text:
Can an editor reject a paper (without review) because it does not cite papers from the journal it has been submitted to?
I have recently submitted some work we did with one of our PhD students to one of ASME's Journals and the editor rejected the paper on the spot (without sending it for review) because the submitted paper did not cite any paper from their journal. The editor was arguing that we should include recent papers from their journal so that they could find a suitable reviewer.
I would argue that this is likely just an excuse for getting the journal's impact factor up and I have strong ethical concerns with this journal if that is their practice. The editor should not have such editing power and that should be at the discretion of the authors. If they need a list of reviewers, I am happy to provide that, as is common practice in other journals I have submitted papers to in the past.
I did oblige in the end and added a few references and I am currently waiting for the outcome (interestingly, none of the references (all published in 2022 except for one which is from 2019) we included in our paper did cite any work from the same journal, which makes this request even odder, i.e. it seems this is either a new policy they have or our work is being singled out). I was very surprised initially and did not want to publish in that journal anymore given these poor academic practices but did not do so as this would just mean more work for my PhD student to reformat and resubmit the paper to a different journal which would be unfair on him. If that would have been my own work, I would have made it very clear to the editor that I disagree with this practice and that I would not be interested in getting published in their journal.
I am just wondering if other researcher had similar experiences and what they would do (or have done) in this situation? There must be some ethical standard that this goes against (?!). Either way, my take away message is that it is unlikely for me to consider ASME again in the future for publishing my work unless they improve their standards.

You may be right about it being unethical, but on the other hand: If the scope of the journal is a good fit for your paper it is likely that you would cite a few papers from the journal.

true (and we did just that in the end), but I am taking more of an issue in the way how we are forced to include it, but thanks for your input, good to hear other peoples thoughts on this

Once it's accepted, you have the option of taking those references back out in the final version and seeing what they say....

It is trivial to prove (by induction) that no journal with this policy has any earlier papers to cite...

Possible duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83764/how-do-i-identify-predatory-and-low-quality-journals-with-bealls-list-gone-ho

The editor should not have such editing power and that should be at the discretion of the authors. If they need a list of reviewers, I am happy to provide that. It's a bit hypocritical to complain when the journal expects bias toward itself when you don't have a problem providing a reviewer list that the journal could consider biased toward you. All journals have the right to protect their investment and an obvious way to select reviewers that they already know and trust is for you to cite them. Had the journal insisted that all citations be from the journal - that would be unethical.

for clarity: was the desk reject from the editor in chief or from a subject or associate editor?

From the editor in chief

@BenVoigt only if the policy has been in place for the entire existence of the journal and is a universal policy.

Ultimately editors can reject for whatever reason, including "because it doesn't cite other papers from the journal".
You could argue that this is a poor reason to reject a paper, or that it is unethical. It sure gives the impression that the journal just wants to boost its impact factor after all (although there's a limit to how many self-citations a journal can have before it gets delisted by Clarivate, see e.g. this). But there are also more benign interpretations. The one given by the editor is such an interpretation, although it's a rather lazy reason, since one can still find reviewers, it's just that one has to register them in the system first.
Another benign interpretation is pointed out by Louic in the comments. If your paper is so unrelated to the journal's other papers such that none of them are worth citing, are you sure the journal is still a good fit? Like, suppose I submitted an astronomy paper to a food science journal. Obviously I won't be citing any food science papers, which results in the editor rejecting without review ("because it does not cite other papers from the journal"). Even without such a glaring mismatch, it could still be that your paper is more suited to another journal - for example, suppose your work builds on someone else's work. Perhaps you should submit to the journal that published the original work (why didn't you by the way?).
For your specific questions:

I've never encountered this.
I'd probably submit to another journal.

thanks for your thoughts and additional link. There are papers we can include from that journal (which we did in the end), as you (and Louic) mentioned, if it is a good fit they probably have relevant literature, but the way we are essentially "forced" to include it just doesn't sit right with me, it feels as if we are blackmailed into including their work. Anyways, I appreciated your input and thoughts on this, thanks!

I disagree that there are benign interpretations. Neither of the examples you gave ring as anything other than a hollow excuse for knowingly unethical behavior.

@DanRomik maybe you don’t work in an interdisciplinary field? I have received items to review where no papers from the journal were cited and it should have been a red flag that the authors totally ignored whole swaths of the literature. Now I check the reference list as a first pass to see if the authors “did their homework.”

@Dawn it’s okay if that’s something that makes you suspicious that the authors are ignoring/unaware of the literature. In that case verify that that’s indeed the case, and reject the paper on that basis. I stand by what I said: rejecting purely on the grounds that the paper is not citing from the same journal, and not because of a deeper underlying issue (that you’ve checked is actually a problem), has no benign explanation.

@Dawn I'm confused: are you saying that in some areas all papers on a given topic are in a specific journal?  Otherwise I don't see why not referring to papers in a given journal (rather than not citing specific papers you know to be relevant) is a red flag.

I am saying that you can tell without reading the paper if they don’t cite the undisputed number one journal if you are working in a particular niche subfield. I am not going to spend the time doing their work for them by reading their work and giving them the bibliographic list!

The editor was arguing that we should include recent papers from their journal

Publishing in a journal that blatantly inflates its impact factor is bad for your reputation and bad for academia.  Withdraw your paper and take it to a better journal.

so that they could find a suitable reviewer.

Finding a reviewer is really the only responsibility the editor is accountable for, in practice.  This editor is announcing their incompetence by claiming they need help finding a reviewer.

I am expecting to get comments from editors about all the things they do well in addition to choosing a reviewer.

I think the idea that you should submit your paper to the journal you cite most is outdated.  People no longer choose what to read based on the journal it is published in.

Editors can do whatever they want, pretty much, so long as they don't get the publisher angry.
That said, if you're writing a major paper and you haven't cited any papers from the journal you're submitting to, you might take a step back and ask yourself if you're submitting to the appropriate journal.
Note also that your paper was not rejected out of hand.  It is now in review.  Presumably, you could have simply recommended appropriate reviewers that the journal has interacted with before, perhaps with the same outcome.

I agree with this. Perhaps it is my pet peeve, but I review quite a bit for a top sub field journal that gets contributions from authors who don’t cite anything within the subfield. Think - underwater basket weaving journal getting submissions from weaving scholars who totally ignore the literature on baskets and working underwater, as well as the established underwater basket weaving literature.

I have to disagree, at least in my institution, we have target journals to publish in and these have to follow specific open access publishing routes as well. This limits my choice significantly and we are encouraged to find the most suitable / biggest quality journal in our field to publish in. The reference list may be an indicator but our paper is multidisciplinary and this this journal does not have any papers that do what we are proposing. Hence my issue with having to cite papers which aren't relevant but rather only related.

@tom Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, but I have misgivings regarding academic freedom with your institutional approach.

@ScottSeidman, so do I...


text:
Should I pursue a research area even after finding that papers have already been written on it?
I am an undergraduate and I have no experience in research papers. I have come up with an idea  to write a simple research paper on "Emerging fiber optic networks in Africa." To my utter astonishment, I have seen a few papers already published in IEEE forum: one titled "Developing a fiber optic backbone for Africa" and another one I can't remember...
How can I deal with such a thing? Should I go and do my own research on the topic and see what happens? Or should I come up with another idea?

and see what happens - what do you think will happen? What's your goal here?

Papers have been written on nearly every topic you can possibly think of. I would be shocked if someone HADN'T written a paper on your potential research area by now. The trick to good research is to position your research in the space alongside other papers. What did 'Emerging fiber optic networks in Africa' conclude? What was their methodology, sample size, literature review or most importantly their conclusion? Each one of these areas can be used as a jumping point for your research to confirm, critique, dispute, refute or supplement theirs. It's good that others have come before you to beat down the path so that you can potentially tread a little further off the beaten trail. To answer your question, I personally think you should continue to pursue your research area, there is always scope to perform more research, especially in your field of interest.

I don't believe that is true that someone has written on every possible research topic or idea.  In any given field, there are well-trodden areas and ideas, there are less explored areas, and there are vast spaces of ideas and possibilities that haven't been explored or even hinted at.

