What American universities can learn from Germany (2016)(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
What American universities can learn from Germany (2016)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/07/27/heres-what-american-universities-can-learn-from-germany/
98 comments
> I 'm not sure if they are talking about "dualstudium",
I agree with what you wrote but the OP is not about Dualstudium. The "dual educational" the article refers to, is about non-univerity tertiary education (Duale Ausbildung). The dual part is the fact that this happens in a company and a (usually state run) school. [1]
As an example: If you want to work as a plumber in Germany you have to get a certificate. The only way to get the certificate is to participate in the dual educational system.
For a plumber that means to find an employer that is willing to give them a three and half year apprenticeship contract. The apprentice will work only three or four days, the other days they have to attend school. The exact details depend on the trade, some have a three work week, one school week schedule, but the general idea is that work and school education happen at the same time.
Not all trades follow this model but if they do it's mandatory. Also the newly certified plumber is only allowed to do plumbing jobs. To be allowed to install a heating system for example they have to make a run trough the dual system again, now with the HVAC guild. Just to install a new heating system you need at least a HVAC company, a plumber, an electrician and a mason. The HVAC guy won't touch any pipes, cables or bricks because he is not allowed to by law and discouraged by his guild. Same for the plumber, electrician and mason.
What the article misses to mention is that the system makes every task that falls in a regulated area very expensive. As a consequence of this it also leads to a lot of illicit work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_education_system
I agree with what you wrote but the OP is not about Dualstudium. The "dual educational" the article refers to, is about non-univerity tertiary education (Duale Ausbildung). The dual part is the fact that this happens in a company and a (usually state run) school. [1]
As an example: If you want to work as a plumber in Germany you have to get a certificate. The only way to get the certificate is to participate in the dual educational system.
For a plumber that means to find an employer that is willing to give them a three and half year apprenticeship contract. The apprentice will work only three or four days, the other days they have to attend school. The exact details depend on the trade, some have a three work week, one school week schedule, but the general idea is that work and school education happen at the same time.
Not all trades follow this model but if they do it's mandatory. Also the newly certified plumber is only allowed to do plumbing jobs. To be allowed to install a heating system for example they have to make a run trough the dual system again, now with the HVAC guild. Just to install a new heating system you need at least a HVAC company, a plumber, an electrician and a mason. The HVAC guy won't touch any pipes, cables or bricks because he is not allowed to by law and discouraged by his guild. Same for the plumber, electrician and mason.
What the article misses to mention is that the system makes every task that falls in a regulated area very expensive. As a consequence of this it also leads to a lot of illicit work.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_education_system
You are right and I think half of the people here did not understand the difference between 'Duales Studium' and 'Duale Ausbildung'.
But on the other hand, I don't quite get what the Universities have to do with the dual education System?!? I mean, as far as I know, Universities are specialized in higher education.
But on the other hand, I don't quite get what the Universities have to do with the dual education System?!? I mean, as far as I know, Universities are specialized in higher education.
The headline is misleading and I believe the article is not clear about the role of the universities.
It's called "skilled trade" for a reason. When the apprentice plumber has passed his apprenticeship everyone knows that this fellow knows his stuff and can follow developments in his field. If you want plumbing done, get a plumber, if you want electric get an electrician. If you want a trained monkey, go to America.
Do they have apprenticeships for monkeys in America?
Some days, I suspect we are participating in one.
That sounds incompatible with American values on several levels. Locking people into careers and preventing other skilled people from doing similar jobs because they haven't bought into a union or become part of a special group is the source of most things Americans hate about similar systems where we have them.
Incompatible with American values?...
A cursory search on Google shows that in America, if you want to be an HVAC tech or a plumber, you basically have to take the same steps: get a high school diploma, then find a formal apprenticeship or a vocational program, then get licensed and get a certificate. The whole process takes years too. It's basically the same.
And as an American consumer it's not like you get a random handyman from the street to do the work, is it? You almost always go with one of these certified guys. And similar to the OP, there is a bunch of "illicit" work here too. Like my mechanic once insisted on coming to my home after hours to fix my car (easy fix), presumably so he can avoid paying shop fees.
A cursory search on Google shows that in America, if you want to be an HVAC tech or a plumber, you basically have to take the same steps: get a high school diploma, then find a formal apprenticeship or a vocational program, then get licensed and get a certificate. The whole process takes years too. It's basically the same.
And as an American consumer it's not like you get a random handyman from the street to do the work, is it? You almost always go with one of these certified guys. And similar to the OP, there is a bunch of "illicit" work here too. Like my mechanic once insisted on coming to my home after hours to fix my car (easy fix), presumably so he can avoid paying shop fees.
Just because it's standard procedure in America doesn't mean it can't also be against "American values".
The text said that they begin in the age of 15 or 16, so the "duale Ausbildung" system is meant by that, because "Dualstudenten" are usually 17 or 18 when they start. The "Dualstudium" combines the practical "Ausbildung" with an applied science bachelors degree like CS, EE, mechanical engineering and so on, so it double the stress, but you'll also get a lot of work experience, a bachelors degree and an apprenticeship diploma. Also you will get paid.
At least historically, the understanding is that universities prepare for an academic career, while apprenticeship ("Ausbildung"), dual education ("das duale System"), and – since the 1970's – universities of applied sciences ("Fachhochschulen") prepare for the job.
Well math, stats and engineering prepare you well for a career. CS algorithms and data structures does excluding the practical programming bit... in English you read and write a lot, critical thinking... all of these are critical skills for jobs.
Yes and no. Best example I know:you can teach engineering as a very applied trade (basically, here's how to select a technique known to work and here is how to tune it), which is how they tend to do it at the Fachhochschulen, or you can teach it as "here's how previously we stole all the cool ideas from physics and maths and what new techniques we built, you'll hopefully be able to find out how to build on it", which is more common on universities.
Having worked with both, the difference is noticeable. The FH guys are actually usually much better engineers in "standard" problems, cleaner code etc, but if you have to drop down abstraction levels and make your own techniques, the university guys tend to fare better(already filtering out incompetent people). It's a different education, with different goals. One is more general and aims to deepen your general understanding, Hoping you'll be able to derive the techniques. The other focuses more on practical application that will get you a job now and hope you'll learn the deep understanding with time. But there is not as much connection between what is taught as one might think. Likewise, ask any professional trader what they think of academic finance.
My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding. Then everyone who just wants a job can avoid that, and we don't have to water down the curriculum
Having worked with both, the difference is noticeable. The FH guys are actually usually much better engineers in "standard" problems, cleaner code etc, but if you have to drop down abstraction levels and make your own techniques, the university guys tend to fare better(already filtering out incompetent people). It's a different education, with different goals. One is more general and aims to deepen your general understanding, Hoping you'll be able to derive the techniques. The other focuses more on practical application that will get you a job now and hope you'll learn the deep understanding with time. But there is not as much connection between what is taught as one might think. Likewise, ask any professional trader what they think of academic finance.
My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding. Then everyone who just wants a job can avoid that, and we don't have to water down the curriculum
Applied vs theoretical. Since the applied kind of knowledge won't stop pouring down on you as long as you stay part of the active workforce I honestly think that it would be an absolute shame to not "waste" the education years on theoreticals. It's quite literally the last chance in most persons' lifes.
I disagree. The practical knowledge rains down on you every working day. But for laying the foundation you need to take time off and do nothing but reading (didn't Knuth say something similar once). So better get that out of the way early.
Erm ... you're actually agreeing with what the post you're replying to says
Must finish mug of morning coffee before posting. Comprehension suffers badly otherwise.
[deleted]
> My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding.
If you'd ask me which knowledge I found useless as a student and which I find useless now, after several years of work experience, the answers would be pretty different. Not only because I changed but because the world changed. I think "useless" or useful knowledge is not the problem we should worry most - I think teaching education is where the distinction should be made.
