Pieter DHONDT
The Belgian university model in the nineteenth century A double compromise characterized the Belgian university model in the nineteenth century. Professors and politicians were continuously striving for the golden mean between what was generally considered the French model, administered entirely by the authoritarian central government and with a focus on vocational training, and the German university system in the service of pure science, with professors and students who could give and attend courses in complete freedom without barriers between faculties or between different universities. At least as important though, was the search for a balance between state and free universities and between the unrestricted freedom of education on the one hand and complete state supervision on the other. This thesis of the Belgian university model as a double compromise is developed in my doctoral dissertation "Un double compromis. Enjeux et débats relatifs à l'enseignement universitaire en Belgique au XIXe siècle". In this article the main conclusions of the book are summarized. What is the duty of a university, Marc Vervenne asked in his rectorial address at the inauguration ceremony of the academic year 2005-2006 at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. During the months preceding his election as rector, he and the other candidates had to tackle numerous similar questions. Should the university in the first place offer a general education or rather prepare the students for a professional career? Does the university need special entrance examinations or should it be accessible to everyone? Is academic freedom threatened by the government and maybe by specific interest groups as well, such as industrial companies or societies of physicians and pharmacists? How could the Flemish universities stress their distinctive features in the integrated European market of higher education? And to what extent one could take inspiration from renowned American research universities with regard to these issues? Similar questions were discussed during the nineteenth century, although the actual interpretation was somewhat different, of course. The German and not the American system functioned as a model, and dissension arose about the use of Latin or French as the language of instruction and not about English or Dutch. How did the transition take place from a few vocational institutions of higher education in the French period at the end of the eighteenth century to four complete universities in 1835? Why was the unlimited freedom of education proclaimed in the Belgian constitution of 1830 and what were its short- and long-term consequences? When and how did Belgian universities transform themselves from institutions, focused exclusively on vocational training, to research universities? These are only a few of the questions that are at the centre of this research.
The origin of the Belgian university system The story begins in 1797, when the French occupier abolished the old, catholic university of Leuven. Very slowly and fragmentarily the vacuum was filled with a few vocational institutions of higher education, each of them specialized in one discipline. From 1798, physicians in Brussels, Antwerp, Ghent, Liège, Leuven and Bruges took the first step by establishing medical courses on their own initiative. Most of these private lectures gradually developed from one-man 1
Pieter DHONDT projects to complete departmental medical schools. In the same period, the government increased the number of institutions of higher education by the foundation of a law school in Brussels, afterwards supplemented by (preparatory) faculties of arts and sciences. All these separate institutions together, completed with the primary and secondary schools of the region, constituted the Academy of Brussels. In Liège too, an academy was established. The private medical courses that were offered in Liège and Brussels were transformed into proper medical schools and supplemented by a (small) science faculty. Not only through the foundation of such utilitarian écoles spéciales, the French occupier imposed, between 1797 and 1815, its perception of the organization of higher education on the Southern Netherlands. Firstly and primarily, the administration of the Imperial University, that comprised all educational institutions, was totally controlled by Emperor Napoleon himself. All decisions were taken by the central authorities, and the freedom of, for instance, the rectors, as headmasters of the academies, was extremely limited. In result, Charles van Hulthem, rector of the academy in Brussels, had regular conflicts with the Grand Maître, the headmaster of the Université impériale as the delegate of the emperor. Van Hulthem and many others were also annoyed by the meticulous character of the instructions. Really everything was prescribed in regulations, even the structure of the lectures. Finally, the French administration introduced at the academies of Brussels and Liège, the tradition to appoint the professors after a public concours, as in the other French academies. The fall of Napoleon in the spring of 1814 marked the end of the Imperial University and of the two academies in the Southern Netherlands. Immediately, the struggle for university status between several cities began. Everyone was convinced that the French écoles spéciales had to be replaced by a complete university, but the new question was double: how many universities had to be established and where? The majority of the Southern Dutch elite agreed that, in principle, one university was enough. However, it appeared impossible to reach a consensus about which city would acquire this single university. Brussels and Leuven competed with each other, whereas Ghent and Liège changed their opinion concerning the number of universities. Because they realized that they would never succeed in acquiring the university, they started to emphasize the necessity of establishing several institutions, allegedly to create a kind of healthy competition between them. Smaller cities entered the discussion too. Bruges claimed a university because of its favourable location at the coast, which would enable it to attract many English students. Tournai, one of the oldest cities of the country, was, by its own account, situated in the quiet countryside, perfectly placed for the intellectual development of the new university. The Southern Dutch commission, which was established to advise William I (King of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands), supported the idea of one university, but it remained unclear which city was preferred. Leuven and Brussels received an equal amount of votes. Nevertheless, as a reflection of the three universities in the northern provinces, in 1816 the king decided to establish three state universities in the Southern Netherlands, viz. in Leuven, Ghent and Liège. Moreover, the new regulation explicitly prohibited the foundation of new universities on private initiative. Also with regard to other issues, the commission and the Dutch government disagreed heavily, which created a tense situation from the start. Despite the repeated appeals of Southern Dutch doctors and jurists who pled for the preservation of appointments after a concours, the government chose to take the appointment of 2