@MrMeritology: That depends on the field and, perhaps more critically, on what one means by a "research area".  In this case, the OP was surprised that someone else has written on Emerging fiber optic networks in Africa.  But (with no expertise here whatsoever) I'm not: are you?  I also note that you mention ideas, as you should.  The OP seems to use "idea" to mean "I would like to write a paper on Topic X".  Doesn't the question of whether the OP actually has a new idea on Topic X lie at the heart of the matter?

@PeteL.Clark: If we are limiting our discussion to academic papers, conferences, and journals, then the most important issue is not whether OP has a new idea.  The issue is whether OP has anything useful/important to say about his idea; especially whether it adds to "the literature" (i.e. the body of published research) on that topic.  Is OP's idea unique to Africa?  Unique to fiber optic networks? Is it (merely) a clever commercial invention rather than academic research? Where is it situated in theory and previous empirical research?

@MrM: When I say "new idea", I mean it to be synonymous with "something new and useful/important to say".  I don't mean an unsupported idea or something purely speculative, if that's what you're getting at.  (In my field, mathematics, I think most people mean "new idea" in this way: it is one of the best things to say about a paper, and its lack is a bad thing to say.  I would be interested to hear if it is different in other fields.)

@PeteL.Clark: I understand you, but I'm not sure that OP has this same meaning for "an idea".  My reading of his question led me to believe that his "idea" was "new to the World, something no one had ever considered, proposed, or investigated".  My point is that novelty of the idea, alone, is of little significance. What matters: Why is this idea important?

@MrM: I agree!  I think the OP is confused about it too.  And yes, novelty has little inherent worth.  The point of my first comment was that I was reading the OP as confusing "new idea" with "new topic".

@PeteL.Clark: as I explain in my answer, below, it's a good sign that other people have published similar ideas. It helps OP find his research community.

There's a subtle shift in the meaning of research as you transition from high school and lower-level undergraduate work to graduate school.
Early on, a teacher may ask for you to do research, and it means: Look up everything you can find on this matter, and report what you have found. You are essentially writing a "research report," summarizing what is already known about a certain topic.
As you get into more formal academic research, however, research means: Come up with a problem that hasn't been satisfactorily solved, form a hypothesis on how to solve it, then test your hypothesis with a series of carefully crafted scientific experiments, and finally report your results. You are essentially expanding the scope of knowledge in a certain field, and doing so using the scientific method.
It's also worth noting that the first section of most research papers summarize the already-established knowledge in the problem area. So, in a research paper about fiber optic networks in Africa, the author(s) would probably have some novel idea about how best to, say, install or maintain such a network, and they would likely begin by summarizing what has already been done so far, before explaining why their idea would potentially improve the start-of-the-art. Therefore, it's very normal to find other related papers when you start doing your research. In fact, that should be your first step: read and study every one of them you can find.
If you are doing a "research report," that's pretty much the end of the line. But if you are doing graduate-level research, that's merely the beginning. Incidentally, it can easily take a year or more to do the rest (even longer if you are doing doctoral research).

The point that the OP may not properly understand that an academic research paper is (usually!) qualitatively different from a glorified book report (or "literature review", to use the older kids' terminology) is well-taken.  However, your third paragraph contains a description of scientific research.  This is of course an important part of academic research, but of course it is only a part.

If someone else has done research on the very same theme or idea that you have, then you should rejoice.  You are part of a research community, and what counts to society is what the community produces, not just what each individual researcher produces.
Even more significant: if someone else has published research on your idea, then it is evidence that you aren't crazy. It's a good sign, not a bad sign. I'm serious about this. Really great ideas are not the creation of solo researchers operating in isolation. They arise in a community through social interaction, engagement, and rivalry. If there is existing research then it connects you to the community of researchers who are working along similar lines. These are your most valuable allies, even if you vehemently disagree with them on specifics.
Don't be too attached to this one idea.  Explore it as far as it goes.  But you should pay attention to what ideas might follow, or at least how this develops your intellectual curiosity.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Summer Research with Advisor or at National Lab?
I have the option of doing research with my advisor this summer (yay, funding!) or working with a collaborator at a highly-regarded national lab (a research position, but called an internship). I have worked at this lab two summers ago, and it was very enjoyable, fairly productive, and I networked with people with whom I would love to work with in the future. I realized that this kind of work in this environment would be my dream job. To work there, however, I almost need a PhD (it's possible with a MS, but a PhD is obviously more competitive). Working at the lab has built friendships and has provided several networking opportunities since.
Unfortunately, the summer research at the lab doesn't further my dissertation. Working with my advisor does.
Should I go for the position at the lab for the summer, or should I stay and do research? If I wanted to work with the internship, how would I breach the topic with my advisor?

How about asking your advisor for advice?

Are you currently doing your PhD studies?

@aeismail: I am. I just passed my oral exam, so now I can officially begin my dissertation work.

@PatriciaShanahan: I probably should...I feel guilty thinking about taking time away from research, even if it could really benefit me.

One unfortunate by-product of the increasingly specialized nature of doctoral research is the tendency to put on "blinders" when it comes time to work on the dissertation: PhD students tend to forget that there are things to study and learn about outside the field of the dissertation. (For example, I always have a few students who complain in the course evaluation "I'm studying X; I shouldn't have to take this mandatory course!")
However, in spite of this, research is becoming inherently more interdisciplinary and interconnected. So having additional experience—and additional contacts—outside your main field can only help you in the long run, if you're planning to pursue a "knowledge-based" career.
That said, this is definitely a matter you should bring up with your advisor. This early in your career, it's probably not such a big deal to do something else for the summer. But you should still check if there are some important counterarguments (related to funding or project sponsorship).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How does one go about doing a Ph.D. in Europe as an American?
I'm entering my senior year of college in the US and I'm starting to consider my options for graduate school next year. My field is kind of blurry, in that I have certain research areas that I'm interested in, but researchers in those areas often fall into many different fields (linguistics, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, psycholinguistics, etc.)
I have some faculty that I'm interested in working with, but I have a dilemma because some people (and schools) I'm interested in are in the US and some are in Europe.
I've been reading about how graduate school typically works in Europe, and it seems to be quite a different beast from the US. Many (practically all) Ph.D. programs in the US that I looked at are entered immediately after a Bachelor's degree, they're fully funded, and the two years of course work at the beginning is to earn the Master's degree. On the other hand, all of the European programs I looked at vary greatly on how their funded (I'm so confused), and require a Master's.
So this brings me to a lot of questions.
Are Master's degrees in Europe funded? And what would happen if I would decided to get a Master's degree in Europe but then come back to the United States for the Ph.D.? Is it possible to go straight into a European Ph.D. without a Master's at all? (I'll be graduating with 18 credits of graduate coursework and 27 credits of independent research).
Does anyone know of any good resources so I can figure out this situation?

You might want to explain what you mean by “fully funded”, it's not obvious what this could mean is not so clear in the European context.

As a Ph.D. student you are a student, not an employee (well, it's a blurry line), but you get tuition waived or paid for and you get a stipend in exchange for working as a Teaching Assistant or through other means. Basically, it's a graduate degree you have to pay for that is paid for you through other means.

It is pretty difficult to give you a good answer without having a more precise idea of where the european programs are located exactly.

@TobiasKildetoft Sorry if I was unclear, that was an explanation for what "fully funded" means in the US.

I think your best bet would be to find exactly the universities/people you want to work with, and then investigate it specifically. The question is way to broad to answer, since every European country differs, and in those countries there are often different ways of taking a PhD, depending the faculty, country of origin, etc. In Denmark you can for example go directly from a bachelor, but also from a masters. You can get it fully founded, or you can bring your own founding from corporations, etc.

I think one of the biggest differences relevant to your question is that in the US, it is very common for a Master's and PhD to be combined into a single program, whereas this is rare in Europe.  I don't have enough to say to make an answer, but this does mean that when you look at "PhD programs" in the US, you are often looking at Master's programs as well, because they are included.

Degrees in most of Europe used to be equivalent to a Master's degree, thus you'd go straight into your PhD afterwards. Nowadays the degrees have been split into a Bachelor's and a Master's, but most people still do both in succession as if they were still one degree.

You should start by reading about the Balogna Process under which the various systems of higher education within Europe are being standardized.  The emerging standard is a 3 year bachelor's degree followed by a 2 year master's degree, followed by a PhD, with most students completing the bachelor's and master's degrees. The three year bachelor's degree is often very tightly coupled with the master's degree in countries where this has recently replaced a five year program.

