French here, the tuitions are close to 0 in Finland and France too (granted that you learn French). Our parents pay up to 50% (I don't have the exact percentage) of various taxes based on their salaries and daily life goods, and we as children will do the same. It makes sense that our government rewards us in some way: health care for free, school for free, retirement... In Europe, the government avoids you to shoot yourself by managing part of your money for the well being of the society. In return, we may look less rich by looking at our bank balance. If you take a 3500 $ Swedish salary with all the taxes applied, your life level might be equivalent as a 7000 $ salary in US.
Beware not to overuse this trick. In the past many other European countries were accessible for virtually free. Until an army of Chineses came, studied for free for 5 years and went back to their hometown without any contribution to the society (taxes, intellectual contributions...). That's why Sweden granted recently the free access to only Europe citizens that anyway pay common taxes in their own country.
"If you take a 3500 $ Swedish salary with all the taxes applied, your life level might be equivalent as a 7000 $ salary in US." Completely agree.
I live and work in Manhattan. I love the city (!) But between Federal taxes, state taxes, and city taxes, the reality is that I pay over 40% taxes. Yet, I receive none of the benefits European countries offer their citizens: state sponsored healthcare, subsidized (and good) education, etc. It's a real shame because I think it reflects very poorly on us, as a "first world" society.
For those not from the area, a few figures to give you a sense of things:
- the truth is that public schools have a bad reputation. There are a few exceptional public schools (Stuyvesant, Hunter, Bronx Science), but they're highly selective and certainly can't fit every kid in the city. I know many who send their kids to private schools (>$30K or $40K per year in tuition fees)
- health insurance is tied to one's employer, and while some is subsidized by employer), it is paid out of employee's paycheck to a private insurance company.
So, yeah, taxes may be high in France, Germany, and many other countries, but there's some return.
Again, I love NYC and all it has to offer. Objectively, one has to be honest about the pros and cons living here.
Disclaimer: I am married to a European. Perhaps I've been drinking the kool-aid :-)
Countries like Sweden (or maybe it's the only one) also adjusts the fine for speeding according to one's income. If you make a lot, $250 fine isn't going to deter you from speeding. But $200K might (there's probably an upper limit?)
And then you have all the French engineers currently moving to Silicon Valley because a $1XXk salary working for a world known tech company is more interesting than 30k € working for an SSII where you'll have a chain of 10 MBAs above you, or applying to companies that won't even look at your resume unless your degree is certified by the CTI, even if you're probably a better engineer than 90% of their employees.
Well, that's what I did anyway. Part of me wishes I could have the career fulfillment I currently have back in France, to give back to the system that made me (l'École de la République, what a beautiful dream!), but sadly that's not possible. Oh well, that's what the UK expats are for, right?
I am not saying whether the European system is better or far worse, just explaining why our systems permit free studies easily.
France is clearly lacking of interesting jobs (SII) in IT, expect research maybe. Europe is also far from having a perfect society, but nothing is black or white, just gray.
I was working only few weeks ago in Hong-Kong for the biggest French bank in HFT and had a decent salary as a graduated. Hong-Kong follows the US style. I was asked to move to NY for 1XXk but finally opted for a life in Sweden for many other reasons. Anyway, I did my research about NY.
With the 1XXk in NY, you must pay a 3000$ * 12 rent (36k) for a 40m², put 1/3 for a future retirement and in case of a terrible health problem (30k$). When you get children, you must pay everything by your own, like fees for 2 children = 15000$ * 2 (30k$). Plus you work 30% hours more, hence make 30% more per hour. Statistically, Americans are richer, so it must be interesting to move there especially when single. It highly depends on your life style and your expected work-life balance.
Yup. SF is the same as NYC. I ran the calculations a while back, and for my lifestyle I've found out that it's hugely advantageous to work in the bay area until I have kids, and then move back to Europe when I do (unless I'm crazy successful and have a high net worth).
It's probably wrong to accuse the Chinese. Most I know actually want to stay, but it's very hard for them to. For that reason, many Chinese choose to go to US/Canada despite being much more expensive (ironic right)
The reasons I've seen are that European companies tend to hire local people; student visa don't come with work authorization post-graduation (the 1-year OPT in the U.S. can immensely help when seeking job - for the company, they can essentially bring you in without any extra cost, and when the year is up, either you've proven your value so they can justify a costly work visa, or they can just let you go); cultural barrier is higher in a homogeneous country; etc.