Pieter DHONDT professors into its own hands. Indeed, in line with the new system the highest governing body of the universities would be consulted, but this did not take away the dissatisfaction. The introduction of more freedom for both professors and students and of a more scientific interpretation of the educational program was neither appreciated. These last measures in particular, were regarded by a great part of the Southern Dutch elite as German, and mainly as anti-French. Nevertheless, the government presented the new regulation explicitly as a compromise between the centrally administrated French system and the autonomy of the German universities. William I had replaced the Êcoles spÊciales of the French period by universities that included all disciplines, but on the other hand he did not push things too far and decided not to consolidate the faculties of arts and sciences into one faculty, as in Germany. However, William I did not succeed in convincing his new citizens and the anti-French attitude of the Dutch government encountered increasing resistance. Also, the use of new educational methods annoyed many of the older professors, who swore by passive dictation lectures, like they had existed at the old university of Leuven and at the French colleges. Some of their younger colleagues, who were attracted from Germany, opposed this conservative mentality and, for instance, introduced philosophical-pedagogical seminars at the arts faculty. In these practical exercises they emphasized the importance of active contributions of the students to the course. Even larger was the protest against the reintroduction of the separation of internal and external medicine (and against the ban on practicing cumulatively these different medical branches). It was considered one of the greatest achievements of the French occupier to have reunited internal and external medicine and thus to approach medical science as a whole. The admonition that the Dutch government was oriented strongly towards Germany and did not really take into account the French background of the Southern provinces was completely correct. On several occasions, e.g. in 1825, when it was proclaimed that it became impossible to enrol at a university with a foreign diploma of secondary education, the minister of education expressed the desire to put a stop to the continuous orientation of the Southern Netherlands towards (catholic) France. The national origin of the professors who were appointed in 1817 spoke volumes too: one third of them came from the German areas. Some fifteen years later, the new free universities were forced to attract foreign professors too, due to a lack of appropriate indigenous candidates, but the final composition of the professorial body there, appeared to be much better balanced. Whereas the policy of William I received a reasonable degree of support at the university of Ghent, the criticism increased continuously at the two other universities. The replacement of French by Latin as the language of instruction caused certainly in Liège additional nuisances. The university offered open resistance by pursuing its own course and by ignoring a number of rules with regard to the use of Latin. In Leuven, the protest became intolerable from 1825, when the Collegium Philosophicum was established and connected to the state university, which was administrated by the protestant government. To be admitted to a seminary, each future catholic priest had to attend courses at the Collegium Philosophicum during at least two years. The intention of the government was to improve the general education of the priests and mainly to increase its supervision on it. Originally, the clergy considered the foundation of the college only an assault on the seminaries, but gradually the displeasure increased. The bishops claimed not only the right to control the education of the priests, but also condemned the state monopoly in education 3
Pieter DHONDT generally. Their plea for complete freedom of education was soon supported by a number of liberals, who were disappointed because the freedom of the professors to organize optional subjects or the possibility to appoint additional lecturers remained extremely limited in actual practice. Therefore, nobody was surprised by the proclamation of the unrestricted freedom of education in 1830. At the same time, the provisional Belgian government tried to meet another old complaint by decreasing the number of universities. However, again the fundamental agreement about this issue conflicted with political and economical interests of different cities. And what's more, the dawdling attitude of the government resulted in new players entering the field. By 1831, a group of liberals in Brussels launched the idea of establishing an own selfgoverned university, but the plans were shelved, as it was still possible that the single state university would be established in their city. When in 1834, the bishops realized their project of an own catholic university in Malines, since they did not want to lose another generation of students to the supposedly immoral state universities, the liberals reacted immediately and founded their own UniversitÊ libre de Belgique in Brussels. Instead of the ideal of one university that was dreamed of, there existed, in the autumn of 1834, five universities in the small country of Belgium, viz. the state universities in Leuven, Ghent and Liège, the catholic university in Malines and the liberal university in Brussels. In parliament, some liberals still put forward the proposition of preserving one state university in Leuven, but in vein. In the law of the 27th of September 1835, only the state universities of Ghent and Liège were retained, allegedly to keep the balance between the Flemish and Walloon provinces in Belgium, in reality because of the impossibility to reach a consensus about the location of the single (state) university. As a preconceived plan, the Catholics moved their university from Malines to Leuven, some two months later.
