That said, is the University system in Holland heavily subsidized? Crushing student loan debt is another hallmark of the American Uni experience for many students that can take years to pay off, if ever. Ironically, some students attending the elite institutions can often receive generous financial aid packages that their state school counterparts may never see.
Heavily subsidized is an understatement. But you could say that STUDENTS are heavily subsidized. Almost everyone gets study financing from the government. You understand this costs a lot of money, but it's worth it, since employees with a university background have a greater income, they pay more taxes later in life. This in turn pays for this subsidy system. Of course we have rampant problems with people who take ages to complete the simplest of studies. That's why from 2011 you can only complete your study in the (normal time + 2 years) subsidized. After that, any excess year you have to pay for yourself. You should SEE the student protest mails that are being sent, they speak of this as if it is the end of the world. The socialist party who was in power before the current somewhat liberal christian parties, supported by the PVV (Geert Wilders' party, who is against islamisation of the Netherlands, not against muslims as persons, a mistake often made) raised a generation with a sense of absolute entitlement. This is starting to change now. But no, no crushing student loan debt. No debt at all if you don't spend a disproportional long time in completing your study. You even get a higher subsidy if you rent your own room or live on a campus and don't live with your parents anymore.
I'm curious if in Holland you have a history of elite schools that are no longer considered elite as you moved into the age of modern specialization and we just have a historical conceptual hangover that you didn't hold onto or if you've always had subject elitism and not institution based elitism. I'm not an anthropologist but it's always interesting how cultural history evolves differently in different places.
We didn't always have subject elitism, we had a history of elite schools. Some universities, such as Leiden, are still considered great in certain subjects (e.g. Law), but not in all. I think you can compare it to Harvard / MIT, where MIT obviously excels in one direction, and Harvard is seen as a more generally prestigious university.
So there are still SOME leftovers from before. But if you ask me, is someone going to employ a honors student from Leiden faster than one from Amsterdam, the answer is most definitely; no.
As for historical perspective, we used to value a broad education, in the 17th century we had P.C. Hooft and the Muiderkring, (coincidentally he studied law in Leiden) who wanted to achieve this Leonardo-esque status of homo universalis. And of course we had the VOC (trading company), which brought us art from all over the world in our golden and silver centuries, but this was definitely not something for the poor. But you really should ask a history student
Today it's about deep specialization and training but we still have memes around elitism that are hold overs from when it was about general intellectual abilities and knowledge. Just my guess.
The part about deep specialization is true for Holland too, we assume general intellectual abilities and knowledge to be present in ALL university students, owing to the fact that you must have the highest level high school education (VWO, Gymnasium) to enroll. But I believe that in the USA you have ONE high school level (perhaps private schools have higher standards?). Is it true that you have this one-size-fits-all approach?
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.