To quote myself: "That's true. And I guess half of them wished they could stay. When people abuse the system, it always destroys the dream of some others. No offences to Chinese people either, their high population just makes them more "visible" when it comes to that kind of problem.
As far as I remember in France if you do a 2 years master's degrees, you have a VISA for 1 year to search for a job. One can even search for part-time jobs during his studies. If you succeed, after 2 years more, you can ask for the French citizenship. But, sadly, it collides with the Chinese policy that rejects double nationalities."
That's true. And I guess half of them wished they could stay. When people abuse the system, it always destroys the dream of some others. No offences to Chinese people either, their high population just makes them more "visible" when it comes to that kind of problem.
As far as I remember in France if you do a 2 years master's degrees, you have a VISA for 1 year to search for a job. One can even search for part-time jobs during his studies. If you succeed, after 2 years more, you can ask for the French citizenship. But, sadly, it collides with the Chinese policy that rejects double nationalities.
> If you take a 3500 $ Swedish salary with all the taxes applied, your life level might be equivalent as a 7000 $ salary in US.
That really depends on your lifestyle. I spend a lot of time in both North Western Europe and the states. I find that the cost of housing, car ownership and driving, power, clothing, basic luxuries are far lower in the US. The higher cost is in things like education, health insurance etc. Over a lifetime it might balance out to the same, but as long as you're healthy and working, a $7k income in most of the US will buy you a life style a European with a $3.5k income could barely imagine.
Perhaps we should send more kids to Europe for schooling to see how a civil society lives, then bring them back after graduating to fix the problems with America. win/win :)
The article ended with the students saying that they planned to stay in Germany - they didn't want to go back to a country like the US where their children might be bankrupted paying for their education.
FWIW, I dated a German exchange student in highschool (in the US). When asked why she came to the US, she said her dad sent all of her siblings to the US to take driver's ed and get their US license as it was valid in Germany. Apparently it is many thousands of dollars^Weuros to get all of the necessary requirements completed to get a German drivers license.
I didn't mean to come off quite like I originally phrased that, more of it might be interesting for the perspective gained. Also, when I was in Berlin for 2 weeks (the GNOME/KDE Desktop summit) several years ago, I'd have stayed as well had I not been married. Wonderful country (and my family is racially of german descent so...)
A driver's license in Germany costs 1400+ euros, covering a minimum of 12*90min learning, 12h driving, a written test, and a driving test. If you fail the tests you have to take more hours. Bad drivers pay 3000+ euros until they pass.
This is technically true, but it's very common to take more hours than the absolute minimum. Good driving schools don't send you off to take your practical exam if they don't think you have a good chance to pass.
It has less to do with being a bad driver and more with your learning progress. If you're a bad driver, you shouldn't pass the practical exam no matter how often you take it -- and your driving school shouldn't send you to it in the first place.
Case in point: I paid for a ridiculous number of lessons because I switched instructors halfway through and was full-time self-employed. If I had been able to keep a tighter schedule I could have done it in a fraction of the time. I passed the written and practical exams on the first attempt but what bloated the costs was having up to two week gaps in between driving lessons.
To expand on your summary: it's 12 classes (only two classes that are mandatory, for the rest you just have to show up to ten of them in total, you can go to the same class multiple times) but going to those classes is rarely enough to pass the written exam, so you normally also get a book. As the written exam is a (mostly) multiple-choice test with questions from a well-known pool, there's also software that lets you train the exact pool of questions which your exam will be based on. Many driving schools have you take a simulated exam before they give you the paperwork you need to sign up for the real thing. How long it takes you before you can pass the exam mostly depends on how good you are at rote learning.
The 12h driving consists of various lessons. These include various scenario-based lessons (i.e. driving on the Autobahn, driving at night-time and driving on rural roads). You have to take a specified number of lessons for each scenario. You also have to take a minimum number of regular driving lessons but most people I know have done more than the bare minimum for various reasons. Most driving instructors do these lessons in batches of two per session (as, depending on traffic, you can easily spend half a lesson just getting to the training area and back).