The university as a vocational institution The proclamation of the unrestricted freedom of education and the establishment of free universities as a consequence of this, presented the new Belgian government with a unique problem, which demanded a unique solution. How could universities under a different authority (the state, the church or a group of freethinking liberals) and with a different curriculum grant the same degrees, especially when they had social implications, e.g. a degree in law or medicine? The government did not have the right to inspect the free universities, but on the other hand it wanted to supervise the professions at least to some extent. After long-lasting debates, independent examining boards were created, which would examine the students and grant the diplomas. Whereas the starting-point enjoyed wide support, the composition of the boards and the question of who would appoint their members were heavily discussed in parliament. Finally, it was decided that both the House of Representatives and the senate could appoint two members, the government three. In the law of 1835, nothing was included concerning the composition of the boards, but implicitly everyone agreed that each university would get a representative, completed by three members of the Royal Academy, the courts of justice or the provincial 4
Pieter DHONDT medical commissions. Because of the large dissension about the whole issue, it was decided to evaluate the system every three years, to be able to change and improve it quickly, if necessary. From the 1840's, the inadequately functioning examining boards became one of the central difficulties of Belgian university education. Instead of being institutions in the service of education and science, they increasingly developed into political institutions. The composition of the boards only changed on the basis of the four-yearly parliamentary election results. In 1844, the catholic politician Adolphe Dechamps condemned the examining boards as the government of higher education that controlled everything. Professors succeeded themselves year after year in a way that the boards became set in their habits without any openness to new ideas or approaches. At the universities, professors and students only concentrated on preparing for the examinations. Only the courses of professors who sat on the boards themselves, were regularly attended. The replacement of the so-called central examining boards by mixed boards in 1849 did not succeed in taking away the complaints. In the mixed boards two representatives of a state university were appointed, together with two representatives of a free university, completed by an external foreman. At first, the enthusiasm was rather great because their own teachers, who were directly supervised by members of the competing university, now examined the students. However, during the parliamentary discussions of 1876, the liberal leader Walthère Frère-Orban summarized the criticism on the mixed boards, by characterizing their work as "collision ou collusion".1 Usually, the debate within the boards resulted in a stalemate between the representatives of the free university and those of the state institution, which meant that the independent, external and often allegedly incompetent foreman had to take the final decision. Or, the professors mutually agreed to pull students of one university through in exchange for students of the other university. Despite the uniqueness of the issue, supposedly or not, a growing number of professors and politicians looked abroad for suggestions. Especially the distinction in Germany between scientific examinations at the universities and professional examinations, which were held by a government commission, was often pushed forward as a possible alternative. However, in reality, most of those involved considered the adoption of this system in Belgium impossible. A large number of professors were convinced of the fact that the students had an insufficient scientific attitude towards education, so that the universities threatened to stress their function as vocational institutions even more than they had done previously. The entire freedom of the liberal professions, as it was practiced in England and the United States, charmed some others too, but for the same reason it was usually regarded as a kind of utopian ideal. The Belgian parliament had to search for its own solution, which would offer a sufficient amount of freedom to the universities - like in Germany - and which, at the same time, would offer the government the opportunity to supervise the education of physicians, lawyers and judges - like in France, so it was argued at least.