In my opinion there should be research universities which teach knowledge from the cutting-edge of research (maybe at the expense of didactic quality). On the other hand there should be something (akin to the fictional FH you described) which focuses on training on the job with professors that are not only qualified in their field of expertise but also good teachers. I don't see the FH, or "University of Applied Sciences" like they tend to call themselves nowadays, to fulfill that role in any way, because the professors there are neither researchers nor teachers. (I have a degree from a FH and one from a regular German university, so I know both systems)
If you'd ask me which knowledge I found useless as a student and which I find useless now, after several years of work experience, the answers would be pretty different. Not only because I changed but because the world changed. I think "useless" or useful knowledge is not the problem we should worry most - I think teaching education is where the distinction should be made.
In my opinion there should be research universities which teach knowledge from the cutting-edge of research (maybe at the expense of didactic quality). On the other hand there should be something (akin to the fictional FH you described) which focuses on training on the job with professors that are not only qualified in their field of expertise but also good teachers. I don't see the FH, or "University of Applied Sciences" like they tend to call themselves nowadays, to fulfill that role in any way, because the professors there are neither researchers nor teachers. (I have a degree from a FH and one from a regular German university, so I know both systems)
Well academic research can be a very practical field too. You have to have some intellectual tools (mathematical reasoning, statistical reasoning), specific techniques, proofs etc.. which you apply to your problem domain. The most theoretical of which would be pure math or pure models of systems.
Innovation derives from working from basic principles and logical reasoning about a problem. Understanding the math is seen as important than just using it. You don't have to pursue pure math e.g. proofs but you should understand the usefulness and limitations of the mathematical tools you work with.
Those tools have utility in solving problems as we progress as a society. Otherwise you are in some sense operating blindly.
So education should be obtaining these intellectual tools to reason and think critically about things concerning humanity. Moreover one should seek a diversity of tools and ways of thinking. I feel like this is a huge driver of creativity.
For finance, the number one hedge fund was founded and run by a mathematician. Black-scholes, game theory... Signal processing... it's unfair to not get this exposure!
Innovation derives from working from basic principles and logical reasoning about a problem. Understanding the math is seen as important than just using it. You don't have to pursue pure math e.g. proofs but you should understand the usefulness and limitations of the mathematical tools you work with.
Those tools have utility in solving problems as we progress as a society. Otherwise you are in some sense operating blindly.
So education should be obtaining these intellectual tools to reason and think critically about things concerning humanity. Moreover one should seek a diversity of tools and ways of thinking. I feel like this is a huge driver of creativity.
For finance, the number one hedge fund was founded and run by a mathematician. Black-scholes, game theory... Signal processing... it's unfair to not get this exposure!
Great comment - I think a lot of people go to universities expecting vocational training and are deeply disappointed by all the "useless" stuff that is actually completely irrelevant for a lot of jobs.
Edit: I'm from the UK which is probably closer to the US system than the German one.
Edit: I'm from the UK which is probably closer to the US system than the German one.
Apart from stratification of students into tracks, America could also learn not to crush its students with debt.
A mandatory cap of tuition for universities receiving federal-debt funded students would be a reasonable way to harness the beast of tuition price inflation created by zealous federal financing of debt and questionable promises of benefits of "college", which seem to have very little to do with training and everything to do with signaling.
Colleges could then decide whether to accept students with federal debt by lowering tuition (and removing bloat) or not. Interested to hear ideas of pitfalls with this approach, and if they are worse than the situation of non-bankruptcy eligible mountains debt now.
A mandatory cap of tuition for universities receiving federal-debt funded students would be a reasonable way to harness the beast of tuition price inflation created by zealous federal financing of debt and questionable promises of benefits of "college", which seem to have very little to do with training and everything to do with signaling.
Colleges could then decide whether to accept students with federal debt by lowering tuition (and removing bloat) or not. Interested to hear ideas of pitfalls with this approach, and if they are worse than the situation of non-bankruptcy eligible mountains debt now.
I think stratification, or 'tracking; as it's called in the US I believe is one of the biggest failures of the German system.
From my experience in the US, high schools are about 4-5x the size of German schools. That allows for flexible curricular within one school, where you can get into the advanced Calculus class but take it easier with foreign languages, and, most important do sports etc, with everyone.
It really doesn't seem useful to sort people along a linear scale at 10 years of age, especially considering that empirically, the single most important factor for that decision is the parents' ambition.
The US' biggest flaw is quality differences between schools. I can't get my head around the idea that school finances heavily depend on the immediate neighbourhood they're serving. That's both morally bankrupt and severely shortsighted. The larger schools also double or triple the average commute, costing US students an hour per day, strengthening reliance on cars and making social life harder than it needs to be.
From my experience in the US, high schools are about 4-5x the size of German schools. That allows for flexible curricular within one school, where you can get into the advanced Calculus class but take it easier with foreign languages, and, most important do sports etc, with everyone.
It really doesn't seem useful to sort people along a linear scale at 10 years of age, especially considering that empirically, the single most important factor for that decision is the parents' ambition.
The US' biggest flaw is quality differences between schools. I can't get my head around the idea that school finances heavily depend on the immediate neighbourhood they're serving. That's both morally bankrupt and severely shortsighted. The larger schools also double or triple the average commute, costing US students an hour per day, strengthening reliance on cars and making social life harder than it needs to be.
I totally agree that stratification at age 10 is pretty terrible, but stratification in universities seems like a very different story.
At college age, people are much more capable of making their own decisions, and their actual capabilities and weaknesses have also become clearer and more stable. And it's not like going to a Fachhochschule is going to set someone up for a hard life as being assigned to a Hauptschule pretty much does.
At college age, people are much more capable of making their own decisions, and their actual capabilities and weaknesses have also become clearer and more stable. And it's not like going to a Fachhochschule is going to set someone up for a hard life as being assigned to a Hauptschule pretty much does.
It's not rare for college students to spend their first or even second year of college with an undecided major while they find what they're interested in. It happened to me (and I still managed to graduate on time).
In fact, that's what a lot of people like about college and it's why you see college described as a "place to experiment".
> their actual capabilities and weaknesses have also become clearer and more stable
Also not so sure about this. I've met MANY people who went in 99% sure of college major A but after a few classes and an internship they found out they suck at it/hate it.
In fact, that's what a lot of people like about college and it's why you see college described as a "place to experiment".
> their actual capabilities and weaknesses have also become clearer and more stable
Also not so sure about this. I've met MANY people who went in 99% sure of college major A but after a few classes and an internship they found out they suck at it/hate it.
Could you elaborate why you think stratification is a bad thing? I think at age 10 you can robustly determine whether or not a student has the abilities for serious academic work, and I believe it's best for the students to get an education that's appropriate for their talents/needs.
Besides, the system (as I experienced it in southern germany) is quite permeable, so even if the sorting is not perfect, students with the necessary academic ability have many paths to university.
At that age, brain still develops and relative ordering of children still change. The lowest performers are unlikely to become best, but the middle still changes significantly. Otherwise said, it is too soon to determine how good they will be as adults and what they will be good at.
Also, at that age, your ability to learn climbs very high just as function of age.
Also, at that age, your ability to learn climbs very high just as function of age.
> The lowest performers are unlikely to become best, but the middle still changes significantly.
As long as the middle gets sorted into the Realschule, there's no problem ;-) But more seriously, according to wikipedia[0] IQ is relatively stable beginning at an age of approx. 11 years, so if we compensate for the measurement error with a permeable system I only see two problems: As you mentioned, at this age the brain devolops so rapidly that being the oldest in the class gives students a measurable advantage, but that is an issue for any school system, and as I said in a neighboring comment, overly ambitions parents are meddling too much, but that is a relatively recent phenomenon and a problem unto itself.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Age
As long as the middle gets sorted into the Realschule, there's no problem ;-) But more seriously, according to wikipedia[0] IQ is relatively stable beginning at an age of approx. 11 years, so if we compensate for the measurement error with a permeable system I only see two problems: As you mentioned, at this age the brain devolops so rapidly that being the oldest in the class gives students a measurable advantage, but that is an issue for any school system, and as I said in a neighboring comment, overly ambitions parents are meddling too much, but that is a relatively recent phenomenon and a problem unto itself.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Age
Be very careful extrapolating from Wikipedia on IQ. The science is subtle and not at all as stable as the encyclopedia makes it sound. One of the reasons people in the field talk about this stuff so gingerly is the proclivity laypeople have for taking half-baked science and turning it into public policy.