I think this part is different from the US: driving lessons (even the very first one) are generally done in real traffic. Although you often do a few of the early exercises in safe environments, many instructors make you drive there and back. Driving instructors are trained to operate cars from the front passenger seat (which, btw, is called Beifahreritz -- literally "co-driver seat" -- in German) using a second set of pedals and mirrors the training cars are equipped with; so they can always take over and simply grab the steering wheel if necessary.
One the one had, a driver's license is not required in many German cities on account of their public transportation systems. However it is useful sometimes for intercity travel. But then they have a culture of ride-sharing too.
At the same time, it's good to have an experienced teacher with you when you first hit the autobahn. Finding out how fast your car can actually be is quite scary at the beginning, and you need to keep an eye on quite a few things.
A person who knows how to operate a vehicle is always going to be better off in life than a person who doesn't. Emergencies happen, road trips happen, etc.
Actually, I think that's incorrect. I'd say that the median person who knows how to drive is better off than the median person without that skill. Certainly the best person who doesn't know how to drive is better off than the worst person who can drive, and it probably has nothing to do with driving ability.
In Finland, approx. 2500€ for a drivers licence in a driving school, includes approx. 25 lectures (a 45 min), 25 one-on-one driving sessions (a 45 min) with a teacher, and some practice of slippery conditions on a special track. The school also provides the car.
Europeans have their own sets of problems ,believe me, don't paint everything all black or all white. Granted almost free education is something great.
More sane policies in the US would be a win/win in my book as a European... Because the US government has a huge influence on our respective government and our lives.
The kids of today grow up to become the leaders of tomorrow. If they grow up with a European worldview and come back to the US, that certainly couldn't be a bad thing.
I didn't think about this effect and probably it would have at least some positives. But I think most US leaders will come from Ivy League universities anyway.
There should also be an article on how Asian (Indians, Chinese, Filipino, etc) students get graduate degree for free in the USA. Thanks US for my free Masters and PHD ;)
In science and engineering, PhD students are typically paid a salary and have their tuition waived. This is mostly funded by the federal government though the NSF, DOE, DOD, etc.
I think the stipend is much lower but yes. It also depends on the university how much the stipend is. At some schools it might only be like 15k which is not enough to live so you would have to find some way to work also.
Many training funding mechanisms (ie. NIH Training Grants, Fellowship awards, & Career Grants/"K-awards") are not allowed to fund non-residents [1]. Funding international students is a difficult problem for most PhD programs in the life sciences. I don't have direct experience in physical/social sciences, but I believe similar restrictions apply to NSF funds.
I believe most PhD programs cover international students using a mixture of direct project funds (ie. an NIH R01, the same grant that covers reagents/equipment), private fellowships, and endowment money.
How is the quality of engineering education in Germany these days? I quote Paul Graham:
"There don't seem to be many universities elsewhere that compare with the best in America, at least in technology.
In some countries this is the result of a deliberate policy. The German and Dutch governments, perhaps from fear of elitism, try to ensure that all universities are roughly equal in quality. The downside is that none are especially good." [1]
Disclaimer: I'm asian and obtained my Master degree in Germany. I am now working in academia in Germany.
Yes, Graham goes on. With a bunch of what I consider to be odd statements: "There are few Jews left in Germany and most Jews I know would not want to move there. And if you took any great American university and removed the Jews, you'd have some pretty big gaps. So maybe it would be a lost cause trying to create a silicon valley in Germany, because you couldn't establish the level of university you'd need as a seed."
So, basically you need a bunch of Jews in order to create a decent academic landscape? That sounds pretty far-fetched. In turn, I am going to offer some anecdotal evidence as well: the faculty I am working / doing research for is providing an international CS degree (MSc.), taught solely in English. We get a lot of international students, the majority from Asia, with only around 15%-20% of German students each term, but given that we partner with some universities in Canada and the U.S., we also have a share of students from those countries. I have been working here for about 5 years, which equals 10 semesters, i.e. I have witnessed at least 10 different batches of students coming here, and so far, US/Canadian students didn't stand out particularly. There is of course some selection bias at work, in that students studying abroad need a certain financial background, language and social skills etc., but I'd counter Graham's "argument" and say that what the German government tries to do is not to ensure that all universities are of (roughly) equal quality, but that there is a common, minimum baseline as to what to expect from a certain level of education.