Wathère Frère-Orban, La liberté d'enseignement et la liberté des professions. Les jurys d'examen et la collation des grades académiques. Discours prononcés dans les séances du 25 février, des 29 et 30 mai 1876, de la Chambre des Représentants (Bruxelles: Bruylant-Christophe, 1876), 43. 1
5
Pieter DHONDT The existing examination system made a reform of the educational programs, the educational methods, or the structure of the four universities, completely impossible, according to the great majority of professors. The mutual distrust between the universities prevented the introduction of more freedom. It was argued that freedom to improve and to reform inevitably went hand in hand with freedom to abuse. The universities of the competing ideological group would only aim at attracting as many students as possible, if necessary, even at the expense of the quality of the granted diplomas. Only the preservation of the independent examining boards could prevent this inclination, it was stated. Also with regard to the content of the educational programs, a great deal of distrust existed between the different universities. The permanent tensions between the catholic university in Leuven and the free university in Brussels were obvious, but, around the middle of the nineteenth century, the bishops increasingly interfered in the education at the state universities too. Of course, their influence was largest at their own university in Leuven, certainly from 1872, when the ultramontane episcopate controlled the administration of the university completely, due to the appointment of a rather weak rector. Many professors who adopted a somewhat progressive attitude in one way or another, were put on the carpet. The UniversitĂŠ catholique de Louvain defended its policy with the argument that it had to guarantee the preservation and the spread of the true catholic doctrine. The UniversitĂŠ libre de Bruxelles presented itself in the first place as the counterpart of the Catholics in Leuven. It had to restore the balance between Catholics and liberals with regard to university education and the liberal institution was needed to prevent the catholic university from falling into extremism. Moreover, according to its own perception, the university in Brussels was essential for the preservation of the state universities, which would not be able to compete with the catholic university on their own. In their turn, the state universities considered themselves indispensable to preserve university education in general, because of the precarious financial situation of the free universities. Simultaneously, they epitomized another compromise, viz. that between Dutchand French-speaking people. The continuous striving for a balance between state and free education had repercussions not only on the content of the education, but also on the entrance conditions to the university. Even though it would inevitably lead to increasing government interference in education, still the liberals preferred an entrance examination at the university instead of a certificate of secondary education. Indeed, the government could not supervise the catholic secondary schools and thus could not guarantee the quality of their diplomas. Again, the fear of possible abuse dominated an originally purely pedagogical question. The Catholics turned the argumentation round and defended the need of a certificate of the grammar school as an entrance condition. The difference of opinion between both groups, in the end, resulted several times in a solution that satisfied nobody, viz. free entrance to the universities. Neither in this regard, much inspiration could be drawn from abroad. The adoption of the German Arbiter as an entrance condition to the university was unfeasible, if only because of practical reasons, according to many professors. Indeed, the presence of a government inspector at the examinations at the end of secondary education was one of the essential features of the German system. Only in this way the examination could meet the same quality standards everywhere. However, the catholic educational sector in Belgium would never have tolerated 6
Pieter DHONDT such government inspectors. Moreover, the high level of the Arbiter (among other reasons due to longer secondary education) would have been out of reach for the Belgian students anyway, it was said. Some professors, among others Charles de Cupper, physicist in Liège, suggested improving the preliminary education of the students by the introduction of a preparatory year, as it was common at many Italian universities. Others, especially at the university of Leuven, were devoting themselves to the supervision of first-year students in particular in boarding colleges, like in England. However, in the end, foreign examples were of little importance in the debate on the entrance conditions at the university. In fact, during the whole nineteenth century, a general consensus existed about the necessity of a stern and selective entrance to the university, but continuous conflicts between supporters of an entrance examination and their opponents, who preferred a certificate of secondary education, complicated the implementation of this ideal. The lack of (an agreement on) stern entrance conditions resulted in a poor preparation of the students, which for its part was regarded as one of the explanations for the supposedly insufficient scientific attitude of the students. The great majority of the students would only be focused on graduating as soon as possible, an attitude that was enforced by the examination system and by the unremitting suspense about statutory regulations that could be changed every three years. In any event, the discussions on the examining boards monopolized the attention, so that other essential reforms were always postponed. Besides, a circular argument interfered with the search for a solution. The lack of freedom caused an insufficient scientific attitude of both the students and the professors, which in its turn hampered the introduction of more freedom because they would be incapable to deal with it. For an increasing number of professors, the German universities characterized themselves as the great opposite example. A comparison of the educational programs in itself clarified a lot, it was said. As in France, the Belgian academic and political authorities would be prone to include as many courses as possible in the program, resulting obviously in a loss of quality. Most of the courses were extremely superficial, as many professors complained. The German universities on the other hand, chose to offer a narrower, but deeper educational, and especially examination program, so that the lecturers could aim for more in-depth knowledge, according to Auguste Wagener and Joseph Gantrelle, both professors in Ghent. It may seem as if their opinion contrasted with the enthusiasm of many of their colleagues about the large number of often very specialized courses at German universities, but for the most part, these were optional subjects, of which the German students took only a few. The conclusion was self-evident: like their German colleagues, the Belgian professors and students had to receive more Lehr- und Lernfreiheit, to hold and to attend courses on their own initiative. However, in the 1860s many Belgian professors still did not want to go too far in this direction. Would indeed the students be able to deal with the freedom to compose their own curriculum and would this system not be at the expense of the general, previously compulsory, courses, they wondered. The government too, thought that it would be a better idea to organize public lectures as optional subjects, like in France. Unfortunately, these lectures did not really succeed, because they were not taken into account at the examination stage. The Liège professor Louis Jean Trasenster took up a much more provocative standpoint concerning the explanation of German scientific supremacy. He attributed it to other causes than 7
