Table Of ContentHigher Education Dynamics 49
Otto Hüther
Georg Krücken
Higher Education in
Germany—Recent
Developments in
an International
Perspective
Higher Education Dynamics
Volume 49
SeriesEditors
PeterMaassen,UniversityofOslo,Norway
JohanMu¨ller,SchoolofEducation,UniversityofCapeTown,
Rondebosch,SouthAfrica
EditorialBoard
AlbertoAmaral,CIPESandUniversidadedoPorto,Portugal
AkiraArimoto,HyogoUniversity,Japan
NicoCloete,CHET,Pretoria,SouthAfrica
DavidDill,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,USA
Ju¨rgenEnders,UniversityofBath,UnitedKingdom
PatriciaGumport,StanfordUniversity,USA
MaryHenkel,BrunelUniversity,Uxbridge,UnitedKingdom
GlenJones,UniversityofToronto,Canada
This series is intendedtostudy adaptation processesand their outcomes inhigher
educationatallrelevantlevels.Inadditionitwantstoexaminethewayinteractions
betweentheselevelsaffectadaptationprocesses.Itaimsatapplyinggeneralsocial
science concepts and theories as well as testing theories in the field of higher
education research. It wants to do so in a manner that is of relevance to all those
professionally involved in higher education, be it as ministers, policy-makers,
politicians, institutional leaders or administrators, higher education researchers,
members of the academic staff of universities and colleges, or students. It will
includebothmatureanddevelopingsystemsofhighereducation,coveringpublicas
wellasprivateinstitutions.AllvolumespublishedintheHigherEducationDynam-
icsseriesarepeerreviewed.
Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springernature.com/series/6037
Otto Hüther (cid:129) Georg Krücken
Higher Education in
Germany—Recent
Developments in an
International Perspective
OttoHüther GeorgKrücken
INCHER-Kassel INCHER-Kassel
UniversitätKassel UniversitätKassel
Kassel,Germany Kassel,Germany
TranslatedbyMichaelAlger
ISSN1571-0378 ISSN2215-1923 (electronic)
HigherEducationDynamics
ISBN978-3-319-61478-6 ISBN978-3-319-61479-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61479-3
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018930986
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinor for anyerrors oromissionsthat may havebeenmade. Thepublisher remainsneutralwith
regardtojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Foreword
During the more than 70 years that has passed since the reopening of German
universities following Hitler’s defeat in 1945, much change has taken place in
German higher education. It began with the rather tepid efforts to denazify the
professoriateintheimmediatepostwarperiodandthesimultaneousrestorationofa
traditional German university model that then came under serious challenge and
stressduringthestudentrebellionofthelate1960s.Subsequently,reformswaxed
andwanedtoenteraseeminglypermanentreformphaseinthelate1990s.
OttoHütherandGeorgKrückenanalyzethedevelopmentsofthelast20yearsin
theirnewbookonGermanhighereducation:
[T]hehighereducationsystemhasbeenputunderpressuretochange—whetherinrespect
of teaching, research, or in terms of personnel, funding or governance structures. We
believethatthesewide-rangingreformshavenotnecessarilyfollowedamasterplanora
coherentconcept.Instead,theseareratherdisconnectedreformsthat,inpart,arecontra-
dictory.Inaddition,thefederalsystemofGermanhighereducationconsistingof16states
with16differenthighereducationactshardlymakesreformfromasinglemoldpossible.
The foreign observer of German higher education, even the informed foreign
observer,strugglestofinddenominators,nottomentioncommondenominatorsofa
bewilderingarrayofapproaches.OttoHütherandGeorgKrücken,inthisbook,do
an absolutely splendid job of offering theoretical perspectives, qualitative and
quantitativedata,andcomparativeassessments.
They discuss the challenges of transforming an elite system to a mass system
(in1960lessthan9percentofanagecohortattendedahighereducationinstitution
in Germany, rising to 58 percent in 2014). Major concerns, such as deteriorating
teacher-student ratios, research capacity, and governance, are treated, as are myr-
iadsofmorediscreteissues(suchasthefactthatthemajorityofGermandoctoral
studentsstillarenotpartofstructureddoctoralprogramsbutremaindependenton
DoktorväterandDoktormu€tter).
HütherandKrückenpaymuchattentiontotheso-callednewpublicmanagement
reformsthathaveattemptedtostructuretheregulationofhighereducationinstitu-
tions and higher education systems in a manner that ensures the efficient and
v
vi Foreword
effective achievement of goals. Part of that agenda has been greater university
autonomy.
Hüther and Krücken do not believe that there has been much progress in that
respect:
[It] can be seen that the autonomy of higher education institutions has in fact hardly
increased despite the state exerting significantly less detailed control. This is because
newer controls outlined in target and performance indicators and controls through the
interventions of newly-created actors (e.g., accreditation and evaluation agencies) keep
thedecision-makingscopeofhighereducationinstitutionsincheck.
Also, the German Excellence Initiative, in the recent evaluation of which I
participated, has placed great emphasis on coherent concepts for the future of
discreteuniversities,on“visions”thatarethentobeevaluatedbyoutsideexperts.
IconfessthatIremainasskepticalofthisapproachasIandtheothermembersof
theInternationalCommissionofExpertswereinourfinalreport.TheCommission
recommended that an excellence premium should not be based on applications
envisioningconceptsforthefuturebutsolelyonpastmerit.
In my first year as president of Stanford, students, reporters, and alumni fre-
quentlyaskedmeaboutmy“vision”,“plan”,and“agenda”fortheuniversity.The
questionalways mademe very uncomfortable. Itwascertainlyafaironetoraise,
butitwasnearlyimpossibletoanswer.
Universitiescanbecometooset,toocomplacent,andtoosmugintheirways.It
istheresponsibilityofpresidents,deans,andotherleaderstocontinuouslyquestion
the manner in which things are being done at a university. On the basis of that
questioning,thereisampleroomfordevelopingways,sometimesradicalways,to
improveteaching,learning,andresearchandtoenvisionimprovements.
Thetrueuniversity,however,worksmostlyfromthebottomup,notfromthetop
down. The main task for a university’s leader is to create and maintain the
conditions that make university work possible. Wallace Sterling, who was at the
helm of Stanford when it became one of the United States’ best universities,
respondedtostudentrepresentativeswhohadaskedabouthis“educationalphilos-
ophy”:“Myphilosophy...isnottodevelopaphilosophyofeducation,butinstead
to try to find the best possible faculty; then to upgrade the breadth and variety of
students,andprovideneededphysicalplant;andthensitbackandseewhatresults.”
Onthewhole,Ifindthisviewverycongenial,thoughnotquitecomplete.
There is a great need for flexibility, at all levels of the university, to apply
material and immaterial resources where they can produce the greatest possible
intellectual gain. Active management at the very top is necessary but absolutely
insufficientunlessdeansandthechairpersonsofdepartmentsandinstitutesflexibly
complementit.AsonereadsHütherandKrücken’sbook,onegetstheimpression
that“newpublicmanagement”hasnotreallyrespondedtotheseneeds—needsthat
Iviewasinherenttotheverynatureofagooduniversity.
Few businesses have as many highly differentiated “product lines” as do uni-
versities. The almost unlimited multiplicity ofactual or possibleendeavors is one
reason why university decision-making needs to be, simultaneously, hierarchical
Foreword vii
andflat.Theeffectivenessandqualityofsuchasystemdependsontheleadership’s
willingness to question, consult, and communicate but, of course, also on its
willingness to make choices. For this a university’s leadership must understand
itself as a team, subject to informal checks and balances, and the members of a
universityneedtothinkofthemselvesas“belonging”totheinstitution.
The many incremental changes that Hüther and Krücken analyze, do not, they
say,feelinanywayincremental,thesystemasawholefeelsradicallydifferentby
comparison with 20 years ago. This is a telling insight that I share from my own
observations and from having read their book. What a former president of the
UniversityofTübingen,AdolfTheis,inthemid-1990scalledtheBeho€rdenmodell
(governmentagencymodel)oftheuniversityhasbeenlargelyovercome.And,yet,
after reading Hüther and Krücken’s stimulating analysis, one wonders about the
extent to which the system changes have brought about real changes in the
institutional character of individual universities that result in a greater sense of
institutionalidentity,autonomy,coherence,responsibility,andbelongingthanhas
beentypicalinthepast.