Our university is part of an organization that spans several universities, research institutes and for a lack of a better word, "think tanks" that offer both education and research facilities for industry / government partners. Each university has student teams that participate in international competitions in our sub-field of CS and constantly come out among the first three places in those competitions. Again, this is a biased result of course, maybe education is simply quite good w.r.t. that specific field, but I highly doubt it, given personal experience. And yes, I consider my personal experience to be as valuable as Graham's assertions above, who is not personally involved in German academia and is providing some very odd reasons for the perceived success of U.S. universities...
He has a number of blanket statements ready about Europe, but Europe is a very diverse place, much more so than the US. Norway, Turkey, Russia, Luxembourg, the UK differ much more from each other than Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, New York, California.
In the end I don't think it has much to do with 'America' vs 'Not America', but with Silicon Valley having been the place where it started. You can't create a second silicon valley in Florida any more than you can in Germany. The startups go to Silicon Valley because that's where the investors are. The investors go to Silicon Valley because that's where the startups go. You can't create a second Hollywood, a second Mecca, a second Rome.
I don't think these things develop according to a plan. Perhaps a generation from now, the Chinese equivalent of Hacker News will mock American attempts to create a second Shanghai or Moscow.
Since when Turkey and Russia became "Europe"? Don't get me wrong - probably both are super-interesting places in their own right, but including them into "Europe" is like including Mexico and Brasil into "America". Again, nothing wrong with those as well, they are just vastly different places, far outside of "education and taxes in US vs. that in EU" discourse.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's basic geography and history.
Russia has been part of Europe ever since it was founded in the middle ages. It only built an Asian empire from the 17th century onward. Russia is European in just the same way as the UK and France were before they lost their empires.
Turkey became part of Europe when the Ottomans started expanding into Europe, in the 14th century. Even today, the largest city in Europe is Istanbul, Turkey. Fun fact: Istanbul has more inhabitants than most EU member states.
I was responding to that 'paulgraham' article, and he consistently talks about 'Europe' (not the EU) like it's this one homogeneous blob.
I'm from germany and spend some time at the technical university of munich.
This statement was not accurate at the time of writing and is even less accurate today.
There is a well known university ranking in germany, named "Hochschulranking". An older version for sports can be seen at e.g. https://www.sport.uni-freiburg.de/bachelor-ranking2012.pdf
There was no such thing as equal quality, obviously, just a baseline of what you should learn. This baseline is from what I've heard higher than in the US.
One more thing, I'm currently trying to find the source again, but ~20% of foreign students decide to stay in Germany after receiving free education.
Those numbers were way lower in the US iirc. Given such a high number of staying students I'd say it's well worth the money (for Germany).
And I don't think his statement is true. He may be right that there is no single(!) university that can compete with MIT for example. But there are excellent groups in various fields at various universities.
As an anecdote, i live on €6000 in Munich. It's definitely the minimum, but possible when living in university accommodation & and cooking your own food.
Ditto. I studied for about €500 per month all expenses included in both Belgium and France. This was between 2007 and 2012. You can't live big, but I ate healthy, never skipped a beer/wine or had to make extra money.
While you're obligated to pay it, none of that money actually goes to the university. It all goes to the student union and student services which are two legal bodies distinct from the university.
So the education is free, you're just paying for some of the services (transportation, meals, housing, etc.) around it.
you're just paying for some of the services (transportation, meals, housing, etc.) around it
Heh, that's just a vague line item in a typical US college bill...(university activity fee, computer fee...). The system here is so extortionist on students. Sickening. Go Germany!
By shaping it in the form of a question asking "how?", the author makes it seems as if there is anything of any substance to the how. The reader who does not know that it's simply free will assume that there is something special about the students, or something special they might need to do and clicks on the link to find out what that special thing is.
The bait is accepted, and the trap is sprung, ad impressions are achieved and the reader learns the banal truth:
There is nothing special to do or be beyond being human beings and educated enough to be accepted by a german school.
