Carl Menger, Die Universitäten Deutschlands (1893)

Carl Menger’s 1893 review article examines J. Conrad’s statistical account of German universities, prepared for the Chicago World’s Fair, and places its findings alongside Austrian evidence. Menger defines his comparative purpose explicitly:

Ich werde in dem Nachfolgenden die für die Beurtheilung der deutschen Universitäten wichtigsten Daten hervorheben und zur leichteren Vergleichung die auf das österreichische Universitätswesen bezüglichen Ziffern, soweit sie mir zur Hand sind, beifügen.

English translation: In what follows I shall bring out the data most important for judging the German universities and, for easier comparison, append the figures relating to the Austrian university system so far as they are at hand.

The comparison treats enrolment, study costs, public expenditure, and academic remuneration as interconnected aspects of university organization. Its central methodological concern is comparability: admission requirements, course duration, and the distribution of instruction between universities and specialized institutions affect what national totals mean.

Germany’s twenty complete universities are compared with Austria’s eight. Although Austria has approximately 15,000 students against Germany’s approximately 28,000, Austrian attendance is slightly higher relative to population. Menger qualifies these aggregate figures by distinguishing faculties and considering theological, agricultural, and mining institutions outside the universities. The resulting account describes differently organized educational systems rather than establishing a simple national ranking.

Von besonderem Interesse sind die Bemerkungen Professor Conrads über die Frequenz der juristischen Facultäten Deutschlands.

English translation: Of particular interest are Professor Conrad's remarks on the attendance at the juridical faculties of Germany.

Law becomes a test case for relating enrolment to professional demand. Conrad regards German attendance as almost twice what occupational needs require; Menger finds Austrian demand comparably strong, even after allowing for students of state accounting and the four-year course. The concentration of legal education also matters: Berlin, Munich, and Leipzig together attract 52 percent of German law students, while Vienna accounts for approximately 35 percent of Austrian students in law and political science. Cross-border attendance complicates assumptions about Germany’s educational attraction: the reported number of Germans studying in Vienna alone exceeds that of Austrians attending German universities.

Menger next distinguishes the nominal price of study from its economic burden. German fees differ substantially between universities and disciplines, while Austrian arrangements are more uniform and considerably cheaper. Lower Austrian charges, however, correspond to a poorer student population and therefore need not be easier to bear. Conrad’s estimates of annual German expenditure, including maintenance, likewise exceed what Menger considers customary in Austria, even in Vienna. Financial comparison consequently requires attention to household resources as well as institutional schedules.

Student assistance introduces a further distinction between cancelling charges and postponing their collection. German arrangements vary; Prussian deferments generally run for six years, with collection sometimes subsequently postponed or waived. Austria instead provides full or half exemptions according to academic performance, administered, Menger observes, liberally toward indigent students.

Die Einrichtung der Stundung von Collegiengeldern besteht an den österreichischen Universitäten überhaupt nicht.

English translation: The arrangement of deferring lecture fees does not exist at all at the Austrian universities.

This contrast shows why apparently similar forms of immediate relief have different consequences: remission removes an obligation, whereas deferment can preserve a future debt. Menger thus connects access to higher education with the administrative design of financial support, without turning the review into an explicit reform programme.

The concluding discussion moves from students’ expenses to the financing of universities and academic careers. Menger reports approximately 28 million marks in German ordinary and extraordinary university expenditure, distinguishes spending on teachers, other personnel, and material requirements, and supplies Austrian figures for comparison. Prussian salary data differentiate ordinary from extraordinary professors and reveal Berlin’s higher average remuneration. Provision for widows, orphans, Privatdozenten, and other promising younger scholars extends the analysis beyond current salaries to the reproduction of the academic profession.

The article’s contribution is its disciplined interpretation of institutional statistics. Enrolment totals require organizational qualification, charges must be understood in relation to students’ means, and university expenditure supports both present teaching and future scholarly capacity. Menger makes German–Austrian comparison an inquiry into how universities operate and whom their financial arrangements sustain.