I know the difficulties surrounding IQ, I was just quoting it to show that predictions about future ability can be made at that age.
... and my point was, probably no they cannot.
I quoted a source for my claim, imperfect though it may be. Can you support your assertion?
Your source was Wikipedia.
More to the point: you can't in one breath say "I know the difficulties surrounding IQ" and in the next say "any source I cite about IQ must represent settled science". One or the other of those statements must not be true.
More to the point: you can't in one breath say "I know the difficulties surrounding IQ" and in the next say "any source I cite about IQ must represent settled science". One or the other of those statements must not be true.
Would you kindly elaborate on what you perceive to be the subtleties about IQ? Besides the danger of mistakenly thinking an important factor is the only factor, which is of course a common problem.
About predictive qualities in childhood, take a look at [0], maybe this study is more to your liking. But anyway, this discussion is about the predictability of academic success in young children, so please provide a source for your claim that such predictions are infeasible.
[0] Deary, I. J., Whalley, L. J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J. R., & Starr, J. M. (2000). The stability of individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the 1932 Scottish mental survey. Intelligence, 28, 49 -55
[0] Deary, I. J., Whalley, L. J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J. R., & Starr, J. M. (2000). The stability of individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the 1932 Scottish mental survey. Intelligence, 28, 49 -55
German system does not measure IQ. They split children based on second, third and partly fourth grade grades.
There is a lot more then IQ that goes into grades. All of it happens before 10.
There is a lot more then IQ that goes into grades. All of it happens before 10.
I think I explained myself poorly. Of course the schools don't measure raw IQ, there are many factors like intrinsic motivation (problematic as a measure in young children) conscientousness (which is a relatively stable character trait) and of course parental pressure which distorts any measurement we can try to make. All I was trying to say that it is possible to judge the potential of the children with adequate accuracy.
Your claim the IQ does not change after 11 years old, even if true, is completely irrelevant then. It shows neither that it is good idea to split kids as 11 years old nor that you can say potential so soon.
I know people who were thought to be 'learning challenged' in elementary school who went onto MIT and do great things... so no I disagree you can ascertain that at age 10.
Well, as I said, the system is not perfect, which is why there are several paths for "late bloomers" to make it to university. I myself got sorted into Hauptschule, but after a year my grades improved and I switched to Realschule, got a diploma, went to a Fachgymnasium and enrolled in university.
Btw I agree with grandparents argument that the parents' ambition is often the determining factor (as it was in my case) but I would rather try to find a way to assess the students innate abilities more accurately than to simply mix all students together.
Fachhochschule gets a bad rep from snobs, but having worked with graduates, they often beat university grads in application fields. It's just a different focus
Having started out at a University and switched to a Fachhochschule (Bachelor CS for both) I can say that there weren't more practical things at the FH, but everything was simply way easier. Math was simpler (mostly because it was usually applied as opposed to proofs, so I guess math was indeed more practical) and the CS courses were way below what the university offered. So I'd say it's certainly understandable when people look down on FH (because it can easily be the case that it's subpar)
I agree. The point I was trying to make was that the choices between strata at the post-high school level are all quite good, unlike the choices that are presented at age 10.
>I totally agree that stratification at age 10 is pretty terrible, but stratification in universities seems like a very different story.
What would it add that the choice of university and major doesn't? The math kids at MIT aren't so different from each other.
What would it add that the choice of university and major doesn't? The math kids at MIT aren't so different from each other.
I guess you could achieve the same effect with different majors, but in our system for example you can study majors that carry the same name, eg mechanical engineering, with a more theoretical or applied focus depending on which type of university you go to.
Oftentimes it's a funding issue, but not always. Even in large metropolitan cities where each student pretty much receives the same amount of funding, there are still massive differences in the quality of education. Unfortunately the issue goes much deeper than funding and involves issues like the wealth of the surrounding neighborhood, the culture of the students and their parents in that neighborhood, etc. Even if two schools in the same city get about $10k/year for each student, if one school has a median family income of $100k and the other a median family income of $15k, there is going to be an absolutely massive difference in educational outcomes.
Something I noticed when I lived in non-assimilated[1] working class neighborhoods is that education just isn't that important. A lot of my neighbors graduated high school and started working for the family ASAP either in some sort of family business or a service job. Families stick together for generations so there's always someone to take care of the house and kids.
For most people I talked to, the idea of sending their son or daughter to college (even a local one) was a risk and rarely considered. If all they want is their kid to graduate high school, they're not going to have the same approach to education as the $100k family with the opposite thought (they HAVE to go to college).
[1] I made up this phrase to mean immigrant families who have been in the US for a few generations but have not assimilated to American middle class culture.
For most people I talked to, the idea of sending their son or daughter to college (even a local one) was a risk and rarely considered. If all they want is their kid to graduate high school, they're not going to have the same approach to education as the $100k family with the opposite thought (they HAVE to go to college).
[1] I made up this phrase to mean immigrant families who have been in the US for a few generations but have not assimilated to American middle class culture.
In fact it's pretty common for urban schools to spend significantly more than tony suburbs and have far worse outcomes. Student achievement depends a lot on home life and spending more on schools may help some but doesn't fundamentally change that fact.
[deleted]
Well besides limiting what universities could charge for specific courses we should also expect that some students would not qualify for aid unless they can demonstrate they can finish the program. there would still be private means to obtain the money to get the degree. we need to accept that higher education is not for all.
I have said before, I don't believe any college should receive government funding until it adheres to a price per course hour as determined by the government. Government enforces such price control over medical costs reimbursed by government aid, through limits of what companies can charge the government for products and services; as in not more than offered to best customer; and so on.
I have said before, I don't believe any college should receive government funding until it adheres to a price per course hour as determined by the government. Government enforces such price control over medical costs reimbursed by government aid, through limits of what companies can charge the government for products and services; as in not more than offered to best customer; and so on.
caps leads to shortages (no place to attend).
This is probably a good thing. Too many students waste time and money performing the surface-level ritual of college without any of the substance that the surface-level ritual is meant to support.
Spending four years in a cloister of like-minded folks, free from banal concerns like work and meal prep, is a framework built for a specific purpose. Going to class, reading books, writing papers, working problem sets, taking exams, etc. are concrete, observable, trivially emulated behaviors meant to support and facilitate that purpose, not the purpose itself: absorbing, grappling with, and applying ideas.
An enormous segment of existing seats in undergrad - entire institutions - are built around cargo-culting actual higher education through trivial busywork, graded to low standards. These seats are the worst offenders in the student debt problem: students are allowed to waste years of their lives, and all the money they can borrow, on performing a ritual that everyone else knows is hollow. We need to be aggressively closing party schools, not adding more of them.
Another enormous segment of seats in freshman classes (at institutions with relaxed admissions but reasonable grading, like most state flagships) goes to people who will not graduate within six years. In some states, this is over half the college-bound population. These are a similar waste of time and money, and their occupants will not even have a fancy piece of paper to show for the time they spent filling these seats. We don't need more slots in state colleges, we need close to a 50% reduction.
There are few people with the mental horsepower for the intellectual work that college is really about. Fewer still with the desire and determination to put in the work on a sustained basis. This population already fits comfortably into existing elite schools and the better departments of existing average schools. It's crucial to find every single one of these kids and get them to an institution where they will be challenged and thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances. It's crucial to make sure their rightful slots are not taken up by the mediocre children of the well-connected, though the upper middle class will have earned a disproportionate share through cultural practices and beliefs. But trying to get more people from outside this population perform the ritual college is a fool's errand.
Expanding the population of students who can legitimately attack higher education by increasing the rigor and effectiveness of K12 is, on the other hand, a great idea.