I think it is a territory where the answer very much depends on your negotiation with the given universities. There is not such thing as common practice in EU, as there are still big differences beteween countries.

I am not even sure it makes sense to speak about “graduate schools” in Europe. In the countries I know, the big divide is between the master's degree and the PhD program, and not between bachelor and master programs. A master's degree is mostly another diploma with slightly higher requirements/more focused topic but otherwise not unlike a bachelor's degree in the way it's organized. There might be some exceptions here and there but it would be highly unusual to enroll in a PhD program without a master's degree.
Since tuition fees are relatively low in many countries, funding is not an issue in the way it is in the US (you still need to pay for the costs of living obviously but that's already the case for a bachelor's program). In some countries (e.g. France), people coming from abroad to study are treated exactly the same (which means paying something like EUR 250 plus some money for health insurance and a few other things), in others (e.g. the Netherlands), they have to pay a much higher fee (EUR 13000 per year where I work). In Germany the situation seems to be very fluid, with the rules set at the provincial level and changing all the time but I think fees are at most EUR 1000 per year.
Because local students don't have to pay that much and the fees don't differ much if at all from one program to the other, it's not surprising that you didn't find information about whether the master's program is “funded” or not, it's not a distinction that makes sense at this level. Furthermore, in many countries, support for students who face financial hardship is available from the government and not through the universities. Either you qualify and you can choose the university you want or you don't and you have to pay but you wouldn't specifically look for a “fully funded” program.
After the master's degree, the status of PhD candidates also varies a lot from country to country. In Switzerland, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and increasingly Germany, you are an employee with a reasonable salary (people will tell you it's less than what professionals with similar qualifications get, which is true, but you can still live comfortably). Some form of funding (from the main university budget, a research grant, European grant, corporate sponsorship, foreign government grant, etc.) is therefore a prerequisite. In France or Italy, you are considered a student and working conditions are often poorer. In STEM fields, PhD positions are usually funded and you do get some money and resources for your research. In the humanities, it's not uncommon for PhD candidates to have no funding, sometimes not even a desk and to scrap a little money to get by through teaching or even another job.
Here again, tuition is usually not the issue but living costs are (for at least three years, at a time where you might want to start a family, etc.) Even an unfunded humanities PhD candidate in France does not have to pay much to the university. Unlike bachelor's or master's degrees, I don't know any university where PhD candidates from abroad would have to pay more to be admitted or be categorically barred from some funding (but the situations are so diverse that it might exist somewhere I guess). The only hiring restriction of that kind I know are research fellowship from the European Space Agency.

I don't know it very well but I also think that none of this is true of the UK. Chats I have had with people who worked there suggest that tuition fees are high, PhD candidates are struggling to survive with the money they get and that's it's not very attractive all around.

Just for clarification: in STEM fields in France most of the universities requires the Ph.D. to be funded. You are considered as an employee with a work contract, with all the pros and cons. The minimum wage of such contract is fixed by law and depends on wether you do teachings (or similar activities) or not. You also have a student ID with all the benefits implied.

Everyone I know who's done PhD's in the UK has done something in a STEM field @Relaxed. It's always been funded and it's enough to live easily (though not necessarily well). Obviously not everyone gets funded and it's less common in the humanities but I don't think your characterisation is necessarily true.

@Ben Like I said, I don't know the system very well, my evidence is completely anecdotal. Also, the people I knew where not working in STEM fields and lived in London, I guess life might be more expensive there than elsewhere.

I'll start with the bad news:

Does anyone know of any good resources so I can figure out this situation?

Such a resource does likely not exist, as the answers to your questions will vary widely between different european countries and even different universities. Europe is historically a hotchpotch  of different academic systems.
I will try to give some answers that I think are true in most places. For all of the answers, you will likely find exceptions and differing systems if you look long enough:

Are Master's degrees in Europe funded?

Unfortunately very rarely.
That being said, as aeismail points out, most european degree programs are either for free or (compared to US programmes) extremely cheap. That still leaves you with costs of living and opportunity costs, though.

And what would happen if I would decided to get a Master's degree in Europe but then come back to the United States for the Ph.D.?

I don't quite understand that question. You would have a master's degree, which would allow you to either find a job or do a PhD in the US (however, you could have done both with a bachelor's degree as well).

Is it possible to go straight into a European Ph.D. without a Master's at all? (I'll be graduating with 18 credits of graduate coursework and 27 credits of independent research).

Usually this is not possible. I have heard here on academia.SE that there are universities that make exceptions, but the places that I am aware of do generally not allow to start a PhD at all without a master. However, not all is necessarily lost. Some places (including my current university in Zurich) have established compromise solutions for incoming research students without master's degree. Here, for instance, a professor can apply that you do a research-based "fast track" master, which allows you to skim on the course work and do research with the professor instead of most of the regular master curriculum. This is quite comparable to the US system, but as far as I know it is node widely publicized (I don't think this possibility even appears anywhere on the web page).

You should point out, however, that although most master's degrees aren't funded, the cost of the degree is much lower than in the US. Moreover, intenrational students can work part-time as research assistants to help support their living expenses.

I can not speak for all of Europe but in Denmark the PhD programme is a job. You are hired by the university to conduct research so you will get paid. You need a Master's degree to apply for a PhD position, and there are probably some grade point average you would need.
Here is a link to a .pdf document with the danish legislative framework.
You can apply for the PhD programme even though you have taken your Master's degree in USA. If you want to take your Master's in Denmark you need to apply for it through your own university if you want it to pay the stay. There is also a possibility of getting paid while in Denmark by the governments state education support.

It is actually possible to start a PhD directly after the bachelor's degree in Denmark, but not all universities do this, and usually they only do this for "local" students (as generally, the advisor would prefer to know the student beforehand in this case). When doing this, the student will not become an employee until the final two years of the PhD.

Americans do not qualify for SU, unfortunately, but this is otherwise correct.

Postgraduate programs are, as you've discovered, structured very very differently in the USA and Europe.
First, the caveat: there is doubtless lots of variation across institutions and fields, and I'm basing the below on my limited experience (PhD from UC San Diego and now a postdoc at U. Edinburgh, so I know lots of current UK PhD students). Also, I'm in exactly the same murkily defined field that you're asking about.
My impression is that the general rule is: in the US, PhD programs and research-oriented masters programs are treated together as being a single indivisible unit. This has obvious practical consequences -- for example (and in answer to one of your questions), in the US PhD programs I'm familiar with, if you show up with a masters in hand, this doesn't actually change your course requirements versus someone with only a BA/BS. You'll have to go through a second "masters program" (but probably won't officially be awarded a second masters degree). But it also affects the structure of the program itself. My program had required lab rotations and a structured "2nd year project" that were technically part of our masters coursework, but were explicitly designed to provide a gentle ramp into our PhD research. (Psych departments are usually even more aggressive about this, and will have you running subjects within the first 3 months, ideally in the lab you'll continue in through your PhD research.) You're working in the same environment, with the same cohort, and the same faculty throughout, and the expectation from the beginning is that you'll be going all the way through to the PhD, so there's training from the start on how to "think like a researcher" (which is the main thing taught in PhD programs), the programs can kind of blur into each other, and there's some flexibility about when exactly you start your PhD project proper. This potentially gives more room to try out things that don't work, etc., before you have to write your actual proposal and put your nose to the grindstone. OTOH, it's not uncommon for programs to stretch into 6 or 7 years.
In the European system, by contrast, masters and PhD programs are treated as distinct programs. Sometimes people stay with the same supervisor for both, but it isn't the usual case, and the programs aren't structured with that in mind. The PhD programs as far as I can tell are much more tightly defined: you're expected to show up, start work on a project more-or-less immediately (possibly a specific one that your supervisor has picked out ahead of time and gotten funding for), and be done and dusted in 3 years.
For me, the US system was definitely better, and that bias is probably reflected in the above; but, people are different, and I can imagine the European system working better for others. Also, every PhD is different -- by far the most important determinant of PhD success is the interaction between you and your supervisor. (Well, being funded is pretty important too.)

+1, this is a vital point that doesn't seem to be addressed in the other answers.

In Europe, you would do some of this exploration during your Master's. Bear in mind that our Bachelor's don't have the two-three semesters of general subjects that the US do (since they were covered as part of our University entrance examinations). But the European system is overall less flexible in regards to exploration (from basic school all the way to higher education).

