though we were government employees when the government rolled everything back 7.5%. The cut was a lot easier to handle and less disruptive than the current freeze on grants as you might expect, not that I’m advocating for it. The really annoying thing about it was that we had agreed to no scale increase that year in anticipation of a cut to our grant, so we took a double hit. Supposedly we got the money back in bits over the next few years, but the full real hit took about 15 years, unionization and a strike to fully get back.