The ECJ has ruled that Austria must open its universities to foreign students. The court said any students who have earned their degree in any member state should be admitted on the same basis as an Austrian student. Before the ruling, Austrians enjoyed the luxury of being able to study whatever they wanted as long as they passed their final secondary school exam (Matura). The court reasoned that placing more restrictive admission criteria on foreign students violated the principle of freedom of movement for students, which is guaranteed in the treaties.
The consequences of the court ruling is that Austria must now decide between its policy of giving qualified Austrians unrestricted access to higher education or facing a deluge of students from other member states, primarily Germany. Even before the court issued its ruling, there were fears that students rejected by Universities in Germany would apply for admission to Austrian schools. Austria's Education Minister Elisabeth Gehrer claimed, "It is impossible for a country of eight million inhabitants to give university places to all those who have been refused places in Germany." And she is right. It is unclear at the moment what steps the Austrian government will take to comply with the court's decision.
This ruling raises an interesting question about how the treaties should be interpreted. Students are guaranteed by treaty the freedom to attend school anywhere in the EU. However, the intent of the treaties was not to allow less qualified students to shop around for the most lenient admission standards in an academic version of social dumping. Austria argued before the court that the ECJ should apply the "country of origin principle" whereby citizens are subject to the national provisions of their member state of origin. This would mean that foreign students would be admitted to Austrian Universities based upon the admission criteria of the students' homelands, not Austria's standard of unlimited entry to higher education. I think the court was right in rejecting this argument for two reasons.
First, establishing the country of origin principle as a precedent in regards to higher education could lead to a reverse type of social dumping. Students from member states with less restrictive admissions criteria, like Austria, would have an easier time getting in to Universities in member states with stricter standards. Instead of German students deluging Austria, more prestigious German schools would have to face an increase in Austrian students.
Second, it punishes more qualified foreign students for the sake of the lesser qualified domestic students. Overall, this would reduce the quality of higher education in the member states. While Austria's policy of unrestricted access to higher education is noble, it is unsustainable. Even adopting the country of origin principle would not save their universities from overcrowding since it gives incentives to dump students on other countries. In the end, the only real solution for the Austrians is to establish admissions criteria. Not only will it improve the quality of their universities, but it is the fair thing to do. The ECJ was right in forcing Austria to deal with this reality.
The consequences of the court ruling is that Austria must now decide between its policy of giving qualified Austrians unrestricted access to higher education or facing a deluge of students from other member states, primarily Germany. Even before the court issued its ruling, there were fears that students rejected by Universities in Germany would apply for admission to Austrian schools. Austria's Education Minister Elisabeth Gehrer claimed, "It is impossible for a country of eight million inhabitants to give university places to all those who have been refused places in Germany." And she is right. It is unclear at the moment what steps the Austrian government will take to comply with the court's decision.
This ruling raises an interesting question about how the treaties should be interpreted. Students are guaranteed by treaty the freedom to attend school anywhere in the EU. However, the intent of the treaties was not to allow less qualified students to shop around for the most lenient admission standards in an academic version of social dumping. Austria argued before the court that the ECJ should apply the "country of origin principle" whereby citizens are subject to the national provisions of their member state of origin. This would mean that foreign students would be admitted to Austrian Universities based upon the admission criteria of the students' homelands, not Austria's standard of unlimited entry to higher education. I think the court was right in rejecting this argument for two reasons.
First, establishing the country of origin principle as a precedent in regards to higher education could lead to a reverse type of social dumping. Students from member states with less restrictive admissions criteria, like Austria, would have an easier time getting in to Universities in member states with stricter standards. Instead of German students deluging Austria, more prestigious German schools would have to face an increase in Austrian students.
Second, it punishes more qualified foreign students for the sake of the lesser qualified domestic students. Overall, this would reduce the quality of higher education in the member states. While Austria's policy of unrestricted access to higher education is noble, it is unsustainable. Even adopting the country of origin principle would not save their universities from overcrowding since it gives incentives to dump students on other countries. In the end, the only real solution for the Austrians is to establish admissions criteria. Not only will it improve the quality of their universities, but it is the fair thing to do. The ECJ was right in forcing Austria to deal with this reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment