[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 WORLD CUP VICTORY OR COLLEGE GRADUATES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 11, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with the disappointing ending of the quest 
for the World Cup through a loss to Ghana last week, I find it 
appropriate to bring to the attention of Congress an article written by 
David Brooks, a columnist with the New York Times, entitled ``Our World 
Cup Edge.'' The article discusses our country's apparent disadvantage 
in skill and experience in this worldwide soccer competition, but touts 
the American university system, which produces most of the players on 
the U.S. team, as being the best.
  While the U.S. team unfortunately was eliminated in the first round 
of the competition, our team can boast having the most college 
graduates. American athletes go to college to foster their athletic 
abilities, whereas Europeans are removed from school at a young age and 
placed in specialized training programs.
  The article maintains that the higher level of education American 
athletes receive helps to boost our economy. American universities 
greatly contribute to a sense of community. Such a phenomenon dates 
back to the founding of these schools as autonomous, devoid of 
government intervention. Such a lack of government involvement allows 
American universities to remain competitors in the ideas market. By 
contrast, the European university system is controlled by the 
government and is therefore not very competitive. European governments 
encourage equality amongst their universities.
  American universities are at the top. As Mr. Brooks cites, not only 
have our schools fostered strong sports programs, but they also build 
camaraderie through extracurricular activities. American universities 
also lead to business and cultural centers, while the European system 
does not have nearly as large an effect. With globalization, American 
universities have become increasingly more desirable, further 
benefiting our society.
  I commend Mr. Brooks' analysis of the importance and success of our 
American universities. However, I would like to push Congress even 
further in identifying the challenge presented by the need to produce 
more engineers and scientists in today's increasingly competitive 
technological age. Our country has done an admirable job in ensuring 
our universities are the best, but we must continue working to keep up 
with technology by educating our students in the scientific fields.
  I thank Mr. Brooks for his thorough comparison of university systems. 
I therefore submit for the Record Mr. Brooks' column in the June 22nd 
issue of the New York Times.

                [From the New York Times, June 22, 2006]

                           Our World Cup Edge

                           (By David Brooks)

       Going into today's World Cup match against Ghana, no 
     American player has managed to put a ball into the back of 
     the net, but the U.S. team does lead the world in one vital 
     category: college degrees.
       Most of the American players attended college. Eddie Pope 
     went to the University of North Carolina, Kasey Keller 
     attended the University of Portland and Marcus Hahnemann went 
     to Seattle Pacific.
       Many of the elite players from the rest of the world, on 
     the other hand, were pulled from regular schools at early 
     ages and sent to professional training academies. Among those 
     sharp-elbowed, hypercompetitive Europeans, for example, 
     Zinedine Zidane was playing for A.S. Cannes by age 16, Luis 
     Figo was playing for Sporting Lisbon at 17, and David Beckham 
     attended Tottenham Hotspur's academy and signed with 
     Manchester United as a trainee at 16.
       The difference in preparation is probably bad for America's 
     World Cup prospects, but it's good for America's economic and 
     political prospects. That's because the difference in soccer 
     training is part of a bigger phenomenon. American 
     universities play a much broader social role than do 
     universities elsewhere around the world. They not only serve 
     as the training grounds for professional athletes, 
     unthinkable in most other nations, they also contribute more 
     to the cultures and economies around them.
       The American university system was born with expansionist 
     genes. As early Americans spread out across the frontier, 
     they created not only new religious sects, but new colleges, 
     too. The Dartmouth College case of 1819 restricted 
     government's efforts to interfere in higher education. As the 
     centuries rolled on, government did more to finance higher 
     education, starting with the Morrill Land Grant College Act 
     of 1862, but the basic autonomy of colleges and universities 
     was preserved. They remained, and remain, spirited 
     competitors in the marketplace of ideas, status, talent and 
     donations.
       The European system, by contrast, is state-dominated and 
     uncompetitive. During the 19th century, governments in Spain, 
     France and Germany abolished the universities' medieval 
     privileges of independence. Governments took over funding and 
     control, and imposed radical egalitarian agendas. 
     Universities could not select students on merit, and faculty 
     members became civil servants.
       The upshot is that the competitive American universities 
     not only became the best in the world--8 out of the top 10 
     universities are American--they also remained ambitious and 
     dynamic. They are much more responsive to community needs.
       Not only have they created ambitious sports programs to 
     build character among students and a sense of solidarity 
     across the community, they also offer a range of 
     extracurricular activities and student counseling services 
     unmatched anywhere else. While the arts and letters faculties 
     are sometimes politically cloistered, the rest of the 
     university programs are integrated into society, performing 
     an array of social functions.
       They serve as business incubation centers (go to Palo 
     Alto). With their cultural and arts programs, they serve as 
     retiree magnets (go to Charlottesville). With their football 
     teams, they bind communities and break down social 
     distinctions (people in Alabama are fiercely loyal to the 
     Crimson Tide, even though most have not actually attended the 
     university).
       State-dominated European universities, by contrast, cast 
     much smaller shadows. A Centre for European Reform report 
     noted ``a drab uniformity'' across the systems. Talented 
     professors leave. Funding lags. Antibusiness snobbery limits 
     entrepreneurial activity. Research suffers. In the first half 
     of the 20th century, 73 percent of Nobel laureates were based 
     in Europe. Between 1995 and 2004, 19 percent were.
       The two systems offer a textbook lesson in how to and how 
     not to use government. In one system, the state supports 
     local autonomy and private creativity. In the other, the 
     state tries to equalize, but merely ends up centralizing and 
     stultifying. This contrast might be worth dwelling upon as we 
     contemplate health care reform, K-12 education reform and 
     anything else government might touch.
       The dynamic American university system is now undergoing 
     yet another revolution--globalization. More foreign students 
     are coming to the U.S., and more want to stay after they get 
     their degrees.
       This is bound to be great for American society. It will 
     probably do almost nothing for our future World Cup 
     prospects.

                          ____________________