PresidentEmeritusandProfessor GerhardCasper
Emeritus,StanfordUniversity
SeniorFellow,FreemanSpogliInstitute
forInternationalStudies,Stanford
University,PaloAlto,USA
The German Higher Education System: Some
Key Facts
Types of Institutions
TherearethreemaintypesofhighereducationinstitutionsinGermany(fordetailed
description,seeSect.3.2.1).
Universitäten(Universities): Universitiesarethetraditionalhighereducationinsti-
tutionsinGermany.Inthewintersemester2014/2015,Germanyhad129universi-
ties. The main missions of universities are (basic) research and teaching. Within
universities, a distinction can be made between traditional universities, technical
universities,educationalcolleges,andtheologicalcolleges.Traditionaluniversities
offer the whole range of academic disciplines and study programs, whereas the
other university types are more specialized. In general, only universities have the
righttoawarddoctoralandhabilitationdegrees.Inthewintersemester2014/2015,
64percentofallstudentsinGermanywerestudyingatuniversities.
Fachhochschulen (Universities of Applied Sciences): Universities of applied sci-
enceswereintroducedinthe1960s/1970sasonemeasuretodealwiththegrowthin
studentnumbers.Inthewintersemester2014/2015,therewere246universitiesof
applied sciences in Germany. Their main missions are teaching and applied
research. Most universities of applied sciences specialize in certain disciplines
(likeengineeringorsocialwork).Severaldisciplines(law,medicine,mostnatural
sciences,andhumanities)arenotofferedatuniversitiesofappliedsciences.Inthe
wintersemester2014/2015,35percentofallstudentswerestudyingatuniversities
ofappliedsciences.
Kunst- und Musikhochschulen (Colleges of Art and Music): Colleges of art and
musicarehighlyspecializedhighereducationinstitutionsofferingstudyprograms
infineart,performingarts,andmusic.Inthewintersemester2014/2015,therewere
52collegesofartandmusic.Theirmainmissionisteaching.Inthewintersemester
2014/2015, roughly 2 percent of all students were studying at colleges of art and
music.
ix
x TheGermanHigherEducationSystem:SomeKeyFacts
Public and Private Higher Education Institutions
Higher education institutions in Germany are either public or state-recognized
privateinstitutions.In the winter semester 2014/2015 ofthe 427 higher education
institutions in Germany, 270 were public and 157 were state-recognized private
highereducationinstitutions.Themajorityofprivatehighereducationinstitutions
areuniversitiesofappliedscienceswithspecializedprograms.Inrecentyears,the
privatehighereducationsectorhasexpandedsignificantly(in1992,therewerejust
63privatehighereducationinstitutions).However,93percentofallstudentsstudy
atpublicinstitutions(fordetaileddescription,seeSect.3.2.2).
Students and Academic Staff: Quantitative Developments
Students: Over the last 15 years, Germany has seen an enormous expansion of
student numbers. In the winter semester 2015/2016, Germany had 2,7 million
students and in 2015 58 percent of the relevant age cohort attended a higher
education institution. In comparison, in the winter semester 2000/2001, Germany
hadonly1,8millionstudentsandin2001only34percentoftherelevantagecohort
attendedahighereducationinstitution.
Academic staff: Over the last 15 years, there was also a strong expansion in
academic staff numbers, mostly due to increased third-party funding for research.
In 2014 German higher education institutions employed 236,364 academics. In
comparison,thisnumberwasonly157,216in2000.In2014roughly75percentof
employed academics were non-professorial staff, often called Mittelbau or
mid-level staff. Mid-level staff are usually employed via fixed-term contracts and
often pursue a further academic qualification (doctorate or habilitation) (for
detaileddescription,seeSect.3.1).
Funding
Since 2014, none of the 16 states have levied general tuition fees at public
institutions.Althoughsomestatesintroducedtuitionfeesbetween2006and2007,
thesewerelaterabolished.Publichighereducationinstitutionsarethereforemainly
financed via public funds (state dominance funding model). Overall, since 2005
therewasasignificantincreaseinfundingofthehighereducationsystem.Thetwo
mostimportantfundingsourcesarestatebaselinefundingandthird-partyfunding.
In the last decades, the importance of third-party funding has slowly but steadily
increased in Germany. For example, in 2001, 18 percent of all funding of univer-
sities came from third parties, whereas this number stood at 26 percent in 2014.