PhD programs AFAICT?

@nilon: Sorry, what's the question? Are you confused by the acronym? It's "as far as I can tell"; could expand that if it's confusing.

Some useful information on studying in the UK may be found from the Fullbright Commission. They also provide scholarships for Americans to study in the UK. I don't think there is a more general reference for all Europe as each country has their own system.
To answer your more specific questions:
In Europe most PhDs are funded (at least in STEM subjects) but often this funding is limited to EU residents (due to the money being provided by the EU). For example UK research council studentships are only available for UK citizens or residents. Other EU citizens are eligible for fees only (no stipend)
The structure of the PhD varies by country, although you are correct that almost all start after Masters. In the UK the PhD is generally 3 years research with no assessed courses (although a few more specialist ones may have some courses).
Here is another useful reference I just found http://www.findaphd.com/study-abroad/europe/ which gives an overview of the PhD structure for some European countries.
As you mentioned most PhDs require a Masters. One other option in the UK is to do a PhD at a doctoral training centre (DTC) these offer four year PhDs for people with a bachelor's degree. I think the 1st year is mainly taught courses approximately equal to a Master's.

"but often this funding is limited to EU residents (due to the money being provided by the EU)" [citation needed]

I'd also like to see the [needed citation] on that. I know in the US, federal financial aid is reserved for residents, but at the graduate level, even foreign nationals can get funding.

Whether for tuition fees, paid PhD positions or other subsidies, most of the money is provided by national governments but where there are restrictions (by no means everywhere), they can't exclude EU citizens which is why you often read about this or that rule applying to all EU/EEA citizens. EU money itself is not restricted to EU citizens AFAIK.

Federal financial aid in the US may be reserved for citizens (Pell, subsidised loans), but I'm not up to date on that. However NSF grants which include graduate research assistant salaries are definitely not. My university, and many others that I know of, requires us to pay the tuition and fees of our GRAs if we pay them a salary at all. So students who are paid to work on funded grants basically get everything covered. The salary isn't large, and is only half-time, but you can live on it.

@xLeitix added reference to limitations on UK research council funding. Although some funding sources are definitely available to foreign nationals, I've never looked into detail at what.

@nivag It's interesting (I already upvoted your answer earlier) but it does not really support your claim. There are restrictions but this is UK law and UK money, it's not an EU-wide rule and has nothing to do with the money coming from the EU, e.g. through the Framework Programmes.

Is it possible to go straight into a European Ph.D. without a Master's at all?

It very much depends with the country. In Spain, no. On the other hand, in Sweden (at least, Stockholm's University), you need three years worth of credits and at least a certain number of credits on project work. This said, this is the administrational requirement: it is very unlikely you would get hired with only three years; but it is all up to you to show the PI how awesome you are.

I got an MA in the U.K., it was a 12 month program and I applied to PhD programs in America right afterwards. I got accepted to a program but they required me to complete another MA degree. They transferred in 8 credits from my MA from the U.K..I’m now working on 24 (two full time semesters) of coursework before I can begin my PhD coursework.
In the end, I paid out of pocket for a one year MA degree in the U.K., and had to do a (funded) year of an MA when I returned home. So, really the only time I lost was the period in between when I was applying. I’d still do it again.

If you’re not from the EU or EEA it can be pretty difficult to get funding from a European university for your PhD (mainly in the UK), if there’s a funding body in your country then that could be your option when applying for a PhD in Europe. And in many universities you would need a master finished.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Performance of the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) for (conference) paper review assignment
[EDIT (2016-11-11) based on a comment]
I have been invited as a reviewer for the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing  (ICIP 2016, on image processing, in a broad domain sometimes associated to computer science). The ancient system was based on ticked keywords (by benevolent reviewers) in a list (and on the area chairs' expertise).
The novel system is called TPMS. It is based on the paper Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system. It uses a machine learning ("statistical matching") technique based on a sample of the reviewer's publications. It has also been used for CVPR 2016 (Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition conference).

Has the TPMS system   been successfully deployed?
Do reviewers or editors have a quantitative evaluation  of the efficiency of such systems?

Nice suggestion

Laurent Charlin's reference (http://papermatching.cs.toronto.edu/webapp/profileBrowser/about_us/) suggests that it's been adopted by "over 50 conferences", including the following conferences:

European Conference on Computer Vision
Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence
Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
International Conference on Computer Vision
International Conference on Machine Learning
Artificial Intelligence and Statistics Conference

And it also "keeps the profiles of 8,000 reviewers". In machine learning circles, this is just about as good as it gets with non-mass-market data. The size of the training pool and the fact that it's been continuously worked on means it is likely to have become a fairly reliable tool.


text:
Does any country have free college & open admissions?
Here's my rough understanding of differences in higher education in different countries:

In the U.S., college is paid for in general by the individual student, not the state. On the other hand, access is basically universal, as anyone can attend a community college, which is open admissions (no entry or admissions requirement) if they wish.
In other countries, such as those in Europe, college is generally provided for free by the national government. However, I assume that placements are competitive and have strict entrance and performance requirements.

Those would be my impressions. However, I find it extremely hard to confirm the latter point, because basically no one talks about the difference in admissions requirements in U.S. vs. Europe (possibly because people in the different environments take their own practices so much for granted that no one thinks to say them out loud in conversations?).
So: Am I correct that countries in Europe with free government-funded higher education have strict entrance requirements in all cases? Or, is there any nation that has both open admissions and universally free college education?
By "college", I mean adult education (age 18+), including community colleges, 4-year colleges, universities, and international equivalents.
For the purposes of "strict entrance requirements", answers should address the status of nationwide qualifying examinations such as the Abitur (in Germany, etc.) or Matura (in Switzerland, etc.), which are passed by less than half of secondary school students, and do not have any analog in the U.S. (And which, as a U.S. person, I didn't even know about until it came up in the comments.)

Answers in comments and extended discussion have been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment.

Generally speaking, I really wouldn't use the term "college" in a European context, where it has no meaning for most of the countries and may not be understood.

Furthermore, one point that you have to take into account to understand the differences between US and EU is that many countries provide cheap education because they think that education should be accessible to everyone: why, then, would universities put strict requirements?

@MassimoOrtolano: I read on Wikipedia, "In Italy the examination is commonly called (Esame di) Maturità ('maturity exam') or just Esame di Stato ('state exam')... This is the final exam for secondary school, which students are normally required to pass in order to be admitted to colleges and universities." The U.S. has no such state exam to qualify for the secondary degree or into college/university. If you're familiar with that Italian protocol, perhaps you could write an answer explaining why that requirement is used?

Daniel, I will in a few days, I'm away from the computer. But that article is misleading: in Italy there are no colleges and the esame di maturità should not be thought as a qualifying exam for the university. It's required, but doesn't qualify for the university.

@MassimoOrtolano: I'll look for that. Bear in mind that if the exam is required in any way (such as for the secondary school diploma), the U.S. has no analogous requirement, and that's the kind of thing I'm asking about in this question.

@DanielR.Collins Pretty much everyone in Italy has a maturità (yes, exceptions exist, some even famous, but that's not the point). Yes, it is a required qualification, but it's like being able to read and write: technically a requirement, but without it university is probably not something you're considering anyway.

@DanielR.Collins that's the final exam through which students complete high school. Graduating from high school is a requirement to attend University.

@DenisNardin: "it's like being able to read and write: technically a requirement, but without it university is probably not something you're considering anyway." But in the U.S., with no such requirement, about two-thirds of our community college entrants can in fact not read or write or do math at say, an 8th-grade level, and fail out at some later point. That's the majority situation for a least half of our institutions of higher education. https://nypost.com/2017/09/14/unprepared-nyc-graduates-spend-63m-a-year-on-remedial-classes/

@DanielR.Collins I guess this does make the educational systems incomparable.In Italy maturità is widely considered, if not easy, at least a reasonable requirement for all intellectual pursuits.When the son of a famous politician had to do four attempts to pass the exam, he was widely mocked as "stupid",even on the national press.I don't know anyone between the age of nineteen and forty and without developmental disabilities that does not have the maturità. If you consider that a restriction, do as you wish.I personally consider not asking even that, just setting the students up to fail.

