Poor organisation, incomplete reading lists, disinterested lecturers, lazy group members, mandatory in-person seminars clearly designed to tick a box and exams consisting of glorified reading comprehension - multiple choice questions which fail to test the key ideas discussed in the course.

This has been the underwhelming reality of almost all of the courses I have taken in my first year of Business, Ethics and Sustainability at Stockholm University. Even though the quality of teaching, organisation and examinations have varied significantly course to course it is safe to say that the university experience has been designed like a Fordian factory line with the purpose of churning out large quantities of students with just enough knowledge to graduate. This makes sense considering that Swedish universities get most of their funding from on the number of admitted students as well as from the number of students that complete their degree.

I’m in no position to say that this system of education has failed society. After all, Sweden is a wealthy, happy and innovative country; in fact Sweden consistently ranks as the most innovative EU country according to the European Innovation Scorecard. Additionally, I have personally benefited from free education and student finance even as a British citizen. This was one of many reasons that I freely chose to move to Sweden following the completion of my A-Levels and it is in large part due to Swedish society’s support that I have been able to sustain myself whilst working (more than) full time and studying full time.

In contrast, the UK university system allows for smaller classes, greater levels of discussion, and more rigorous work. This more focused experience allows for greater depth to be explored and for more attention to be given to each individuals’ thoughts and questions. Swedish universities often claim that their degrees require 40-hours per work to complete and achieve high grades. Whilst I have been gifted the privileges of attending high performing schools throughout my early life and had ample time to educate myself through leisurely reading during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown, there is a general consensus amongst my peers that active study time is closer to 10-15 hours a week at maximum. Portraying its programmes as more technically demanding than in reality acts only as an insurance to students who are incapable of managing their own time well and to attract students who seek a more challenging academic experience. These students are guaranteed to be disappointed when their courses consist of one seminar per month with 30 students in the class and little opportunity for meaningful discussion with the lecturers.

The UK education system has its disadvantages too. These are often a result of greater social and political forces and can be found throughout primary school education, catchment areas, private schools, student finance, council housing, transportation and other variables impacted by questionable government policy. It is also important to acknowledge that this more hands on approach to education is still primarily a luxury afforded to those attending Russell Group universities; a high-quality group of universities from which those from higher socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately benefit.

Perhaps just because education could be ‘better’ (read: more rigorous) doesn’t mean it should be. One could argue that ‘improvements’ to the education system might require smaller university intakes and therefore more difficult admissions This would negatively affect those from less privileged backgrounds. Perhaps the Swedish education system is designed to give a wider range of people a foundational level of knowledge which can be used to analyse the world. For a few, this might spark a desire to continue studies in more depth through a Masters or other post-graduate programme. Or perhaps one might argue that within a relatively fair society like Sweden, any improvements to university education would only provide marginal gains but would require significant tax increases to maintain similar class sizes.

However, I find these arguments unconvincing. There are many philosophical and theoretical arguments that one might use to justify changes to education system. Each of which will come with its own advantages and disadvantages. I do not believe that a fundamental system change is desirable and therefore no changes to accessibility nor taxes are required. It is fairly unequivocal that Swedish society is more utilitarian that British society. Although a more polarised society might allow for beneficial elite education, this comes at a higher price to society and is thus negative.

Fortunately, the Business, Politics and Culture (BPC) course proved that there is a better way to run a course without mandating any significant changes. This course was held by Nick Butler and Anselm Schneider; two individuals that have clearly put a lot of effort into their teaching. The BPC course was fundamentally different to any other course I had yet and have since taken at Stockholm University. Although Nick and Anselm did not have the resources or sufficiently small class sizes to engage in one-on-one teaching as might be expected at some top UK universities, the quality of teaching was world-class.

It felt as if the course was planned for humans to learn and engage in critical thinking, discussion and debate within topical areas of today’s reality. Weeks in advance of the start date, information about literature, structure and other FAQs were uploaded onto our online learning platform. Rather than reading a rushed script with typos and little structure, all lectures clearly discussed a singular focus whilst also building upon previously learned material. The lecturers spoke clearly and passionately, seemingly addressing the questions that had just popped into the students heads. These engaging lecturers were also flexible and pragmatic, recording and uploading all lectures online which allowed me to listen to them in my own time and work around other commitments.

The main literature was The Circle by Dave Eggers and all other literature was purposefully chosen to link back to this story. The standout structural difference with BPC was visible in the weekly seminars. Weekly seminars is a luxury that I have not had many times since I began my university studies. Even more amazingly is the fact that these seminars were planned around a set of discussion questions relevant to the course and that each group was provided with suggested topics to argue the assigned position. Our seminars were graded based on our written work but these tasks allowed for free-flowing discussion and debate in a meaningful and thought-provoking way. Not only did these discussions provide incredibly useful for our general knowledge, they were interesting and clearly related to the well defined learning objectives for the course; plus, this was a genuinely positive way of meeting new people and engaging in meaningful debate with others in the course. Furthermore, the material discussed was clearly linked to the individual essays which we were later graded on. Every week each group was assigned a different role (e.g. for the motion, against the motion or note-takers) and debate across groups was thoroughly moderated by the professors who were quick to add useful information to our arguments.

Unlike most other courses I have taken which mandated a commute into Stockholm to sit in a lecture hall for four hours whilst using ‘ctrl + f’ to skim through texts and click through 50+ multiple choice answers with seemingly no connection to the learning objectives or lectures, the BPC course was graded in a reasonable way. Not only did each group get graded on formal, written versions of their discussion arguments, but the professors also provided in-text feedback which was for more specific and practical than the vague and generic feedback which I have become far to used to. This feedback was mirrored across our final assignment which was an individual essay from a choice of 4 different topics. Once again, this assignment showed flexibility and trust in students whilst providing a level of freedom and choice not seen in other courses. This also allowed for much more time to think through our arguments and use the sources available throughout the course to our advantage. This is much more representative of real-life scenarios and therefore a better measure of an individuals abilities to formulate coherent arguments when compared to short responses under timed, exam conditions.

All things considered, I would argue that Nick and Anselm have done a stellar job with the BPC course. Whilst it wasn’t perfect, it was pretty close to the best it could be with the given resources and I would love to take their other courses should I have the chance to do so during my elective term in my third year of studies or during my Master’s degree should I choose to pursue one at Stockholm University. This course is a clear role-model for other professors in Sweden and is contained within an ideal, flexible, practical and useful format. Further than being just an ideal model for other teachers in Sweden, I would go so far as to argue that the BPC course is a useful model for society at large and, within the context of the Swedish political system, shows that free education for all needn’t consist of menial tasks, apathetic teaching and poorly executed grading but instead can help to teach skills and perspectives to the next generation of graduates.