Spending four years in a cloister of like-minded folks, free from banal concerns like work and meal prep, is a framework built for a specific purpose. Going to class, reading books, writing papers, working problem sets, taking exams, etc. are concrete, observable, trivially emulated behaviors meant to support and facilitate that purpose, not the purpose itself: absorbing, grappling with, and applying ideas.
An enormous segment of existing seats in undergrad - entire institutions - are built around cargo-culting actual higher education through trivial busywork, graded to low standards. These seats are the worst offenders in the student debt problem: students are allowed to waste years of their lives, and all the money they can borrow, on performing a ritual that everyone else knows is hollow. We need to be aggressively closing party schools, not adding more of them.
Another enormous segment of seats in freshman classes (at institutions with relaxed admissions but reasonable grading, like most state flagships) goes to people who will not graduate within six years. In some states, this is over half the college-bound population. These are a similar waste of time and money, and their occupants will not even have a fancy piece of paper to show for the time they spent filling these seats. We don't need more slots in state colleges, we need close to a 50% reduction.
There are few people with the mental horsepower for the intellectual work that college is really about. Fewer still with the desire and determination to put in the work on a sustained basis. This population already fits comfortably into existing elite schools and the better departments of existing average schools. It's crucial to find every single one of these kids and get them to an institution where they will be challenged and thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic circumstances. It's crucial to make sure their rightful slots are not taken up by the mediocre children of the well-connected, though the upper middle class will have earned a disproportionate share through cultural practices and beliefs. But trying to get more people from outside this population perform the ritual college is a fool's errand.
Expanding the population of students who can legitimately attack higher education by increasing the rigor and effectiveness of K12 is, on the other hand, a great idea.
Then build more universities?
Should be noted that this is only one segment of german job education. There are of course also classical university courses without much or any contact to real job experience.
Also, what they describe is less the University route than the non-university route, being educated by and in the business. Germany has also universities that cooperate with business, but that's not the norm. The classical division is between universities (Studium) and education at the job (Ausbildung). Not sure how universities could learn from the latter, as it is an alternative to them.
Also, what they describe is less the University route than the non-university route, being educated by and in the business. Germany has also universities that cooperate with business, but that's not the norm. The classical division is between universities (Studium) and education at the job (Ausbildung). Not sure how universities could learn from the latter, as it is an alternative to them.
Probably o/t for the article:
My own experience is very dated, but in the late 80's and early 90's I attended public university in both countries.
Back then it really struck me how infantilized the student experience in the US was; but also how much more we actually worked, because a little arbitrary structure is pretty helpful for manic 19-year-olds.
For the self-motivated, academically serious student it was a kind of paradise with slightly shabby institutions, some of them very very old. Most professors, even the famous ones, were accessible, but in lieue of "homework" you were expected to keep up on the reading, for which at best you got a list of books (at worst: go figure it out). Nobody seemed to care at all about grades.
Even then, when public universities in the US were cheap, it was remarkable how much cheaper studying in Germany was, from the minimal fees to the ubiquitous subsidies. Student housing in California was a racket - the dorm cost way more than a shared apartment - but in Germany it was so laughably cheap you never really minded the bad parts. We even had a semi-official student bar with 1DM (50c) beers.
I think partly because of the freedom, partly because of the low cost, and partly because working-class kids mostly didn't go to university, there was basically no attention paid to the need to one day make a living. I didn't stay long enough to find out if that was a good or a bad thing; I did my best to avoid that question in the US anyway, and paid the usual price for it.
My own experience is very dated, but in the late 80's and early 90's I attended public university in both countries.
Back then it really struck me how infantilized the student experience in the US was; but also how much more we actually worked, because a little arbitrary structure is pretty helpful for manic 19-year-olds.
For the self-motivated, academically serious student it was a kind of paradise with slightly shabby institutions, some of them very very old. Most professors, even the famous ones, were accessible, but in lieue of "homework" you were expected to keep up on the reading, for which at best you got a list of books (at worst: go figure it out). Nobody seemed to care at all about grades.
Even then, when public universities in the US were cheap, it was remarkable how much cheaper studying in Germany was, from the minimal fees to the ubiquitous subsidies. Student housing in California was a racket - the dorm cost way more than a shared apartment - but in Germany it was so laughably cheap you never really minded the bad parts. We even had a semi-official student bar with 1DM (50c) beers.
I think partly because of the freedom, partly because of the low cost, and partly because working-class kids mostly didn't go to university, there was basically no attention paid to the need to one day make a living. I didn't stay long enough to find out if that was a good or a bad thing; I did my best to avoid that question in the US anyway, and paid the usual price for it.
please don't.
I live in germany and our academic system is flawed to the extreme.
Even the dual systeme.
I mean common our universities and schools has a worse system than america (and a lot of other countries). The dual system should've bridged school and labor skills, however it does not work that good. Especially not in IT. The problem a lot of kids come from different schools, some have higher educations some not. so the school tries to learn a lot of things which they should've teached in schools already, while they train you not a lot of practical things in school. Also a lot of practical things you learn in the school are mostly already learned since the school progresses way too slow.
As already said I think the problem starts already in the kindergarten/early school. And then progresses in middle schools.
in germany you basically get thrown to life either after your school years or after your university/higher schools. You always start with nearly no experience, even after you did apprenticeship in dual system you are not prepared for your life.
worse is even if you did something in west germany it could be slightly different in other parts of germany, so switching schools can be really really hard.
our system basically enforces "lax-iness" until a certain point in life and than you either get it or you get lost in the system. and it get's worse due to our polictics that loosens more and more rules
I mean common our universities and schools has a worse system than america (and a lot of other countries). The dual system should've bridged school and labor skills, however it does not work that good. Especially not in IT. The problem a lot of kids come from different schools, some have higher educations some not. so the school tries to learn a lot of things which they should've teached in schools already, while they train you not a lot of practical things in school. Also a lot of practical things you learn in the school are mostly already learned since the school progresses way too slow.
As already said I think the problem starts already in the kindergarten/early school. And then progresses in middle schools.
in germany you basically get thrown to life either after your school years or after your university/higher schools. You always start with nearly no experience, even after you did apprenticeship in dual system you are not prepared for your life.
worse is even if you did something in west germany it could be slightly different in other parts of germany, so switching schools can be really really hard.
our system basically enforces "lax-iness" until a certain point in life and than you either get it or you get lost in the system. and it get's worse due to our polictics that loosens more and more rules
As a German I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to counter some specific points but I am having trouble even parsing what you are saying.
One point is that you complain about the laxness of the system, and then say that people leave the system unprepared for real life. I would argue that forcing you to take responsibility for yourself is part of this laxness, and at the same time an essential preparation for participating in life after university?
One point is that you complain about the laxness of the system, and then say that people leave the system unprepared for real life. I would argue that forcing you to take responsibility for yourself is part of this laxness, and at the same time an essential preparation for participating in life after university?
> our academic system is flawed to the extreme. Even the dual systeme.
Yes its flawed but not to the extreme like you suggest. One of the biggest problems we have, and this I think is common to almost all countries, is that there is very little emphasis on applied knowledge and much more on theoretical knowledge. The duale Studium is a better way to attack the problem than anything else currently out there IMHO.
Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.
There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study. Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.
Yes its flawed but not to the extreme like you suggest. One of the biggest problems we have, and this I think is common to almost all countries, is that there is very little emphasis on applied knowledge and much more on theoretical knowledge. The duale Studium is a better way to attack the problem than anything else currently out there IMHO.
Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.
There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study. Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.
>Yes its flawed but not to the extreme like you suggest. One of the biggest problems we have, and this I think is common to almost all countries, is that there is very little emphasis on applied knowledge and much more on theoretical knowledge. The duale Studium is a better way to attack the problem than anything else currently out there IMHO.
As I've argued in a differnet post, the problem isn't too little theoretical knowledge, it's that uni is just seen as "the highest" and people who just want practical knowledge go to a place which is supposed to give you deep insight into the theories and research in your field because it gives the status qualification.
>Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.
This follows from my point above. We mix "I just want a job students" with "give me moar theory" students and the profs who (anecdotally) love dealing with the second type (explaining things to interested newbs is stimulating for insight) have to dumb down things enough so the job hunters can get their employer mandated checkmark
>There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study.
