Richard Kerschagl, Gedanken zu einer Hochschulreform in Österreich (1953)

Richard Kerschagl’s German-language reform study examines Austrian higher education through its dependence on secondary schooling, funding, professional recognition, and academic recruitment. Its central concern is the compatibility of reform demands: broader education and stronger professional preparation cannot simply be combined with shorter study, limited budgets, and easier qualifications. Reform must secure the conditions that sustain educational standards.

Kerschagl locates much of the preparation associated with a studium generale in secondary education. Latin, logic and propaedeutics, history and geography, religious instruction, and command of written German should establish the intellectual foundations of university work. Universities should not routinely have to compensate for their absence. This raises a question about the relationship between completing secondary school and qualifying for higher education:

Soll die Matura, welche derzeit ohneweiters zum Besuche einer Hochschule berechtigt, in der gegenwärtigen grundsätzlichen Form weiterbehalten werden?

English translation: Should the Matura, which at present entitles one without further ado to attend a university, be retained in its present fundamental form?

He considers separating the school-leaving certificate from university entrance qualification while retaining rigorously examined routes for applicants without conventional credentials. Selection nevertheless cannot rest on school performance alone:

Sind die Vorzugsschüler der Mittelschule wirklich immer die besten Studenten der Hochschule?

English translation: Are the honours pupils of the secondary school really always the best students at the university?

These questions distinguish formal attainment from intellectual readiness. They also expose a tension within Kerschagl’s program: alternative routes to admission are permissible, but widening access remains subordinate to protecting academic standards.

Within universities, general education must connect intelligibly with students’ principal disciplines. Austrian introductory examinations already fulfill some of its purposes; further expansion would require curricular space rather than merely additional requirements. Compulsory subjects may become obstacles, while optional lectures can attract enrollment without attendance. Effective breadth therefore depends on teachers who demonstrate relationships between specialized knowledge and wider intellectual problems.

Study duration presents another conflict of objectives. Kerschagl distinguishes nominal minimum periods from actual completion times and emphasizes the growing demands of economics, taxation, statistics, mathematics, and business administration. International recognition and adequate professional preparation may require longer programs. Financial hardship consequently calls for student support, not reduced educational expectations:

Also: dies darf in keinem Falle geschehen auf dem Wege der "Verbilligung" der Kenntnisse an den Hochschulen selbst!

English translation: Thus: this must under no circumstances take place by way of a "cheapening" of knowledge at the universities themselves!

More intensive teaching could limit the necessary extension, but it requires smaller groups and additional teachers. Funding is thus integral to pedagogy. Kerschagl favors discussion and exercises modeled on ministries, businesses, and courts. His international comparisons are selective: American small-group instruction offers advantages, although restrictions on students’ choice of teachers complicate academic freedom. Scandinavian evening education suggests possibilities for working adults when teaching draws on their experience without abandoning equivalent standards.

The argument then turns to qualifications and employment. A two-level system of disciplinary diplomas and doctorates can work only if public employers accept the first qualification for ordinary graduate posts; otherwise students would remain obliged to pursue doctorates. Kerschagl’s resistance to easy parallel titles and inconsistent honorary distinctions links credential value to educational effort. Political appointments and the occupation of graduate-designated posts by non-graduates likewise threaten, in his account, professional incentives and an ordered civil service. His defense of competence thereby becomes a defense of graduates’ occupational standing.

Academic recruitment completes this institutional analysis. Kerschagl supports habilitation and entry into teaching from both academic careers and professional practice. Since assistantships cannot promise eventual professorships, adequate support, scientific administrative positions, and routes into other professions must prevent junior academic service from becoming a career disadvantage. Privately funded appointments may supplement public resources if academic bodies retain authority over qualifications and selection; honorary appointments should not circumvent habilitation.

The study joins curricular reform to the material and professional arrangements that sustain universities. Pedagogical openness—discussion-based teaching, practical exercises, and selective international borrowing—coexists with stringent boundaries around admission, credentials, and recruitment. Questions of university autonomy, a research council, and the rectors’ conference remain deferred. The immediate task is to reconcile educational ambition with staffing, finance, and credible qualifications.