@DenisNardin you don't know a lot of people https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cac.asp

@fqq Yeah, I had seen those statistics. I wonder where all those people are though, since literally everyone I know from my year in my high school passed the maturità [you can tell: the exam results are a matter of public record]. The point still stands that people in Italy don't consider it a "restriction" but more of a "sanity check", and I'm pretty sure no one who cannot even pass such a simple exam would have success or interest in further academic pursuits.

@DanielR.Collins: for a US high school student in the last year, is there the possibility to have very bad marks and in consequence being required to redo that year before they finish high school?

@cbeleitessupportsMonica: Good question, I wish I could find stats for that. My understanding is that effectively that doesn't happen any more. I remember hearing from principals that they can't afford to keep back students because they don't have space -- and it's been considered socially taboo for some time. I spoke to one high school math teacher last year who said they were required to pass even senior students who never showed up to class...

.. If people don't get a high school diploma normally, I think the most common fix later is to get a GED.

Openness might not always be a binary choice. In Europe there is a certain capacity: some more popular faculties might have for example 600 applicants for 100 places, others might have on average 80 applicants for 100 places. Is the former one "not open" while the later is "open"? Would you consider a case of 100 applicants for 100 places open while 101 applicants for 100 not open? The number of applicants might vary from one year to the next, while the number of positions is adjusted less often. Also there are many universities where the first x positions are free, the rest must be payed.

@vsz: Good question. I would say that as long as there are some institutions that can take any and all arbitrary students, with no qualifying exam (incl. from high school), and at no tuition cost for all such students throughout the entirety of their program, then it would satisfy my question. Doesn't have to be all schools in the country, or necessarily popular ones, or good ones. But basically a free seat at some college somewhere for all students who wish it.

I can mention the case of Argentina. All public universities are free, with open admission since the early 1980s. Anyone with a high school diploma (and there's no comprehensive final exam, or qualifying exam, etc. after high school) that applies gets in, including foreigners that have residency  (which is super-easy to get). There is a limited possibility of needs-based financial assistance.
The free admission even extends to most graduate programs, where the number of available scholarships is a significant percentage of the graduate student population.

+1 This is actually the best example I've seen to date. Thanks for sharing this! I'm going to edit some of this information into my own answer. Very interesting to read about Argentina today.

I think this answer would be improved by explicitly noting that there are no qualifying final exams for the Argentinian high school diploma, and maybe some references. That said, it's close to my top pick for a selected answer.

I edited the exam comment in. I'll look for references a bit later.

This seems to be the highest-voted answer that fully satisfies my question, so I'm selecting this as the accepted answer. Thanks again for sharing this.

It is also useful to mention that for later years in undergrad courses, and for grad courses, sometimes most of the bibliography is available in English.

Here is an overview of the situation in Germany, where there are no tuition fees for Bachelor and Master programs at public universities (though student union fees and public transport fees totaling 60-130 EUR per semester still apply).

For Bachelor degrees, the general requirements for admission to any German university are (1) proof of knowledge of the language of the study program (German or English) and (2) university entrance qualification (Hochschulzugangsberechtigung).
"University entrance qualification" means proof that you are eligible to attend a university. In Germany, this is obtained by completing the Abitur examination. In the German education system, at the age of 10, students are already separated into different types of schools based on their performance, some of which have direct access to Abitur (and therefore to university), and others which have practically no access to university. About 50% of German students complete Abitur and have directly access to university.
For international students, this is the corresponding high school leaving certificate. Depending on the country, your school leaving certificate might directly qualify you to study in a German university, or you might be required to do a two-semester preparatory course (Studienkolleg) before being allowed into German university . In this database (only in German), you can search for your country and school leaving certificate to see how it is in your case.
For most Bachelor degrees, admission is unrestricted (Zulassungsfrei), which means that  any student that satisfies the above general requirements will be admitted, without going through a field-specific aptitude test. Switching programs after the first year is not difficult, but there is a somewhat strict requirement to pass the first-year courses in a limited amount of time, so the idea is to let students "test" their preferred program and switch to another one after the first year if they are not comfortable with it.
Note that not all Bachelor programs have unrestricted admissions: in some fields such as Medicine there is a limited number of admissions and students will be chosen according to their grades in previous stages. This is called Numerus Clausus (NC).
On the other hand, most Master programs do have an aptitude test and students are admitted based on qualification in their field (in addition to the general requirement of having a Bachelor's degree). At this stage, students are supposed to already know what they want to study. I would expect the level of "strictness" of the aptitude test to be in some way related to supply and demand (disclaimer: personal opinion here), so the requirements do not necessarily have to be stricter than in US universities.  The offer of Programs taught in English (which are mostly only Master programs) is more limited than for German programs, so the aptitude test for English programs might also be stricter.
As pointed out in the comments, many Master programs are the result of the splitting of old 5-year programs (Diplom) into a 3-year Bachelor and a 2-year Master. Students doing the Bachelor program that apply to continue with the corresponding Master program at the same university usually have very easy admission into the Master program.

In summary, the requirements for entrance to German university in general are somewhat strict, but once you are in, there are in most cases few additional requirements for choosing a specific university or field.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

This answer suggests Germany is, effectively, not an example of country with open admissions.

From my own experience, studying in Germany is not completely free. You will have to pay a small fee each semester to student services (at least where I studied). It was around 60€/semester.

@einpoklum-reinstateMonica My answer initially focused more on international students and another definition of "open", as in "anyone with a high-school diploma can enter". After some discussion with OP, I saw that they were interested in national students and in how difficult it is to get the high school diploma, so I edited the answer. As the body of the question still asks "Am I correct that countries in Europe with free government-funded higher education have strict entrance requirements in all cases?", and specifically mentions Germany, I think this answer is relevant to the question.

@Ian that is why I wrote "no tuition fees", as those are not tuition fees. I have added them to the answer now.

For someone who considers the student union / transportation fee a significant hurdle, it should be added that German students from a low income background have the possibility to get an interest-free student loan (BAFoeG).

Well, it depends how strict you are with the terms "open" and "free":
Open:
Most European countries I am familiar with (Austria, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland) are actually fairly open in terms of admission. There are always some basic requirements (e.g., candidates need to have a high school diploma or comparable), and sometimes there are entry examinations, but in general there is no US-style admissions system.
As an example, in Sweden university programs can define their own objective admission criteria (e.g., specific grades in specific high school subjects) and how many students they are willing to admit, but they cannot rank students themselves - they need to accept at least as many eligible students as advertised based on a ranking generated centrally (usually based on high school grades, as far as I know). Students will generally get admitted somewhere, but some of the best schools (e.g., KTH, Chalmers) you will need rather good grades to get in.
In Germany, the system is comparable to Sweden in the sense that your high school grades largely determine whether you can enroll in a specific program at a specific university through a system called Numerus Clausus.
In Austria, historically every eligible prospective student could enroll freely in any program of any university (there was no further admission system, aside from basic requirements such as having a high school degree or equivalent). This is still the case for many programs, but in some high-demand programs (e.g., medicine) they have now started to experiment with entry exams.
These systems are all quite different to US-style admissions systems. There are no application packages, interviews, or recommendation letters, and it's generally not the university that actually makes the decision (instead there is some broken but objective kind of ranking criterium, such as grades or test results). Further, these systems are often more about routing than they are about admission - for instance, in Computer Science in Austria, everybody who wants to study CS can do so in Austria, but not everybody will be able to study at TU Vienna (historically the most popular place to study CS in Austria). It's also important to understand that the difference in quality of the schools is actually not dramatic, so "getting into" TU Vienna is not a huge job market advantage - people mostly prefer studying in some cities over others.
In Switzerland, as far as I know admission is still completely open - every eligible Swiss citizen can choose to enroll at ETH or EPFL (international top universities). The "selection" here mostly happens at the first semesters of study - for ETH, I know that many, many students will give it a shot and drop out within the first weeks, after realizing that they will likely not be able to keep up with the highly intense workload and intellectual challenge.
Free:
Education in all these European countries varies between free and (relatively) cheap. Taking Austria as an example again, studying was historically indeed free at all public universities (which were basically all of them - private universities are a new trend around here, and not one that has really gained any traction). Since around 2000, we have been flip-flopping back and forth between "free" and a study fee of around 400 USD per semester (depending on which political party was governing the country). Tuition for non-EU citizens is about twice as high (so about 1600 USD per year of study).
In Sweden (and, I think, in Switzerland and Germany) there is no fee for eligible citizens (EU citizens in the case of Sweden and Germany, Swiss citizens in Switzerland). At least in Sweden and Switzerland, tuition for citizens of other countries is at least in the same ballpark as in the US (still a bit cheaper, but far from "free").