Pieter DHONDT just some specific features of the German university system, like the better preparation of the students or the greater freedom of students and professors. In an anonymous pamphlet in 1873, he considered the second half of the nineteenth century, "comme une de ces grandes époques de l'histoire où l'axe du monde civilisé s'est déplacé". Due to increasing ultramontanism and due to the difficult relationship between religion and science, Latin countries blocked each form of scientific progress, according to Trasenster. The German scientific world on the other hand was characterized by the greatest intellectual freedom. "Et cet esprit d'indépendance intellectuelle a pénétré même dans les universités des pays catholiques de l'Allemagne", he stated.2 The origin of German supremacy was, according to Trasenster, the fact that after the crushing defeat in Jena in 1806, Prussia "comprit qu'elle devait se régénérer, et c'est à l'enseignement surtout qu'elle demanda son salut. C'est principalement l'enseignement des universités qui a transformé et sauvé l'Allemagne."3 His colleague at the faculty of medicine in Liège, Léon Fredericq, agreed with this view a few years later. In his eulogy on the physiological education at the university of Berlin he repeated the legendary, prophetic words of Frederick William III, on the occasion of the foundation of the university of Berlin in 1810: "Der Staat muss durch geistige Kräfte ersetzen, was er an physischen verloren hat."4 Sixty years later the prophecy would be fulfilled. In 1871, German science had defeated the French, just as the German armies had defeated the French, was how the professors in Liège and many of their colleagues from home and abroad analyzed the situation. Trasenster was certainly not alone in his analysis of the problem. Many of those involved agreed that the lack of freedom was the main cause for the arrears in Belgian university education. However, not everyone found a connection with the increasing orientation towards authoritarian Rome. Most of them searched for an explanation in the typically Belgian contrast between state and free education. When in 1878 the more progressive pope Leo XIII succeeded the extremely conservative Pius IX, Trasenster moderated his opinion too. Moreover, the majority of professors and politicians thought that Belgium should not only renounce its (catholic) Latin and French past. On the contrary, the country should make better use of its central position between allegedly practical France and philosophical Germany, by combining French honesty and accuracy with German inventiveness. The Belgian universities had to search for the golden mean between the (French) applied-practical and the (German) fundamental-scientific approach of education. As one of the few, Trasenster also added England to the picture: "La Belgique, placée entre les trois grandes nations et les trois grandes civilisations de l'Occident de l'Europe, doit s'attacher à cultiver les qualités qui les distinguent et réunissant, dans un sage éclectisme, la netteté, la précision et le talent d'exposition des Français; la ferme raison et l'énergique initiative des Anglais; l'abnégation persévérante avec laquelle l'Allemand se consacre aux travaux scientifiques et aux études les plus abstraites."5 Louis Jean Trasenster, De l'enseignement supérieur en Belgique (Liège: Desoer, 1873), 12-13. Trasenster, De l'enseignement supérieur en Belgique, 12. 4 Léon Fredericq, "L'enseignement de la physiologie à l'université de Berlin," Revue de Belgique 3 (1881), no. 38: 119. 5 Louis Jean Trasenster, "Discours prononcé le 12 octobre 1880, dans la séance d'ouverture solennelle des cours de l'université de Liège (Du rôle de l'enseignement supérieur et des améliorations et compléments qu'il réclame en Belgique)", in Situation de l'enseignement supérieur donné aux frais de l'état. Rapport triennal. Années 1880, 1881 et 1882, ed. Jean Joseph Thonissen (Bruxelles: Gobbaerts, 1886), 104. 2 3
8
Pieter DHONDT The education at the teacher training colleges in Liège and, to a lesser extent, in Leuven developed into a kind of prototype of this combination. In the debate on teacher training, the French and German models were in opposition to each other: a vocational training at a separate teacher training college or a scientific education at the university. The Belgian authorities chose for a compromise: the establishment of a separate teacher training college attached to the university. Initially, a vocational training predominated, characterized by some typical French features, such as the strict discipline of a boarding school and a fixed number of pupils. However, from the 1860s, the education gradually received a more scientific interpretation by increasing the number of optional subjects, by organizing seminars and by compelling the students to write a dissertation. A similar contrast characterized the education in medicine. In Germany, medicine would have been looked upon too much as a science, according to many professors, whereas in France it would have been regarded too much as an art. Again, the Belgian universities considered it their task to come up with a compromise: a compulsory practical training in hospital for all students during their education, as in France, or a purely scientific education at the university, completed by practical professional examinations, as in Germany? In the end, practical clinical exercises were made compulsory and combined with a scientific education, even though the scientific interpretation remained very limited until the beginning of the 1870s. Increased enthusiasm for German educational freedom and for the German university system in general, was also displayed by the destinations of the students on a travel scholarship. After Prussia's defeat of France, Paris was replaced as the most popular destination, by cities such as Berlin, Bonn, Leipzig, Strasbourg and Heidelberg. Still, the number of professors who warned about the dangers of this freedom increased simultaneously. German students received the opportunity to develop themselves according to their own interests and capacities, but at the same time each student threatened to fall into complete laxness. Direct payment of the tuition fees to the lecturers (per course) could result in an extra stimulus and in an improvement of the quality of the courses, but conversely it could also result in a proliferation of subjects, and thus realize exactly the opposite of what one wanted to attain.
