[Opinion] Oxford vs. Harvard

“In short of talent, poor, and bureaucratic.” These are some of the words the British news outlet Financial Times used to describe “Oxbridge,” which refers to Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In contrast, private and elite Ivy League universities can be compared to professional baseball teams or high-tech startup companies whose major interest is on how to raise their pay and receive more stock options. For this reason, there is even a phrase that goes “The nighttime at Ivy League universities is as bright as the daytime, while at Oxford, the only place with light on is the cafeteria.” Why did this happen?

Some insist that the difference is due to the equality-oriented educational philosophy in which “everybody should be able to go to universities, and all universities should be treated equally.” The government funds universities and in return, controls college admission policy. Britain’s anti-elitist ruling Labor Party has been pressing Oxbridge to admit “less elite” students. In other words, the government is telling Oxbridge to admit more students from public schools rather than smarter students from private schools. The problem is that the funding does not go up as much even when the number of university students jumps by tenfold. This problematic situation is reflected in the rankings of the top 10 universities published by China’s Jiao Tong University, in which Cambridge and Oxford ranked third and eighth respectively while the other eight places were taken the U.S. universities.

Competition is at the core of the world’s number one university, Harvard. It not only attracts the best professors and students but also awards the crème de la crème with larger compensation. As a private university, Harvard is free from government funding and intervention. This is why the university can admit talented students regardless of their financial status and then waiver the students’ tuition if their parents make less than $40,000 a year. The approach of giving privilege to the elite has enticed 400,000 European scientists to move to the U.S. and helped the country produce two-thirds of all Nobel laureates.

At last, Oxford is beginning to voice its opinion arguing, “It is against the university’s raison d`ètre to lower admission standard not for educational but for sociopolitical purpose.” The university even said it would turn private like Ivy League universities if the government continues to step in. Even Germany, where the government used to “allocated” students to universities, promised to foster 10 elite universities. The rationale behind Germany’s decision is that the nation earns more when smart students educated at elite universities compete in the world. Economic growth and labor productivity are said to rise in primary and secondary education when the government takes interest in and supports them. However, things are different in university education. Europe is obviously proving that the intervention of the government only deteriorates educational competitiveness.

Kim Soon-duk, Editorial Writer, yuri@donga.com