However, I assume that placements are competitive and have strict entrance and performance requirements.

To summarize, this assumption does not really work out. Systems differ, but in general universities are fairly open for eligible students (although entry tests and grade-based systems are increasingly seeing use).
So how do universities cope? Mainly by scaling up. Classrooms in Europe can be large - classes with 500 or 1000 students are not a rare sight in popular programs in Austria, Switzerland, or Germany (but not in Sweden, as programs can limit how many yearly students they accept - often in the range of about 100, give or take). It is often accepted that many students will fail and drop out - when I studied CS in Austria, it was not uncommon to partake in early exams with fail rates considerably above 50%, and about half of my classmates switched programs / universities during the first year of studying.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

There is a small tuition fee in Switzerland, ranging from about 700 - 1000 CHF per semester. (https://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Dokumente/Lehre/Hochschulraum/Gebühren.pdf) Furthermore, at many Swiss universities non Swiss citizens do not pay more than what Swiss citizens pay (and with others it’s nowhere near what you’d pay in the US).

As @wimi's answer explains, in Germany, you cannot enter University by virtue of having finished high-school.

@einpoklum-reinstateMonica I guess this depends on what you consider a high school in the German system. In Austria I mostly see "high school" be used for schools that you graduate with Matura (aka Abitur in Germany). Other schools are called Mittelschule (new middle school, NMS). These only go to age 15 or 16, and are indeed not sufficient for university admittance.

@xLeitix: But if not (almost) everyone is sent to high-school, then graduating high-school as a requirement means that admission is not free. So, it doesn't actually depend on what we consider high school :-(

As a side note, this admission style is also a part of the reason why many European universities get bad ranking scores. In Austria you can enroll in 4 different curricula without problems and then decide after a semester, which one to continue. On a personal level this is a good thing, but in this example creates 3 statistical "drop-outs" that affect the score negatively.

I have taught at both at two Swedish universities and one American university (Ivy League). The main difference is really the philosophy - in the US, it is difficult to get in, but once admitted, it is not that hard to stay with passing grades.
In Sweden, getting admitted is relatively easy (which implies a much more diverse body of students), but the difficult part is actually passing the classes. In mathematics, only about 40%-70% pass the final exam (passing grade is from A-E). Not having to pay tuition might explain why students are not as motivated as in the US, but studying without eventually getting a diploma is a waste of time that could have been spent on working.
I still prefer the Swedish system - it allows for people with diverse background to have the opportunity to get a diploma. Only very few programs have a high competition for the spots, so higher education is available in principle for almost everyone. But to stress - passing the classes is the main challenge and I would say that the quality of the education is at least on par with the United States.
EDIT: There are several ways to get a spot at a Swedish university.
High-school diploma that fulfills some basic requirements depending on program (these requirements can be fulfilled later, for example in math, many universities offer preparatory courses as a complement to high-school diploma).
University entrance exam Anyone can take this exam, any number of times (offered twice a year), each time at the cost of about $50.
Work experience Military service, having a company, or general work experience might give enough support university admittance.
I have taught classes with people between 18 to 60 years old -- as mentioned, it is quite diverse. It is also quite common to work part-time in parallel with studies. Also, students get a scholarship for university studies (unless their income from working is already over a certain limit).
I noticed that during 2009-2011, the classes were larger. It is most likely due to the 2008 economic crisis, and thus fewer work opportunities.
Universities hence act as a sort of 'buffer' to keep people busy -- it is better (IMHO) if the tax-payer money to goes towards university tuition, rather than unemployment benefits.
On grad-school: Another big difference is that graduate studies (getting a PhD), is a proper job in Sweden (with unemployment benefits, parental leave, sick leave, retirement savings, etc) and the salary is something one can live comfortable off. Also, it is much less that a PhD student prematurely stop the studies, compared to the US system, where the qualifying exams are expected to get rid of say 50% of the PhD students.
In the US, it seems very difficult to handle a pregnancy during the PhD studies.

I think that having taught in the Ivy League, you're overlooking a big part of the U.S. higher education picture. About half of college entrants in the U.S. are attending 2-year community colleges with open admissions -- easy to get in to the point that there are no requirements, e.g., not any exam at either the college or the high school to qualify. And very hard to pass, as graduation rates are around 20% nationally for these institutions. The Ivy League is of course the polar opposite of all that (highly selective).

@DanielR.Collins even before you reach that extreme, there are thousands of colleges and universities in the US. 300 or so are ranked nationally by US news (and the rest are considered ranked lower). At the rank 100 mark, you are already at an admissions rate of over 70 percent. The curve approaches 100 through the remaining schools, i.e. the overwhelming majority of them. And meanwhile the graduation rate goes the other direction of course.

And by the way I'm quite sure most students in those lower tier schools would wash out quickly at a top tier school, with the exception of the good students they enticed with big scholarships. Not because they are really hard, just the students are really bad. In my experience students at top schools are not so much super-smart as super committed to doing the work.

I agree that there is a big difference - this is another observation of society in general in the US. There are big socioeconomic differences. Not having parents with good income really affects the chances of getting into a good university.

You wrote that admission is "relatively easy". What does that mean? What's the condition for admittance?

The final sentence seems almost a non-sequitur....

@CGCampbell How so?

For any reasonable understanding of the terms, French public Universities are open admission and free.
To give a bit more details, one is allowed to enroll in a university provided one has a high-school degree. At the moment, about 80% of high-school students eventually succeed at getting the required high-school degree. Even without such a degree, there are several ways to enroll, so that for instance someone with a couple of years of working experience should have no problem enrolling in an undergraduate program related to his working experience.
Besides, even the program and university you want to join is to a large extent up to the candidate, in the sense that aside from regional requirements that incite students to enroll in a university close to where they live, a high-school graduate can freely choose to join the geography undergraduate program at the University of Bordeaux or the philosophy undergraduate program at the University of Strasbourg.
Costs are not exactly zero: they are calculated to match the administrative costs of enrolling someone. So they are very low, typically in the low hundreds of euros per year. Students from an economically struggling background may waive them. That happens to typically 10 to 25% percent of the students in a typical  undergraduate class at my own institution (which is itself fairly typical in that respect).
Finally, public Universities constitue almost the entirety of the University system. There are a couple of private Universities, but they tend to be quite small. I would say only one of them is fairly well-known. On the other hand, there is a parallel system of higher education which is to a large extent at the opposite end of the spectrum, that is to say very selective in its admission process and which can be quite expensive (for French standards, that is to say tow orders of magnitude more expensive than the University system).
In conclusion, if all you are looking for is an existence statement, then I think French Universities will do: open admission and free.

Thanks for writing this answer. As it happens, I'm currently living with 4 French people. When I brought this up with them, they all strongly disagreed with your assessment, citing the difficulty of the Bac as incomparable with the U.S. system. One also cited class differences that keep some number of poorer people from completing the Bac.

@DanielR.Collins A quick look at available date suggests that among Americans aged 25, around 90% have graduated from high-school. In France, it is about 79%. So yes, there is a significant difference (not especially surprising considering the vast historical differences between the educational system of these two countries) but I disagree with the idea that the two systems are incomparable. Maybe the people you live with are older or think of the Bac général only, which is indeed far less common in the population (around 40%), but also not a prerequisite for entering university.

That may be true in one case, but one is 21, just graduated with a French bachelor's degree last spring, and started graduate school in the U.S. in the fall.

@DanielR.Collins An educational system is built in stage. Not all children then students, successfully complete any given stage. Not all children successfully complete primary school, for instance, and among those who don't poor children are statistically overrepresented. Absolutely true. In the last 30 years, France has set itself the aim of moving from rigorous selection at the high-school level to general achievement of the high-school level, and it succeeded to a certain extent (now 4/5th of an age group complete that level).