Stating outright in the title "All students get a university degree for free in Germany" would be honest and forthright, saving someone maybe a few minutes if they don't need to know anything more. But it is not used because it would result in less clicks for the author and less ad impressions.
I think you didn't read the article carefully enough. There is a precise list of things you have to do in order to get into a German university in the middle of the article. It's titled "How to apply in Germany." Also there is a lot of useful information about typical rents, expenses for groceries, etc. and there are a number of links to very rich resources with more details. I think this article is an excellent starting point for anyone who is considering to study in Germany.
Thank you for being the only one to understand that the word free was not what i was complaining about. The replies to my post have been both amusing and horrifying, and you are a shining light in a sea of shortsightedness. :)
Notice how both his, your initial and your second comment don't say anything else besides that the title is linkbait and that it says free where in fact you pay a very very small amount?
You might have been complaining about something else besides free, but information about what would that be is totally absent from your comments.
Possibly by "his" you mean me, so I perhaps owe an explanation. I thought the point Mithaldu was making was sufficiently obvious. Instead of a title signaling the contents of the article in a straightforward manner, a more sensational sounding title was chosen. A step along the path to "Click here to learn the one amazing simple free education trick expensive US universities don't want you to know about". But the responses to Mithaldu seemed to think he was quibbling about whether a trivial amount of money was the same as free or not. I didn't think he was, something he has subsequently confirmed. Hope that helps.
>Instead of a title signaling the contents of the article in a straightforward manner, a more sensational sounding title was chosen.
That's because the title should also get you to want to READ the article, and do it in 10 words or less.
But that doesn't mean it was click-bait and certainly not to the degree of titles like "amazing simple education trick" etc. If it was a "step along that path" it was a very very small step.
I have upvoted you, you make a good point. I commented originally because it was clear to me what Mithaldu was saying but others were misunderstanding his point. It was not really so much about whether his point is correct or not.
I think the only conclusion to draw here is that you are exceptionally brilliant. You were the one to live up OP's idea of the intellect of this site. Why write more explicitly and less confusingly when we have brilliant people like yourself to decipher things?
My comments having been very measured and calm. I have simply stated my understanding and tried to reduce unnecessary confusion. I was not explicit when I didn't think I needed to be, but did respond positively when asked to be explicit. I have never been confusing. I don't think I deserve to be attacked.
Frankly, given the prevalence of clickbait on the internet in general, and the general savviness of the HM crowd, i did not even consider in the least that the nature of this clickbait could not be obvious to everyone. A bit of a mistake of mine.
I've explained that nature in a comment a little further up. :)
If you're a human being and you understand that 100 euro is essentially free, especially when compared to the tuition in the US, then the conclusion is a bit different.
And an even better insurance against accidents for when you actually are at the university. It also covers travel to and from anything you do there. Oh, and we're funding the student council with a few euros as well.
It only shows the American political establishment prefers a capitalist system that impoverishes white people rather than have a fair social system that has the side effect of benefiting blacks and latinos as well. Ditto Brazil.
I work with someone who got a graduate degree in Germany. She simply can't believe anyone goes to college in the US without massive scholarships. From the student's perspective, I've come to agree.
Median household student loan debt - for those households carrying any student loan debt - is ~$13,000. That is not crushing. And keep in mind, that's for the whole household unit, the median student loan tally is even lower for individuals.
The median monthly household payment is $160, and the median ratio of income to payment is 4%.
The US has among the highest median incomes and median disposable incomes of any countries.
It's obnoxious that the cost of college has soared so much in the last 15 years, there's no question about that. However, it is still very possible to get a high quality and fair priced education in the US.
Those popular media stories about people carrying $80,000 in student loans? That's in fact talking about a small fraction of all student loan situations.
Sadly, I find the article to be fairly misleading. First of all, the living costs are far higher than they make you believe and then there is the "free degree" vs. "semester fee + x" debate that is actually very different from university to university in germany - and I believe they are oddly mistaken when it comes to the University of Munich.