That I actually have to disagree with...I know loads of CS and EE majors in economics, the reverse less but also. Especially at the PhD level, as long as you did something relevant, you can get in.
> Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.
This is indeed a problem, but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time. So there is change
As I've argued in a differnet post, the problem isn't too little theoretical knowledge, it's that uni is just seen as "the highest" and people who just want practical knowledge go to a place which is supposed to give you deep insight into the theories and research in your field because it gives the status qualification.
>Another problem we have is that motivations are flawed for our Professors. Many Professors want to conduct research and don't care about teaching the material, on the other hand you have some Professors that don't want to research and would just enjoy teaching the material, yet everyone is incentivized to conduct research because its the only way to progress. I think this is fundamentally wrong. Its bad for the students and bad for the professors. If a professor just wants to teach he/she should be allowed to focus on that area and be judged by how well his students can actually apply the learning they acquired in the course. If a professor wants to research he should be judged by his research.
This follows from my point above. We mix "I just want a job students" with "give me moar theory" students and the profs who (anecdotally) love dealing with the second type (explaining things to interested newbs is stimulating for insight) have to dumb down things enough so the job hunters can get their employer mandated checkmark
>There are so many other problem areas as well, for instance, I think we should allow much more mobility between disciplines than is currently the case. I've studied computer science and although I'm quite familiar with computational finance I would probably not be allowed to get a Phd in Finance since I've never taken business/economics courses. Although if you tested me on any number of financial subjects I wouldn't have a problem describing how to model/analyze/forecast the data. So there are a lot of arbitrary hoops that keep people down and force you to not to change you field of study.
That I actually have to disagree with...I know loads of CS and EE majors in economics, the reverse less but also. Especially at the PhD level, as long as you did something relevant, you can get in.
> Its also very difficult for older people mid career to get a degree and increase their personal capital that way. These again are just some problems that we need to address but "flawed in the extreme" - I tend to disagree on that one.
This is indeed a problem, but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time. So there is change
> As I've argued in a differnet post, the problem isn't too little theoretical knowledge, it's that uni is just seen as "the highest" and people who just want practical knowledge go to a place which is supposed to give you deep insight into the theories and research in your field because it gives the status qualification.
People who went to a school not matching their needs and desires have no right to blame their bad choice on the school or on "the system", when better matching schools where perfectly available. If someone takes a course they hate for "status" the problem is entirely in their head, because that's where perceptions of status reside. And besides, switching is possible and does happen (even on the pre-academic age level, but it is much more difficult and rare there)
> but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time.
This is a great idea (even if the "25%,twice" ratio puzzles me a bit), it basically formalizes what "perpetual students" had been doing for decades, if not for generations, before the "rush the kids to a degree" reforms. People who only take a small number of courses and even less exams each year won't have consumed more university resources when they get their degree at some unforeseeable time in the future than people who rush through.
People who went to a school not matching their needs and desires have no right to blame their bad choice on the school or on "the system", when better matching schools where perfectly available. If someone takes a course they hate for "status" the problem is entirely in their head, because that's where perceptions of status reside. And besides, switching is possible and does happen (even on the pre-academic age level, but it is much more difficult and rare there)
> but for example my alma mater has started offering part time degrees, with 25% of the workload required per semester and twice the allowed maxmimum study time.
This is a great idea (even if the "25%,twice" ratio puzzles me a bit), it basically formalizes what "perpetual students" had been doing for decades, if not for generations, before the "rush the kids to a degree" reforms. People who only take a small number of courses and even less exams each year won't have consumed more university resources when they get their degree at some unforeseeable time in the future than people who rush through.
The 25 % is the minimum required per semester, but you have double as long to finish. I.e., if during one semester you need to wind it down from the normal 50% due to life, it's still ok, and you can make it up next semester
Actually, the whole concept of a per semester minimum is foreign to me. Back in the old days, a few mandatory checkpoints were expected to be reached within reasonable time, but how you got there was entirely up to you.
Very liberal, but everybody I know who went through that system recognizes as familiar the occasional nightmares about university administration suddenly asking for some minor certificate one chose to indefinitely put off years ago. It's part of who I am, I would totally do it again.
Very liberal, but everybody I know who went through that system recognizes as familiar the occasional nightmares about university administration suddenly asking for some minor certificate one chose to indefinitely put off years ago. It's part of who I am, I would totally do it again.
Seconding the other guy, what are you talking about? The only part I'd agree with is the "laxness" that is seeping in, but that is more because we are following our US brethren in dumbing things down so "no child will be left behind", while still sticking to a 9-13 year schedule in education - even though knowledge and complexity has increased A LOT since those times were set. Heck, we even tried shortening it to 12 years for gymnasium because the industry chamber wanted "more workers" and then noticed the kids are completely overloaded
> and then noticed the kids are completely overloaded
eh? of course they are overloaded. most schools have still nearly no school at the noon. school in germany is from ca. ~8-~13 on two days you also have 2 days at noon. sometimes even 3 days, but not that many hours, you NEVER actually have something like 8 hours. of course sticking more and more (the humanity learned more over the years and history is growing) into a max of 25 hours per week is challenging.
also I know the "need more workers" problem. my company needs more people, but it's hard to find one. especially trained ones. yeah we can raise one, however even after the "ausbildung" our trainee will not be as productive as he could be. a lot of that comes from the schools you maybe get said that you need to do things, but kids these days don't care, their school life is so extremly peaceful (and a lot of them don't like it, anyway). I was a "rebel", in these years, too. but I learned my lessons that if I raise my ass that I can make more money and be happier at the end and that I don't want to be a work puppy. but a lot of people here don't realise that in school and they never will, cause our system is extremly flawed. even in sports, we don't get prepared for the real life. we get prepared for the tests in our school life.
eh? of course they are overloaded. most schools have still nearly no school at the noon. school in germany is from ca. ~8-~13 on two days you also have 2 days at noon. sometimes even 3 days, but not that many hours, you NEVER actually have something like 8 hours. of course sticking more and more (the humanity learned more over the years and history is growing) into a max of 25 hours per week is challenging.
also I know the "need more workers" problem. my company needs more people, but it's hard to find one. especially trained ones. yeah we can raise one, however even after the "ausbildung" our trainee will not be as productive as he could be. a lot of that comes from the schools you maybe get said that you need to do things, but kids these days don't care, their school life is so extremly peaceful (and a lot of them don't like it, anyway). I was a "rebel", in these years, too. but I learned my lessons that if I raise my ass that I can make more money and be happier at the end and that I don't want to be a work puppy. but a lot of people here don't realise that in school and they never will, cause our system is extremly flawed. even in sports, we don't get prepared for the real life. we get prepared for the tests in our school life.
They are simultaneously overloaded and their school life is also too peaceful? And somehow longer school day for 10 years old would make them less overloaded? I am also not sure why would you expect the sport to prepare kid for the workplace life.
It's actually the opposite of what you describe. The company I currently work for participates in the Duales Studium. I've seen very good projects the students did for the company, while they interacted with the usual software development teams. After the study they exactly knew what they had to expect working full time and they moved into the teams without any effort. Additionally there is a lot of respect for the students, because they demonstrated cool stuff early on.
[deleted]
Pretty rich to use Drexel and Northeastern, two private colleges with a cost of attendance approaching $70,000 per year, as any sort of model.
This article is total bullshit and so is the "dual education" model.
"Duale Ausbildung" has nothing to do with universities, if you go that route you spend up to four years working at (on average) well below 1000€ while attending a government school that teaches at a rather low level. The government has to subsidize the income of those people and the employer, in some cases.
https://www.azubiyo.de/gehalt/
Worse, if you don't buy into the "dual education" thing, you can't get most of these jobs. We're not talking about great jobs either, it's most jobs that don't require university education. A lot of that is stuff you could be trained for on-the-job in six months or less.
Don't trust German unemployment statistics, it's basically the government paying at every end to have people employed at all costs and often at very low pay.
Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university. We have parents suing the teachers of ten-year-olds for the grades they give, because of the impact it can have on their careers.
http://www.focus.de/familie/rechte/das-kind-aufs-gymnasium-k...
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/hard-look-disc...
"Duale Ausbildung" has nothing to do with universities, if you go that route you spend up to four years working at (on average) well below 1000€ while attending a government school that teaches at a rather low level. The government has to subsidize the income of those people and the employer, in some cases.
https://www.azubiyo.de/gehalt/
Worse, if you don't buy into the "dual education" thing, you can't get most of these jobs. We're not talking about great jobs either, it's most jobs that don't require university education. A lot of that is stuff you could be trained for on-the-job in six months or less.
Don't trust German unemployment statistics, it's basically the government paying at every end to have people employed at all costs and often at very low pay.
Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university. We have parents suing the teachers of ten-year-olds for the grades they give, because of the impact it can have on their careers.
http://www.focus.de/familie/rechte/das-kind-aufs-gymnasium-k...
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/hard-look-disc...
> We're not talking about great jobs either, it's most jobs that don't require university education. A lot of that is stuff you could be trained for on-the-job in six months or less.
Have you actually learned a real craft, in germany, or looked at it's curriculum? Because they learn a lot more than could be thought in 6 weeks. You could argue that they won't need it for the things their employer needs them to do when they work, but they learn it anyway. If they switch jobs later they won't need that much training.
Example: If you learn as an Electrician for Energy and Houses at a big construction company, the only thing you might do is chopping cable canals and maybe wiring wall sockets. Both could be learned in 6 Weeks, no question.
But at the Berufsschule you still learn all the other stuff, for an example how to wire electrical Garage doors. If you later decide to switch Jobs, you'll be prepared.
> Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university.
Being a teacher at the very bottom of the german school system, the school formerly known as Sonderschule I 100% agree.
Have you actually learned a real craft, in germany, or looked at it's curriculum? Because they learn a lot more than could be thought in 6 weeks. You could argue that they won't need it for the things their employer needs them to do when they work, but they learn it anyway. If they switch jobs later they won't need that much training.
Example: If you learn as an Electrician for Energy and Houses at a big construction company, the only thing you might do is chopping cable canals and maybe wiring wall sockets. Both could be learned in 6 Weeks, no question.
But at the Berufsschule you still learn all the other stuff, for an example how to wire electrical Garage doors. If you later decide to switch Jobs, you'll be prepared.
> Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university.
Being a teacher at the very bottom of the german school system, the school formerly known as Sonderschule I 100% agree.
> Have you actually learned a real craft, in germany, or looked at it's curriculum? Because they learn a lot more than could be thought in 6 weeks. You could argue that they won't need it for the things their employer needs them to do when they work, but they learn it anyway. If they switch jobs later they won't need that much training.
Yes, they learn a lot of stuff they won't need for the actual job they will perform. If they switch jobs, they probably won't need it either, unless it's a very related job. For instance, if they become a painter, they learn all kinds of painting techniques that they will never apply. That's all fine and dandy, except if they just want to work painting houses, why they have to spend three years as an apprentice?
> But at the Berufsschule you still learn all the other stuff, for an example how to wire electrical Garage doors. If you later decide to switch Jobs, you'll be prepared.
If you already knew the one thing, chances are you could've quickly learned the other thing as well. Otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it
Yes, they learn a lot of stuff they won't need for the actual job they will perform. If they switch jobs, they probably won't need it either, unless it's a very related job. For instance, if they become a painter, they learn all kinds of painting techniques that they will never apply. That's all fine and dandy, except if they just want to work painting houses, why they have to spend three years as an apprentice?
> But at the Berufsschule you still learn all the other stuff, for an example how to wire electrical Garage doors. If you later decide to switch Jobs, you'll be prepared.
If you already knew the one thing, chances are you could've quickly learned the other thing as well. Otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it
> why they have to spend three years as an apprentice?
Have you actually looked at a curricula? A lot of it is repetition from school stuff. Sure the Electricians in my example learned in 7th class how to transform Volt to mV or kV. But they often can't reproduce this when they start their apprenticeship (imo the schools are to blame here).
If apprentices don't have problems with that Kind of Math, can write readable reports they generally get a Lehrzeitverkürzung up to 1.5 Years.
Source: I actually read curricula of Apprenticeships, talk with colleagues who work in the Berufsschule if my pupils might have a shot at a apprenticeship (they never do)
Besides that we have longer apprenticeships 1) so that the "german workforce" is more skilled in general. 2) so that if they choose to become Meister to be their own boss they don't need to learn all the extra stuff.
> If you already knew the one thing, chances are you could've quickly learned the other thing as well.
That does certainly apply to abstract things but it doesn't apply well to craftsmanship. To quote RMS: A if-construct does not generate friction against the for loop. But if you bend the cables in the wrong radius, 20 years later when the plastic of the wire-insulation starts degenerating, you might run into problems.
> YAGNI comparing humans to programs? i like to live in a world with skilled human beings that can realize at least some of their potential. an extended apprenticeship might help some to do that.
Have you actually looked at a curricula? A lot of it is repetition from school stuff. Sure the Electricians in my example learned in 7th class how to transform Volt to mV or kV. But they often can't reproduce this when they start their apprenticeship (imo the schools are to blame here).
If apprentices don't have problems with that Kind of Math, can write readable reports they generally get a Lehrzeitverkürzung up to 1.5 Years.
Source: I actually read curricula of Apprenticeships, talk with colleagues who work in the Berufsschule if my pupils might have a shot at a apprenticeship (they never do)
Besides that we have longer apprenticeships 1) so that the "german workforce" is more skilled in general. 2) so that if they choose to become Meister to be their own boss they don't need to learn all the extra stuff.
> If you already knew the one thing, chances are you could've quickly learned the other thing as well.
That does certainly apply to abstract things but it doesn't apply well to craftsmanship. To quote RMS: A if-construct does not generate friction against the for loop. But if you bend the cables in the wrong radius, 20 years later when the plastic of the wire-insulation starts degenerating, you might run into problems.
> YAGNI comparing humans to programs? i like to live in a world with skilled human beings that can realize at least some of their potential. an extended apprenticeship might help some to do that.
Getting that extra education may make more sense for trades like electricians, it makes zero sense for salespeople or cooks or house painters or hair stylists and yet all these people are forced into three years of underpaid labor and crappy government schooling.
Even if the German system was better (which it isn't), it makes you wonder how all the other countries in the world are going by without it. German workers are relatively underpaid even after going through the rites, that's what makes us competitive - not the fact that our workers have more skills than they need.
> so that if they choose to become Meister to be their own boss they don't need to learn all the extra stuff
That makes no sense. Most never become a "Meister", but even those that do could learn that stuff when and if they need it.
Even if the German system was better (which it isn't), it makes you wonder how all the other countries in the world are going by without it. German workers are relatively underpaid even after going through the rites, that's what makes us competitive - not the fact that our workers have more skills than they need.
> so that if they choose to become Meister to be their own boss they don't need to learn all the extra stuff
That makes no sense. Most never become a "Meister", but even those that do could learn that stuff when and if they need it.
> This article is total bullshit and so is the "dual education" model.
This article is about the american system, and compared to taking on student debt, earning an apprentices' salary is an improvement.
>A lot of that is stuff you could be trained for on-the-job in six months or less.
Well, german workmanship has a good reputation internationally, so I would be careful to meddle with a system that produces adequate results.
> Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university. We have parents suing the teachers of ten-year-olds for the grades they give, because of the impact it can have on their careers.
"One of the most discriminatory systems in the world"? really? Education is free including university, low-income families can get tutors for their children paid for by the Arbeitsamt. About "weeding out people": Not everybody has the ability to study at a university, so to prevent people from wasting years of their life and paying the opportunity cost that goes with it, it is best to give those people a clear signal which career paths are open to them and which are not. The parents suing the schools in the link you provided are doing their children a disservice. If you force a child onto a school type above its level of competence, the child will suffer. Being the worst in class is not exactly good for the developing psyche, having no free time because the child needs to study and visit tutors simply to survive academically also takes its toll. And to what end? To start an apprenticeship with abitur? To study at university for a couple of years until you fail to many exams to continue?