The point is that for those who successfully complete the high-school stage, universities impose no supplementary restriction. I would call that open admission at this stage. On the other hand, I would agree to characterize the French high-school system as significantly less open admission than American high-school. For instance, I would bet that your friend who graduated from a B.A at 21 comes from a general high-school and got a Bac général, in which they indeed probably followed a more demanding cursus than that of an average American high-school.

In France, we also have Grandes Écoles, including Écoles normales supérieures. I "graduated" from one of them (at that time ENS Cachan) and I was paid to study....

Scotland has free undergraduate full-time degrees, and the part-time distance-learning Open University has no entry requirements for most of its degrees (access courses are available for those who haven't studied up to age 18). And as far as I'm aware there are no limits on student numbers.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/do-it/ready-for-success
Scottish students with personal income of £25,000 or less, or on certain benefits, can qualify for the Part-Time Fee Grant and funding to cover 100% of course fees (including the access course).

Studying part-time for a 360-credit honours degree at a rate of one
  60-credit module a year, would typically cost £1,008* per year and
  take six years to complete. At today’s prices, the total cost would be
  £6,048.

http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding

"Scotland has free undergraduate full-time degrees, and the part-time distance-learning Open University has no entry requirements for most of its degrees". To be clear: are those disjoint institutions? That is: It sounds like the full-time degrees have entry requirements, while the Open University has out-of-pocket tuition fees?

They are separate provisions, but the net effect is that OU degrees in Scotland are both free (for many students) and open admission. Also, many universities will waive admission requirements for mature students on full-time/conventional degrees and access courses are available which have no entry requirements eg https://www.stir.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/access-to-degree-studies/#panel18125-3

I'm going to offer an answer, partly from the U.S. perspective, highlighting information gathered in the comments, chat, and other answers.

In both Europe and at U.S. lower-level (community) colleges, entry to the college usually requires a high school diploma and no other qualifications.
However, the "quality control" that I would expect for the European system most commonly occurs with some state exam at the exit to high school (such as the Abitur, Matura, or Baccalauréat), as a requirement for awarding the high school diploma. Note that the U.S. has no such comprehensive qualifying exams at any of the national, state, or local levels to receive a high school diploma.
In addition, European secondary school students are often "tracked" (as we'd call it) into distinct educational institutions, some of which give vocational training only, while others are college preparatory. In contrast, in the U.S., systems of "tracking" have been systematically dismantled in recent decades. (e.g., Buress and Garrity, Detracking for Excellence and Equity).
The end result is that while in the U.S. around 85% of students receive the high school diploma (and hence automatic entry to an open-admissions community college), a significantly lower rate of European students receive a degree qualifying them for college. Examples would be the 20% rate of students receiving the Swiss Matura, or the 49% of students with the German Abitur.

American education reporter Karen Fischer, who specializes in international college experiences, summarized this state of affairs in an interview in Clarion, March 2020, "Higher ed: reproducing social inequality?", in support of a series of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

When you look at countries that have enacted some variation of free
  college – that buzzword of the presidential primaries! – the way
  they’ve typically been able to do it is by limiting the number of
  spaces at public universities. And that ends up creating some weird
  dynamics. In Brazil, for example, almost everyone who benefits from
  free college at top-ranked public universities got there because they
  went to private high schools and could afford the kind of preparation
  that helps them gain admission. Germany, too, has free college, but
  it’s a very stratified system, where certain students get tracked into
  higher education and others don’t. One of the particular challenges of
  the American higher-ed system is that we really elevate the idea of
  equity of opportunity, and that makes other countries’ solutions hard
  to adapt.

The best example of a national system that is both universally tuition-free and basically open access to all - including an absence of qualifying exams for the high school diploma - seems to be Argentina (thanks to Martin Argerami). Given that, Argentina is noted for having among the highest university dropout rates in the world.
Interestingly, in 2017, a member of the National Academy of Education, economist Alieto Guadagni, observed that being without high school exit exams was an unusual state of affairs, and argued that they should instituted in line with most other countries (Google translate):

According to Guadagni, the solution is to implement a general exam
  that stimulates the preparation of students in their last years of
  high school. "Everyone does it except Argentina and Uruguay. It is a
  tremendous delay. Implantation of exams is a necessary but not
  sufficient condition, although it is not going to change," he added.

In the European systems you cite, the entry requirement is simply to have finished high school. I am not sure that it matters that 50% or 80% of the student population chooses a non-university track early on. In France in 2017, 73% of a generation had passed at least the high school exam, and admission fees cost between 150€ and 400€ based on the level of study.

Details from the same source: 30% of this generation did long (3+years) university studies, 14% short studies and 29% had the qualifying high-school exam, the “Baccalauréat” (from which 12% dropped out of university, so 17% chose not to attempt university). Then 13% had a diploma from a different high-school track, and 14% no high school diploma (7% middle school diploma + 7% no diploma).

I think you're still misinterpreting the European system, as also pointed out in other comments, and also from the point of view of the terminology. I don't understand why you insist on this. Also the distinction vocational/preparatory for university is not sharp: I studied in a vocational high school, but then went to university.

@Cimbali: I agree (having read up on it today) that France has one of the highest rates of college-acceptable high school diplomas (i.e., high rate of passing the Baccalauréat). But still: finishing high school in Europe has a barrier (qualifying exit exam) that does not exist in the U.S.

@MassimoOrtolano: Again, writing an answer from your perspective would be quite welcome.

In Germany, similar to what @MassimoOrtolano says for Italy, while/after finishing the vocational training "track" there are further possibilities to go on with the "university track".

Note that in France there is no "high school diploma". On the one hand you can have the status (not diploma) of "finishing high school", and then there is the "baccalauréat" which is the second diploma you can get (the first one being "diplôme national du brevet" (ex-"brevet des collèges") which you get (or not) after "collège" which is "intermediate school" (between primary and high school, in US terms). You can get a baccaluréat without attending school at all (this is called "candidat individuel").

Not sure if something hasn't changed in the last years, but it has been like that in Latvia since 1991(regain of independence):
There is a (fairly large) number of state sponsored slots in 2-4 major state universities.
To qualify for those slots, you have to be above the threshold in entrance exam results.
The threshold depends on the number of applicants vs number of slots for this program, so, it is technically possible to have every student of some programs above threshold, if the enrollment is low.
Every semester there's exams, after which the state sponsorship for next semester again goes to those that pass the exams above the  threshold as compared to their fellow students.
Anybody who didn't pass exams has  to pay for his tuition for that semester.
There exist a number of private schools, where you can't receive state payment for your studies and some of them might have additional criteria for eligibility.

If there's a requirement to pass exams at any level, then that's not the same as U.S. open admissions.

@DanielR.Collins maybe I wasn't clear, but requirement to pass exams is in order to receive state funding. You can enroll in the same program with private funding regardless of exam results.

Argentina. I did my BA for free there. And my MA almost for free. Both in public universities. They even give you scholarships if you cannot pay your already almost non-existent tuition fees.

This answer already mentioned Argentina. What's the contribution of your answer?

Did they mention that you can do a BA for free and a MA almost for free?

Yes. All public universities are free and the number of available scholarships is a significant percentage of the graduate student population.. You basically repeated that answer.

Mmmmhh.. But maybe readers don't know that you can get an MA from a public university there...

You said "my MA almost for free". You did not say it's a public university or private university. Please edit your answer to add more info so this answer will give the readers more info.

Done! Thanks for the suggestion.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to deal with radically different prerequisite preparation?
Let's say there is a core sequence of classes for an undergraduate STEM program, starting with what we'll call STEM 101 and STEM 102. The STEM 101 course is predominantly taught by two instructors: Professors A and B.
Now, in STEM 102 the performance of students coming from those two instructors is radically different. In STEM 102, Prof. A's students have an 86% pass rate, and an average GPA in the course of about 3.0; Prof. B's students have a 33% pass rate, and an average GPA of about 1.0. Qualitatively, Prof. B's students appear bewildered by expectations on the first few days of class in STEM 102; they mostly cannot perform the expected basic skills; and they don't seem to get better over the course of the semester, either (still making the same basic-skills mistakes on the last day of STEM 102).
What are the best practices for dealing with this situation?
Update: Over a few years, it was found that other instructors (C, D, E) of STEM 101 had student outcomes that generally resembled those of Prof. A, and not B. In the end, Prof. B was removed from teaching the STEM 101 course by the department head.