Scientific education as a new assignment of the university The crucial obstacle were still the politicized examining boards. "Sous l'influence si capricieuse de la politique, la discussion des questions d'enseignement, au lieu de s'élever au-dessus de l'arène où s'agitent tous les intérêts contraires, semble ne pouvoir conduire qu'à des transactions, à des compromis, qui, ne répondant pas aux aspirations d'aucun parti, ne tardent pas à être repoussés par tous", as De Cuyper expressed in 1870 his displeasure, and that of many of his colleagues.6 In 1876, a new compromise was agreed upon, which many professors considered a great improvement, but still insufficient. The universities regained the right to examine their own
Charles De Cuyper, Observations sur l'enseignement supérieur. Discours inaugural prononcé à la Salle académique de l'Université de Liège, le 11 octobre 1870 (Liège: Desoer, 1870), 7. 6
9
Pieter DHONDT students and to grant the diplomas themselves, but the educational and examination programs were still prescribed by the government. However, gradually the demand for a more scientific approach in education and the demand for more freedom, which was closely connected to this, became so overwhelming that the Belgian government had to meet these requests at least to some extent. Auguste Beernaert, who had received a travel scholarship to visit the universities of Paris, Berlin and Heidelberg and who later became a famous politician, was convinced that Belgium should take up a middle position with regard to academic freedom. On the one hand, the freedom to establish independent universities was greater than in Germany, but on the other hand, government interference in the practical organization of education was at least as excessive as during the French occupation. Many professors concluded that the French institutions of higher education were gradually enjoying more internal freedom. Belgium could not stay behind any longer, it was stated. As a result of these pleas, lecturers received the permission to organize optional subjects more easily from the 1880s, although the academic and/or political authorities retained a great deal of supervision, since each initiative had to be approved by the episcopate, the Brussels council of administration or the government. Moreover, for the students, real freedom of choice was still absolutely out of the question. Indeed, they could take optional subjects, but as before, these were not included in the examination program. Like many others, Franรงois Collard, professor in Leuven, asserted that the Belgian students were not (yet) able to deal with the German Lernfreiheit. As the demand for more freedom was met to a certain extent, the attention to the advancement of science as an assignment of university education increased too. But still, it was claimed that the Belgian universities should not go too far in this direction. As Belgium had to make use of its central position to find a middle course between France, Germany and England with regard to the approach of education, it also had to combine the assignments of the universities that stood at the centre in each of these countries: an excellent vocational training as in France, a profound scientific schooling as in Germany and a solid liberal education as in England, according to Trasenster, who voiced the opinion of many of his colleagues. Although, around 1880, there existed almost unanimity concerning these three tasks of university education as a basic principle, much dissension arose about the practical application of it. Many professors and politicians warned about extreme specialization as in Germany, which would include the risk of educating unworldly scholarly recluses. The university of Leuven in particular stressed its importance as the upholder of general education. It suggested reserving the scientific cours pratiques for the best students, because the others, who aimed at a vocational degree, would not be interested in these courses anyway. Stimulated by some prominent professors at the faculty of medicine, the university of Brussels pushed forward vocational training as the central task. The universities should concentrate on that in which they were really strong, viz. the training of practitioners. In that case, the advancement of science should be taken care of in a separate institute. This suggestion was inspired by material and pragmatical considerations too. In result of the transfer of scientific education to a separate institution, less pressure would be put on the already limited budget of the university.