Where I studied, the rent was 350-450€/month and the semester fee around 250-300€/term. True, the health insurance for students is incredible (~70€), but I'm not going to comment on what the BBC apparently thinks is reasonably in terms of "Groceries" and "Misc.", that's just seems weird to me. Bottom line, as a student you are not going to get by with 7k/year in Munich.
Oh, and hey, you need to get accredited at a university first, of course ;)
The drinking age in the US is 21. This doesn't stop college students from drinking, it just means they can end up in trouble with law enforcement or the university authorities.
US students who study in Europe are free to drink without breaking the law.
Also, some would argue that Germany beer is better.
Also, binge drinking frat parties aren't a thing in Germany.
There are fraternities ("Burschenschaften"), but they're very different and far less popular. They tend to keep to themselves more and are less visible to non-member students.
Why in the world did I go to college in the US??
I hate that the US education system is so capitalistic and not out to provide for the citizens of this country!
Wish I would've included colleges outside the US in my college making decision..
I think that a lot of the legal changes to student loan funding from the 90's are really showing their ugly heads today. They are exempt from a lot of protections other forms of debt offer. Not to mention the effect of widely available loans (and insurance for that matter) have on an industry's pricing structures. It allows for whole new paths of corruption, overcharging and overspending.
That's not to say every school operates like the University of Phoenix and the like... a lot of community colleges offer good education, while not being overtly expensive. Some universities and state colleges are a bit of a mix, and a lot of funding comes from various sources which bleed into expectations, costs and funding. That doesn't even go into scholarship programs and grants.
While I agree with the tenant that everyone should have access to higher education, I'm pretty sure that our approach should have been better.
I made the same mistake, it's not your fault. If you graduated in the pre-www era, as I did, the options presented to you as a 17 year old kid were probably very limited; it's almost as if we don't acknowledge universities exist outside the U.S. in the typical middle-class education-option experience. Very narrow world view.
Truly shocking they haven't discovered "out of country tuition". That is the big scam here in the US, most of the state schools have out of state fee's that are 2x-5x as high as the instate ones. The excuse of course is saving money and how the students parents don't pay taxes (ignoring they pay taxes elsewhere).
The best part of course, is the lame/insane rules they come up with to determine if your instate or out of state. Mostly because in the US just having a utility bill from a rental or what not is enough to transfer a drivers license/residency. Amusingly enough, most of these states actually require in state vehicle registrations for said students in order to get the tax money...
Part of the reason for raising tuition is also to discourage out of state students from applying so that they can provide a relatively high quality of education to state's residences that is accessible to many of the state's residents. Georgia does this, as well as some other schools.
Most US states used to do that. Now, at the least, the University Of California prefers out-of-state and out-of-country just for the extra tuition and charges tuition that's not really accessible for in-state students.
For students from other EU countries, that would probably constitute illegal discrimination. For other students, they probably don't care. Or it's actually seen as an investment in the future as these students often stick around, meaning you get a well-educated young citizen and didn't even have to pay for the first 12 years of her education.
Pedantic tangent: saying Germany has "abandoned" tuition fees is not entirely correct.
Until a few years ago there were no tuition fees in public universities in Germany. In fact there still aren't any non-public universities, though there are private academies.
University education is also not as common in Germany as it is in the US: although more jobs require formal education and certification in Germany (e.g. if you professionally paint cars in Germany, you need a specific formal qualification to do so), there are long-standing trade-specific education systems that provide these, rather than universities. These are typically three to five year trainings consisting of an internship as well as formal schooling. Historically university has been more academic in nature, being considered to be more about higher education than a job qualification for the industry. In other words, someone with a university degree effectively has no job experience but may understand the higher-level concepts of the business domain (i.e. the "why") whereas someone with a non-university trade education has less high-level knowledge but a lot of hands-on experience (i.e. the "how").
Public universities only charge a comparatively low fee (typically around EUR 200-400), which mostly covers services provided by the university's student union who also often negotiate deals like public transit tickets (which are then paid from the student union's cut). The student unions are thus able to adjust the fee to provide additional services but generally puts decisions which would result in higher fees up to a direct vote by all enrolled students. The decision-making council is also directly elected by the students (which has resulted in a political microcosm that is quite similar to the government-level political parties).