Deal with it from who's perspective. A student or the department head? Or other? And are you one of A, B?

I remember this as an issue in Organic Chemistry when I was an undergrad (though nowhere near as severe) simply because different professors moved at difference paces in the first semester (and both 1&2 had several sections). There it was handled by the second semester professors either by quickly covering the material that only half the class had before or directly students to do so on their own. Two questions: 1) have you compared the syllabus between versions of STEM 101? 2) Is there perhaps a terminology shift, such that STEM 102 is in Greek, but one of the STEM 101 courses is in Latin?

I guess I have questions 3 and 4 too: 3) Is there a different pass rate for 101A and 101B? That is, are some students getting weeded out in one track? 4) Do you have a sense of whether this is truly a lack of skills related to the curriculum, or is it skills related to the 'meta' curriculum of completing assignments/graded work?

I can't figure out whether the implication is that Prof. A is a better teacher or that the really smart students tend to take Prof A....the comment about average GPA makes me think it is the latter?

By "average GPA" do you mean the average grade of students in that course alone (on a 4 point scale), or do you mean the average overall GPA of those students (over all their past and current courses)?

Has Prof B already been made aware of this state of affairs, and if so, what was their response if any?

@cag51 Maybe Prof B always teaches the 8 AM session.

@Buffy: The perspective would be from the department, perhaps esp., the instructor of STEM 102.

@BryanKrause: Re: Question 1, there is in theory a common department syllabus document for both STEM 101 and 102. Question 2-3 I don't have data on. Question 4 I don't understand.

@NateEldredge: Only "In STEM 102" course alone (on a 4 point scale). I considered calling it "quality points" instead but figured fewer people would understand that.

I think Bryan's (4) is asking: is their problem a lack of content knowledge/skills, or a lack of general study skills (i.e. "knowing how to be college students").

@NateEldredge: If that's the meaning, then the observed difference seems to be much more the former (in the context of the 102 course). As noted, "they mostly cannot perform the expected basic skills", even on the first day before any assignments or homework are given.

(+1) for the update, seeing as how for some reason I neglected to originally upvote for what is to me (both now and also as I recall from when the question first appeared) an interesting question about an unfortunately not all that unique situation. Something that occurs to me now is that a situation such as this probably also involves some feedback aspects that make the situation become worse over time (even if Prof. B's teaching does not get worse), because Prof. B will tend to attract students of lower ability (or lower drive to work) on average by reputation as an especially easy teacher.

This is a problem which is very, very common and unfortunately has no good solution.. Let me write just a few hints here. (I will assume that "GPA" is some kind of grade.)
1) First of all, please make sure that Class B is "worse than avarage" and not that Class A is "better than avarage". I want to say that if it is the case that by the syllabus, after course 1, students are expected to have level B, you should teach for level B (even if teacher A was especially motivated/good and did more than expected). This is especially important if you are both teacher A and the teacher of the second course.
2) If your insitution has meetings about teaching quality, mention this problem here. (Try to be diplomatic: do say "A and B teach different topics" instead of "B's students are unprepared." (In fact, it could be that B teaches different things than A and your course is about A's topics.) Try to find a solution together: Maybe one teacher can teach all three courses? Or all can follow one book and cover the same topics? Or at least all teachers teaching those courses can come from the same "group"?
3) Use the first course hours to make a recap of the first course and to determine student's levels. Give them material to study the first course on their own, tell them which topics are especially important. If time permits, make addditional sessions/additional homework for students of level B to bring them to a good niveau.
4) Be as transparent as possible about what you expect. Create a syllabus and, if possible, a course homepage. Make them accessible as early as possible to the students so that they have more time to learn the material.
(I implied here that if (1) does not hold, really teach for niveau A. I think you have an obligation that your student have learned after the course what the syllabus says.)
Ultimately, it is the student's responsibility to learn. (At least where I come from) students know this and will be angry against teacher B rather then against you. From my experience, there are many bad teachers/useless classes in university - students usually learn soon that they have to learn by themselves. Sometimes, they take other courses before and just take course 1 again next year - but this time with teacher A instead of B.

In my case, as the instructor of STEM 102, I feel that all items 1-4 are things that I'm already doing. (E.g. #2: officially we have one common book that covers both 101 & 102, and also departmental syllabus/daily schedules, including several days of review at the start of STEM 102.) I'm picking this as the accepted answer because it may help some other person. If someone wrote an "escalated case" answer, then I might be prone to switching to that.


text:
Can I defer a PhD program for a year to complete another degree (medical reason)?
I'm in a master's program and have already completed my bachelor's, which is the only formal requirement for doctoral study for my program. The first semester went great and I received top marks. This semester, however, I suddenly became gravely ill (to keep it brief: COVID infection triggered a severe chronic health issue), and have been struggling to keep up. I've been committed to doing the work and have been working with several doctors, so I haven't wanted to tap out, but now I am concerned about my capacity to complete my course. The department is encouraging me to take a leave of absence before my dissertation due date that would (1) preserve my first semester work entirely and (2) allow me to renter next January, with no penalty, to complete the course.
The problem is that I was recently admitted to my dream PhD program, with full funding and an amazing stipend package. It is for the 22-23 year and I obviously mentioned my master's studies in my application.
Do you think it would be possible for me to defer this program for a year, during which time I would finish the second semester of my one-year masters? I know it's a loopy situation but the problem is medical (I have ample documentation), and I am only just realizing that my treatment plan may not be enough to get me through the semester. I am wary of continuing with the course only for things to worsen and to be unable to complete my final assignments.

Will the funding source wait that long?

The funding is from the university. They have guaranteed five-year funding for all students accepted to the program. I don't know, though, if the department's finances would be exactly the same next year.

Ask your university / funding agency. We don't know.

My concern is that if I straightforwardly ask / name that I am considering this option, it will become clear that I am concerned about my current academic standing, which might endanger my acceptance.

I know no one can read minds for me, but I'm curious if there is any precedent for this kind of thing, and anyone has ever heard of a similar case.

If you conceal significant information from the uni/funder, and it eventually comes to their attention, your funding might be adversely affected much more than if your current state comes to their attention.  I would assume that the people trying to give me money were nice people and deserved honesty. But, that's just me.

Well, I'm in a bit of bind, you see. Insofar as my reason for deferral is medical, I don't believe I can "feel out" the university's deferral policy before making a decision -- that would imply that I didn't really have a hard, pressing medical reason, but was equivocating based on what would make my academic performance look the best. That seems pretty bad. If I do inquire, then, it feels pretty committal. But am I still assessing whether or not I will be able to complete the master's, given my current treatment regime.

Is abandoning the master's and starting the PhD on schedule an option?

I would imagine that'd be grounds to get rescinded, right? I included the master's as a forecasted degree on my application. It's a pretty big change not to receive that credential.

@GabrielHorn It's totally up to them, which is why you need to ask. They're not going to rescind for asking unless they are terrible people you never want to work with anyways. Being unable to complete a not-required degree for a medical reason is quite different from misleading them into thinking you plan to get a degree that you don't or even running into academic difficulties without a good explanation. They like you, that's why they accepted you as a student, and their goal now is just like yours: for you to succeed as a student.

I think you're strategizing too much and trusting someone you need to trust (your future program) too little. If you trust them that little, you should absolutely not begin a PhD there under any circumstance.
The question to ask your future PhD program would be whether it is A) Possible for you to join that program on schedule if you are unable to complete your masters for medical reasons, or B) Possible for you to join that program 1 year later than scheduled to allow you time to complete your masters degree as offered by your current institution.
Both of these options may be possibilities, but you won't know until you ask. I think you can take your current department's willingness to be flexible with you as a clear endorsement of the legitimacy of your medical concerns. There is no reason you should expect your future department to see it differently.
Of course, their hands may be tied by policy or outside factors (sources of money, for example), but ultimately it's much more important for you to learn about your options than it is to hide what you are suffering. Your original plan (complete masters this year, start PhD program in the fall) may no longer be feasible.

So obviously we can't tell you whether your PhD program will accept your request, they may have a no-deferrals, period policy. We don't know.
But, if the question is "Is this a reasonable cause to ask for a deferral?" I would say yes. No reasonable department would consider this to "endanger your acceptance." The worst they can do is say, "no, you have to reapply," you aren't going to be blacklisted or something.

They will consider deferrals, yes.