10
Pieter DHONDT These financial limitations caused also that, during the whole nineteenth century, the Université libre de Bruxelles acted as a pioneer with regard to the appointment of agrégés. These qualified teachers for higher education meant a cheap extension of the small staff of professors. Since 1835, agrégés could be appointed at the Belgian universities. By giving some optional subjects, on their own initiative, they could get some experience in teaching, at least theoretically. In actual practice almost nothing came of it and, from the 1870s, an increasing number of professors explicitly searched for a combination of the French suppléants and the German Privatdozenten as the solution to enliven the Belgian institution of agrégés. The applicants would be selected after a concours on the French model, whereupon they would be appointed at and (badly) paid by the university to stand in for colleagues who were ill or on leave, as the French suppléants. At the same time, they could organize optional subjects (sometimes even in competition with the regular professors), as the German Privatdozenten. This model was thus very successful in Brussels, mainly out of financial reasons. Although the university of Leuven had to contend with similar financial difficulties in the 1870s, a much smaller number of agrégés was appointed there. Firstly, the different attitude towards the tasks of a university education lay at the root of this contrast. General education and vocational training were the main assignments of a university, so it was said. A scientific education on the other hand should be reserved for the elite of the students. Secondly, the institution of agrégés implied at least the assumption of allowing competition among the lecturers. However, this was condemned on principle by the academic authorities in Leuven, because it would undermine the authority of the regular professors. The different attitude of the universities towards the finality of a university education manifested itself extremely visible in the education at the faculty of medicine. Because of the existence of many hospitals in Brussels, the medical faculty in the capital emphasized the importance of practical, clinical exercises, yet these were given a strongly scientific interpretation through the assistance of many agrégés. The education in Leuven at the end of the nineteenth century was characterized by a similar importance of clinical exercises, but, as much, by an enduring attention to more philosophical and other general subjects during the preparatory years at the faculty of science. The universities of Ghent and Liège at their turn stressed their large number of scientific research exercises, with the remark that the students in Liège could make use of a bit more and a bit better equipped laboratories and institutes than their colleagues in Ghent. Already before the crucial amendment of the law on higher education in 1890, all four universities gave thus, each in its own way and to a different extent, a certain interpretation to the change of mentality that had started from the 1870s. The expectations towards the medical practitioner had increased spectacularly. A symptomatical treatment of diseases was not sufficient anymore. It was expected that the doctor would be able to predict the course of the disease and to find and treat its causes. From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, the medical-philosophical systems, which explained the body activities by fixed physico-chemical processes in the solid and fluid parts of the body, had gradually been replaced by treatment methods based on an extensive medical and scientific examination. However, the necessary scientific exercises were introduced very slowly. Brussels and Leuven prevented the reform on
11
Pieter DHONDT financial and ideological reasons and the parliament too, proceeded with caution with regard to making these exercises compulsory. The education at the arts faculty developed in a similar way. A more scientific approach towards education was introduced firstly at the teacher training colleges (and by extension at the faculties) in Liège and Leuven through the introduction of philological seminars. It is true though that, after a while, these seminars received an almost exclusive pedagogical interpretation in Leuven. At the universities of Ghent and Brussels, the reform of the arts faculty was somewhat behind, because it had a much more preparatory function than at the two other universities. However, gradually the internationally approved, high level of the teacher training college in Liège reflected on the faculties (first in Liège itself and later at the other universities too), where, from the 1880s, more optional subjects were offered, where practical exercises were introduced and where the plea for more specialization found growing support. With regard to increasing specialization, each university focused on different fields. Of old the Université libre de Bruxelles paid more attention to modern languages and so, for instance, English was introduced very early as an optional subject. The Université catholique de Leuven sustained the tradition of the old university and offered optional subjects in oriental philology, such as Hebrew, Syrian, Arabian and Sanskrit. Due to the move of the influential historians Paul Fredericq and Henri Pirenne from the university of Liège to the university of Ghent, the latter obtained the leading position in history education. The arts faculty in Liège, in its turn, offered the largest number of optional subjects indeed (in oriental philology, history, history of art, auxiliary historical sciences and, as the only one, geography), but had a less marked field of specialization. Obviously, the increase in the number of courses and the increase in the number of professors and lecturers were closely related to each other, which stimulated the debate on the appointment procedure, from around 1875. During the whole nineteenth century, the appointment after a public competition, as in France, was supported by a small group of true adherents. Although it was sometimes indicated that this procedure was not as common in France as was generally assumed (especially at the faculties in Paris the professors were not appointed after a concours at all), this could not modify the old picture of the French appointment procedure. However, much more popular were the German and Dutch systems, where the faculty boards were allowed to have an important say in the matter, although the final decision still lay with the government. Despite these pleas for the adoption of foreign systems, the right of appointment of professors at the Belgian universities during the whole nineteenth century remained the exclusive authority of the government with regard to the state universities, of the council of administration with regard to the university of Brussels and of the episcopate with regard to the university of Leuven. De Cuyper suggested adopting the Italian system, which was a combination of appointments after a public competition and appointments by the government. Indeed, his proposal was not very realistic, but it illustrates perfectly the finding that most of the students and professors were particularly enthusiastic about the country that they visited themselves. Very often, these statements about foreign models were only used as an extra argument. The actual stimuli for the proposed reforms did not come only or especially from abroad, even quite the reverse. For instance, the demand for more practical, scientific exercises in medicine 12
Pieter DHONDT resulted chiefly from new ideas in medical science itself and from a new approach towards the tasks of the physician. The conclusion that such a scientific approach to education had already been introduced at universities in Germany, Italy, England, Russia, the Netherlands and even France, served only to enforce the own argument. In the debate about the admission of female students at the universities this was extremely obvious. With regard to no other theme, so many comparisons were made with the situation in so many other countries. Without taking into account the specific circumstances in these countries, Belgium just had to adopt as soon as possible the American, Swiss, French, English, Swedish, Danish, Italian and Dutch examples, as Trasenster stated.