A few years ago, Germany officially adopted the Bachelor/Master system because various European nations decided to standardize higher education degrees across Europe. The general argument for doing so was that it made degrees from different countries more comparable and thus reduced the HR headaches for internationally hiring companies.
Shortly after the BA/MA switch, Germany changed a law that previously prohibited tuition fees in public universities so it only specified a cap of EUR 500 per semester (on top of the existing baseline fee). This was officially part of an initiative to raise the quality of education, along with funding for universities that were trying to create "elite" faculties (i.e. specialising). Officially this would not result in reducing the government spending on universities but it was an open secret that the cap would be raised over the next years as tuition fees gain more acceptance and thus allow the government to slowly pull out their funding to make universities more independent. Officially it was also predicted that most universities wouldn't set their tuition fees to the legal maximum.
Predictably, the vast majority of universities introduced tuition fees at exactly the legal maximum (EUR 500 on top of the existing fees). While EUR 700-800 is still "low" by American standards, it effectively meant an up to 3x increase many students couldn't easily afford. To add insult to injury, the universities' invoices would often contain ads by state banks offering student loans at "reasonable" terms (i.e. lower-than-average interest and they'd pay the tuition fee for you so you continue to only have to pay the baseline fee yourself, giving you the illusion that nothing has changed until you graduate or drop out and suddenly have accrued quite a bit of debt).
It should also be noted that culturally, Germany is a nation of savers, not loaners. While most students were previously able to graduate with no debt at all (except for a public grant known as BAFöG which covers up to 100% of the baseline fee with only the difference accumulating as debt) the tuition fees threatened to change that entirely.
Also predictably, the students reacted quite vocally. There were lots of protests all over Germany and the way most universities handled was a bit upsetting because it violated the silent historical agreement (established by precedent after the famous 1968 student protests) that university disputes are handled non-violently by the university and its students, not by riot police.
After spending a few months explaining to students that tuition was here to stay and that EUR 500 per semester is entirely negligible (to quote the head of the University of Cologne: "just drink one less beer a day" -- I should probably add that binge drinking frat parties are less of a thing in Germany), some universities finally dropped the tuition fees, resulting in a slow cascade as the growth of applicant numbers shrank for those universities that still maintained non-zero tuition fees.
Nowadays, I don't think any university still charges tuition fees. I'm not sure whether the government intervened at some point and repealed the act that allowed them in the first place or whether it was entirely "voluntary" but they're effectively gone now.
It's important to recognize that the outrage was less about the specific sum -- while a 2x-3x increase in cost can be world-changing for low-income students, it's still manageable, especially if you can stomach taking a loan (or are poor enough you don't have to pay the fees at all). The more important thing was that it created a slippery slope. The only reason the tuition fee was that low was that it was the legal maximum. Adjusting that maximum would have been politically much easier than passing the act that allowed the fees in the first place, especially if the increase is gradual.
A change from zero to a low value is much more intrusive than a change from a non-zero value to a higher value. Introducing tuition fees set a precedent that created a potential path to US-level costs while also turning student debt from an exception to the norm. The UK is a good parallel (tuition fees were introduced in 1998 with a legal maximum that has been increased several times since).
Yes, dear Americans, the US is considered the negative example by German students -- although German politics and industry of course fawn over the quality of elite universities in the US (while ignoring that the quality of German universities compares favourably with non-elite universities in the US).
You offer great additional information (the basics of this are all included in the article). Just another additional remark: None of the administration fee goes to the university itself, it is divided between the students and the Studentenwerk (which is separate from the university and organizes things like dining halls).
Also, several universities were risking fines because they collected the tuition fees but never used them for anything.
Part of the problem was that tuition fees were legally required to be used only in certain ways ("Verbesserung der Qualität der Lehre", literally "improving the quality of education") but most of the new projects the universities actually started were changes to the administration or constructing new buildings (including lecture halls) rather than hiring more teachers or actually improving the education.
Beware not to overuse this trick. In the past many other European countries were accessible for virtually free. Until an army of Chineses came, studied for free for 5 years and went back to their hometown without any contribution to the society (taxes, intellectual contributions...). That's why Sweden granted recently the free access to only Europe citizens that anyway pay common taxes in their own country.