This article is about the american system, and compared to taking on student debt, earning an apprentices' salary is an improvement.
>A lot of that is stuff you could be trained for on-the-job in six months or less.
Well, german workmanship has a good reputation internationally, so I would be careful to meddle with a system that produces adequate results.
> Also, don't buy into the German educational model, it's one of the most discriminatory systems in the world, even though it is "free" on paper, it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university. We have parents suing the teachers of ten-year-olds for the grades they give, because of the impact it can have on their careers.
"One of the most discriminatory systems in the world"? really? Education is free including university, low-income families can get tutors for their children paid for by the Arbeitsamt. About "weeding out people": Not everybody has the ability to study at a university, so to prevent people from wasting years of their life and paying the opportunity cost that goes with it, it is best to give those people a clear signal which career paths are open to them and which are not. The parents suing the schools in the link you provided are doing their children a disservice. If you force a child onto a school type above its level of competence, the child will suffer. Being the worst in class is not exactly good for the developing psyche, having no free time because the child needs to study and visit tutors simply to survive academically also takes its toll. And to what end? To start an apprenticeship with abitur? To study at university for a couple of years until you fail to many exams to continue?
Does not seem that you know much about German education.
Duales Studium is the equivalent dual track education for University education. The company I work for participates since several years and they are very happy to do so.
Duales Studium is the equivalent dual track education for University education. The company I work for participates since several years and they are very happy to do so.
I probably know more than you, or at least I have better reading comprehension:
"By contrast, countries like Germany pursue a “dual educational” model that blends classroom education with on-the-job training through apprenticeships, equipping young people not bound for university with practical labor-market skills. From the beginning of the journey from school to work, dual-system participants establish close relationships with employers. Companies sign contracts with young people (typically around age 15 or 16) and provide them an hourly wage just below that of an entry-level worker. On-the-job training typically comprises two-thirds of the curriculum in the dual system."
This is clearly referring to "Duale Ausbildung", not "Duales Studium". The vast majority of people that study at university ("Studium") never do "Duales Studium", that's more of a novelty.
"By contrast, countries like Germany pursue a “dual educational” model that blends classroom education with on-the-job training through apprenticeships, equipping young people not bound for university with practical labor-market skills. From the beginning of the journey from school to work, dual-system participants establish close relationships with employers. Companies sign contracts with young people (typically around age 15 or 16) and provide them an hourly wage just below that of an entry-level worker. On-the-job training typically comprises two-thirds of the curriculum in the dual system."
This is clearly referring to "Duale Ausbildung", not "Duales Studium". The vast majority of people that study at university ("Studium") never do "Duales Studium", that's more of a novelty.
Dual education in Germany is not only about apprenticeships. Your knowledge seems to be even more limited than the author's.
There are several dual education tracks, some advanced ones exist since the 70s. Clearly not a novelty. It's also not about the 'majority' of people, since the German education system is diverse and does provide various alternatives to the usual/classical University education.
There are even many dual education offerings which integrate Ausbildung and Studium.
I personally hired people who were from dual track education in software development a decade ago.
There are several dual education tracks, some advanced ones exist since the 70s. Clearly not a novelty. It's also not about the 'majority' of people, since the German education system is diverse and does provide various alternatives to the usual/classical University education.
There are even many dual education offerings which integrate Ausbildung and Studium.
I personally hired people who were from dual track education in software development a decade ago.
You're moving the goalpost.
The article is referring to "Duale Ausbildung", which works as I described and has nothing to do with university education.
"Duales Studium" in the modern sense is a novelty, clocking in at less than 4% in 2014 (but growing). http://www.zeit.de/2014/20/duales-studium
The article does talk about the majority, that's the whole point. "Duale Ausbildung" and regular "Hochschule/Fachhochschule" are the core of the German system. Whatever else there is isn't really relevant to the debate.
The article is referring to "Duale Ausbildung", which works as I described and has nothing to do with university education.
"Duales Studium" in the modern sense is a novelty, clocking in at less than 4% in 2014 (but growing). http://www.zeit.de/2014/20/duales-studium
The article does talk about the majority, that's the whole point. "Duale Ausbildung" and regular "Hochschule/Fachhochschule" are the core of the German system. Whatever else there is isn't really relevant to the debate.
Check your top comment.
Duales Studium is hardly a novelty. As I said it's actually from the 70s.
What is relevant to the debate? Relevant is that the Dual Education model im Germany is diverse and offers different tracks for advanced degrees. The Ausbildung is not the end of education, but for many it is the entry into further adavnced education offerings.
Let's look at your original claims:
* the dual education is bullshit
Says it all.
* Duale Ausbildung" has nothing to do with universities
In reality the Ausblidung enables further education offerings.
* Worse, if you don't buy into the "dual education" thing, you can't get most of these jobs.
Ensures that people actually know something about their jobs, beyond training on the job.
* Don't trust German unemployment statistics
A rather useless recommendation.
* it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university.
That's wrong. The dual education model addresses people who want a more practical education. Making a choice does not mean 'weeding out'. The education model allows people later to move on to more advanced education tracks and many do.
So your arguments were mostly unfounded and failed to see the dual education system in the broader context.
Duales Studium is hardly a novelty. As I said it's actually from the 70s.
What is relevant to the debate? Relevant is that the Dual Education model im Germany is diverse and offers different tracks for advanced degrees. The Ausbildung is not the end of education, but for many it is the entry into further adavnced education offerings.
Let's look at your original claims:
* the dual education is bullshit
Says it all.
* Duale Ausbildung" has nothing to do with universities
In reality the Ausblidung enables further education offerings.
* Worse, if you don't buy into the "dual education" thing, you can't get most of these jobs.
Ensures that people actually know something about their jobs, beyond training on the job.
* Don't trust German unemployment statistics
A rather useless recommendation.
* it's all about weeding out people at a young age so they're not allowed to attend the "free" university.
That's wrong. The dual education model addresses people who want a more practical education. Making a choice does not mean 'weeding out'. The education model allows people later to move on to more advanced education tracks and many do.
So your arguments were mostly unfounded and failed to see the dual education system in the broader context.
> Duales Studium is hardly a novelty. As I said it's actually from the 60s.
The modern concept "Duales Studium" is both a novelty and a fringe. If you want to keep arguing semantics, I don't care.
> In reality the Ausblidung enables further education offerings.
Did I claim otherwise? To put in other words: Unless you have an "Ausbildung" or an "(Fach)Abitur" you are barred from further education.
> Ensures that people actually know something about their jobs, beyond training on the job.
It enforces that people know things they don't need to know. It prevents people willing to work but unwilling to spend three years as an underpaid apprentice from taking part in the market. A 25% drop-out rate for "Berufsausbildung" speaks for itself.
Out of cursiosity: Did you ever actually do a "Berufsausbildung"? University graduates are entering the market as full employees with zero actual work experience. What gives?
> A rather useless recommendation.
No, it's crucial. If you correlate low youth unemployment with the education system, you had better corrected for factors like government programs to "hide" it.
> That's wrong. The dual education model addresses people who want a more practical education. Making a choice does not mean 'weeding out'. The education model allows people later to move on to more advanced education tracks and many do.
The facts are that (in many states) it is decided which child gets to do an "Abitur" (requirement for university attendance) when the children are as young as 10. From that point on, it becomes more and more difficult (albeit not impossible). This isn't particular to "Duale Ausbildung", in fact nowadays if you want an "Ausbildung" in one of the better jobs, you had better done an "Abitur" as well.
The modern concept "Duales Studium" is both a novelty and a fringe. If you want to keep arguing semantics, I don't care.
> In reality the Ausblidung enables further education offerings.
Did I claim otherwise? To put in other words: Unless you have an "Ausbildung" or an "(Fach)Abitur" you are barred from further education.
> Ensures that people actually know something about their jobs, beyond training on the job.