The Belgian university model The actual developments in the faculties of arts and medicine put in perspective the glum-picture of Belgian university education, as it appeared in the numerous publications and speeches of professors, politicians and journalists, at the end of the nineteenth century. Actually, many lecturers took the initiative to offer optional subjects. In Liège there were even some agrégés who entered into competition with the regular professors by giving the same course. A rather large number of practical exercises were organized. In the doctorat spécial students got the opportunity to specialize and continue postgraduate studies. In Brussels, students who intended to apply for a position as agrégé had to write a dissertation. To obtain certain scientific degrees in Leuven, this was also compulsory. Nevertheless, these changes had only very limited repercussions on the educational and examination program of the regular students. In the laws of 1890 and 1891, additional practical, scientific exercises were made compulsory in the faculty of medicine, but the emphasis was still on clinical exercises and other vocational subjects. A dissertation was made compulsory, but only for master students in arts and sciences. And moreover, the bachelor programs in these faculties remained very important for the general education of all the students. This ambiguous attitude was certainly motivated by arguments as regards content. During the whole nineteenth century, Belgian professors and politicians were striving for a compromise between what they considered as the French, generally educating and vocational model on the one hand, and the German system that was focused on science on the other hand. At least as important though, was the necessity to find a balance between state and free universities and between the unrestricted freedom of education and complete state supervision. The lack of supervision in the free universities would force the government to prescribe the examination program, it was concluded. This explains to a large extent the arrears of the Belgian universities with regard to the modernization of education, in comparison with the situation in neighbouring countries. In general, new ideas were adopted relatively quickly, but it appeared to be extremely difficult to put them into practice without disturbing the balance between state and free universities. The unique and unrestricted external freedom of education led to no choice but to limit the internal freedom of the universities. The search in Belgium for a reconciliation of the educational freedom on the one hand and the social need of the supervision of the liberal professions on the other, was looked at with Argus' eyes from abroad. In Belgium, the possibility of adopting the German, English or 13
Pieter DHONDT American examination system was discussed, but at the same time, the opportunity of adopting the Belgian model was debated in, among other countries, the Netherlands and France. In both countries the demand for more educational freedom arose and, inextricably bound up with this, the demand for changing the examination system. The Dutch politicians quickly rejected the suggestion to adopt the Belgian system. When it raised so much opposition in his own country, it could never be really worthy of imitation abroad, according to the Liège rector Guillaume Nypels. Among the French Catholics, the Belgian system of independent examining boards was much better received. During their struggle for more educational freedom in the middle of the 1870s, they often referred to the model of their northern neighbour. Besides, some professors at the Université catholique de Louvain were completely aware of this exemplary function and (mis)used it as an extra argument in favour of the preservation of the mixed examining boards. The debate in French parliament bore surprising resemblances to that in Belgium and references to the Belgian model were very common. However, the decision of the 12th of July 1875 illustrates very well how foreign examples were usually adapted to the situation in the indigenous country. The French state faculties received the right to grant their own degrees and for the free faculties a mixed examining board was created, with representatives of both the state and the free educational sector; a system that was considered as inapt for the Belgian case because the free universities would be put at too much of a disadvantage. As early as in 1849, the physician Théodore Olivier regretted that Belgium did not succeed in fulfilling its exemplary function towards neighbouring countries. "Ne serait-ce pas une triste chose de ne pouvoir leur en montrer le développement pleinement organisé, leur évitant les longues et pénibles discussions," he wondered.7 Nevertheless, the Belgian freedom of education and the establishment of free universities resulting from this were inspiring until into the twentieth century. For instance, in 1911, in Helsinki, a new private university-level commercial college, later known as the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, started its work, following the model from Belgium, as it is stated in Research in Finland - A History.8 Pieter Dhondt, Un double compromis. Enjeux et débats relatifs à l'enseignement universitaire en Belgique au XIXe siècle (Gent: Academia Press, Ginkgo series, 2011).
Théodore Olivier, De la loi sur le jury d'examen (Tournai: Casterman, 1849), 15. Päiviö Tommila and Aura Korppi-Tommola, eds., Research in Finland - A History (Helsinki: University Press, 2006), 62. 7 8
14