It enforces that people know things they don't need to know. It prevents people willing to work but unwilling to spend three years as an underpaid apprentice from taking part in the market. A 25% drop-out rate for "Berufsausbildung" speaks for itself.
Out of cursiosity: Did you ever actually do a "Berufsausbildung"? University graduates are entering the market as full employees with zero actual work experience. What gives?
> A rather useless recommendation.
No, it's crucial. If you correlate low youth unemployment with the education system, you had better corrected for factors like government programs to "hide" it.
> That's wrong. The dual education model addresses people who want a more practical education. Making a choice does not mean 'weeding out'. The education model allows people later to move on to more advanced education tracks and many do.
The facts are that (in many states) it is decided which child gets to do an "Abitur" (requirement for university attendance) when the children are as young as 10. From that point on, it becomes more and more difficult (albeit not impossible). This isn't particular to "Duale Ausbildung", in fact nowadays if you want an "Ausbildung" in one of the better jobs, you had better done an "Abitur" as well.
The author of the article clearly tried to translate the term "Duale (Berufs-)Ausbildung" which exclusively refers to the apprenticeship system. There are other types of job training but they use different terms. The article in no place claims that there are no other systems but highlights one of them. There is no doubt that this is (generally speaking) the most important alternative to a university education. All the other things are usually only mentioned as footnotes, including official reports.
The Ausbildung is often just an entry point to further education. For example there is something like integrated Ausbildung and university study. After a shortened Ausbildung an University education follows. Don't have actual numbers, But some 70000+ should be in this education track.
It's kind of misleading to think that the Ausbildung is just there on its own and a dead end.. With an Ausbildung one then makes a Meister, Fachwirt or Techniker. Which then may allow them to go to a University.
It's kind of misleading to think that the Ausbildung is just there on its own and a dead end.. With an Ausbildung one then makes a Meister, Fachwirt or Techniker. Which then may allow them to go to a University.
Ok, and where does the article claim that it is a dead end (or even just suggests that)? It gives a brief overview of the most important features and nothing more. It seems like you are debating against yourself here.
(Just out of personal interest: What is this "first shortened Ausbildung then university education" with 70k+ people in it called?)
(Just out of personal interest: What is this "first shortened Ausbildung then university education" with 70k+ people in it called?)
The point is to understand the context of the Ausbildung. The son of a friend just finished his Ausbildung and now he makes his Meister. This is quite common. The Meister then enables him to go to University without Abitur.
The integrated dual Ausbildung/Studium:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbildungsintegrierter_dualer...
The number 40000 mentioned there is from 2007. Since then offerings have been expanded and made more attractive.
Example:
http://mein-duales-studium.de/fuer-schueler/information/was-...
> An der Westfälischen Hochschule kombinieren dual Studierende ein Studium mit einer Berufsausbildung oder beruflicher Praxis in einem Unternehmen oder einer öffentlichen Organisation.
The integrated dual Ausbildung/Studium:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbildungsintegrierter_dualer...
The number 40000 mentioned there is from 2007. Since then offerings have been expanded and made more attractive.
Example:
http://mein-duales-studium.de/fuer-schueler/information/was-...
> An der Westfälischen Hochschule kombinieren dual Studierende ein Studium mit einer Berufsausbildung oder beruflicher Praxis in einem Unternehmen oder einer öffentlichen Organisation.
The article is completely "fake news" as it is not about Universities in Germany. It is about apprenticeship. Apprenticeship is a widely accepted path to professional education here and works as described in the article. Your salary is also not as high as mentioned - normally around 500-800 Euros/month.
Besides universities and apprenticeship, there are "dual studies" where you are partly working for (usually big) enterprises and partly studying for a university degree. But only a few students are doing this, most either do apprenticeship (which includes interesting professions like programmer or system administrator) or university studies.
For software developers and medium sized enterprises, the Duales Studium is an excellent way to grow new talent.
Absolutely. I just say that not the majority is doing this.
For a young person or a company it is not important what the majority is doing. Talent in software development is in high demand and a dual education (Ausbildung or Studium, or a combination of both) is for many companies an attractive way to get well trained staff in software development. For software developers this is a good alternative to a computer science degree, which is not that much about practical programming.
TLDR; In Germany, 60% of people get vocational training as their "higher education" designed for vary specific jobs. Companies sign contract with young people at the age of 15-16. They get certification for this specific training by age of 20 and then get on with those jobs. At least half of the education system is designed as a "factory" that produces specific skilled workers that industry asks for.
Personally I'm not sure if any country should be adopting this model.
Personally I'm not sure if any country should be adopting this model.
It's not just very specific jobs, it's most jobs. You work in sales? You learn to be a "Kaufmann/Kauffrau". You work as a house painter? You learn "Maler/in und Lackierer/in". You work as a cook? You learn "Koch/Köchin". For three years at much less than 1000€/month! It's no surprise that the drop-out rates are at 25%.
If you don't do that, you usually can't even get those jobs. It's a stupid system. It's basically what became of the medieval guilds, in modern times.
People like to connect our low youth unemployment rate with this system, but I believe in reality most of these people are attending some form of education or job training program, so they don't "count" as unemployed. When they're done with all that, they're so old they don't count as "youth" anymore. That trick only works when a country can afford it, though.
If you don't do that, you usually can't even get those jobs. It's a stupid system. It's basically what became of the medieval guilds, in modern times.
People like to connect our low youth unemployment rate with this system, but I believe in reality most of these people are attending some form of education or job training program, so they don't "count" as unemployed. When they're done with all that, they're so old they don't count as "youth" anymore. That trick only works when a country can afford it, though.
If someone wants to take up a certain trade, why is it stupid to teach him the necessary skills for that trade? It seems much less wasteful to me than a system in which everyone goes to college for four years and racks up a bunch of debt for an education that is ultimately of little value to most.
It's nonsense to force them into getting a poor government education just so that they are allowed to perform a trade that doesn't even require it.
What sense, for instance, does it make to go to school for three years and get paid poorly just to work as a salesperson?
What sense, for instance, does it make to go to school for three years and get paid poorly just to work as a salesperson?
What's wrong with this? Starting out in sales with a three year (not very well paid) apprenticeship still sounds a lot better to me than paying for college for four years, amassing a huge amount of debt and then going to work in sales afterwards with zero real world experience.
What's good about it: It produces people who actually know how to do the work, and does so more efficiently than college. The way we do it in the US is dependent on a company being able to decide who can and cannot do the work in a few hours of interviewing, and that doesn't work all that well.
What's wrong with it: It (probably) closes the door to non-traditional entry into the trades. Also, presuming I understand it correctly, it makes it hard to change careers. You hit 40, and decide that you don't like the life you chose as a 16-year-old? Well, if you can re-take it at 40, that means three years of low-paid internship at some other trade.
What's wrong with it: It (probably) closes the door to non-traditional entry into the trades. Also, presuming I understand it correctly, it makes it hard to change careers. You hit 40, and decide that you don't like the life you chose as a 16-year-old? Well, if you can re-take it at 40, that means three years of low-paid internship at some other trade.
Community colleges, which are generally not as expensive or time consuming, exist to provide exactly that to those who want that job-specific training. For everyone else, they can walk into the job without any training. It is not necessary. The best part of the American system is that you are free to do almost anything (there are a few exceptions).
I'm not sure there is any reason to spend four years and rack up huge debt for career purposes. College is for academic pursuits, not career ones.
I'm not sure there is any reason to spend four years and rack up huge debt for career purposes. College is for academic pursuits, not career ones.
Or educational systems could simply compete. People would be able to pick, and the most productive and effective system would win out.
Why
University education should not be or promise jobs, it should be about understanding certain fields on the deep level and being confronted with the bleeding edge of knowledge. Right now we are conflating the two, meaning we have a large number of students wasting their time in classrooms when for their goal they should either be getting deeper, tougher confrontation with the subject (if they want to do research/understand deeply) or practical "on the job" education (if they want to get a job). BWL is the worst culprit of this as far as my friends who studied it describe it.