This incisive presentation to a collection of educators (at a colloquium), though long, summarizes well the key differences between tertiary-educations in the US and in Europe. (It can be found in full here.) What is important to note is that - despite WW2 - Europe has played catch-up to the US and is graduating post-secondary degree students at about the same rate (though a bit lower). And the reason is key: A tertiary education in Europe does not cost an arm-and-a-leg! (My exaggeration for emphasis.) In France, I've sent my kids to university for a tuition fee of less than $800 - plus, of course, room 'n board. Which is typical of the rest of Europe to a small but varying degree of cost. "Higher Education: Europe vs. USA" (dated 2010) Andrzej J. Gapinski, Ph.D. Penn State University-Fayette, Pennsylvania, USA An excerpt of the presentation -
Europe itself is really diverse, the first division would be between the western part and the eastern part. Even in the western part, we can divise them in two big entites : the roman countries (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain) and the pangermanic one (Germany, Netherland, Denmark, ect)... So I think those comparison not that much relevant.
Yes but in Europe many nations offer technical educations for those not going on to a university through secondary and post-secondary models for example you want to work in factories in Germany apprenticeships do that and lead very likely to a good union supported career with more training and re-training compulsory by law if a job is lost. In the US many more students go to college and in Europe you often need to show your going to do well in that level of education to enter it but that depends on the nation.
Question: In Europe, when do you have to decide you want to go to University? Do you have to start working towards getting accepted in a college at age 14 (8th grade) or can you wait to decide to go to college until your senior year (age 18 or so)? Also, how much competition is there to get into European universities? Is it like American ones that there is a subset of colleges that take anybody who can breath? Comparing the overall systems are like comparing oranges to grapefruits. Similar, but still not the exact same thing.
Like in the US, you must pass in Europe what is called a secondary-school "baccalaureat" exams. These exams test general knowledge that one is supposed to have learned. Like the SATs do (or did) in the US. But, it's been a long time since I took my SATs. As I recall, they were mostly T/F and M/C questions. Perhaps they have improved, because what should be tested is not only mastery of a subject but the ability to express oneself aptly. What a student should be required to do is prove that they have learned how to analyze, think and then formulate an answer/opinion regarding any given question or subject ... Nope, they weed out those who are not apt for university studies upon completion of high-school, and push them into either work-apprentice jobs* or trade-schools ... *In fact, the German apprenticeship programs are becoming the role-model for the rest of Europe. About 95% of all students who complete the program find a job as a consequence in the company where they apprenticed.
That's part of my point about college. We have almost no standards for some colleges. It makes no sense for the country to spend money on college degrees for some people. The only way we could adopt the European cheap higher education, is to also incorporate the idea of sorting students out, early (age 13 or 14), and weeding them out. We don't do that. We have this idea that everyone should be able to go to college. Apprenticeship, etc., is a different discussion. It has nothing to do with college costs.
Does it? A friends daughter in Germany at nineteen was issuing loans at a bank, handling accounts and was on track to be a financial advisor and that was in a high tier apprenticeship which if you wanted to do that in the US you would have to have a college degree in field and maybe added credentials but there not at all you could do that in a dedicated apprenticeship. Every career you can get while skipping college and you might need it normally is less people going to college thereby saving the student money and the colleges money wasting time on such a person. My idea would be have fewer public US colleges at the bachelors level and higher, focus the government funds to reduce costs significantly for those who get in and make entering the schools competitive enough to cull out those not most able to benefit. I would argue also VA benefits holders wanting to go to such a college being more mature and older, with other students who might have life experience or other cases of entry would be exceptions in my mind, but I would leave out sports excellence unless the student can enter academically prepared.
Not everyone is cut out for university. The push here by liberals is to make sure everyone goes to university. My daughter came out of the Marines without a university education or a skill. When she asked me what she should do I replied get a skill. She got her license in hairdressing and loves it. It can't be exported to China and she can feed her family with a skill.
One never knows what one is "cut out for" unless they try. And in the US, just trying to get a post-secondary education is expensive! Which is why the devious option of military enlistment is offered - and if you survive the nation offers you an "post-secondary education". Wow! What a deal-for-the-dunces! I am sooo pleased for your daughter. So, must I suppose you are extrapolating your daughter to the rest of the female population in America? Perhaps some have slightly higher ambitions? But, how do they fulfill them? Why anybody should have to put their a$$ on the line in combat to get an education seems infantile to me. One must be childlike to be attracted to such an offering, with the chance that they'll come home to mama in body-bag. Which is all too prevalent in the US - where both Health Care and Tertiary Education should be free, gratis and for nothing. But they aren't ... My Point: *I live in this place called the EU - which is comprised of 735 million individuals in 35 "states". That is, a population more than twice that of the US. Where all the "states" offer free National Health Care and very lo-cost Post-secondary Education (including vocational, 2- & 4-year). Yes, it is very expensive for any country to offer such, which is why our taxes are so high. *And it is amazing the success Free Tertiary Education has had with today's EU-young who do not usually need Health Care, but do need a decent tertiary-level education to find a good job. *All the EU-governments strive for two social-objectives: (1) give the kids a chance to have a decent education that leads to a decent living and (2) offer the elderly who need health-care the opportunity to avail themselves of it without paying an exorbitant cost. Is that too much? Tell me how ...
Apprenticeship is the "weeding out". And it leads to good, long-lasting jobs - not bouncing around the country (as in the US) doing just about anything for the minimum-wage. Have you no understanding whatsoever as to WHY your murder-rate in the US is seven times that of Europe?: I cannot imagine anything more infantile than your comment highlighted in red. Education is the key to both a good job and a good understanding of the world that exists around us and our place in it. Nothing is more precious to our lifestyle than that understanding. Nothing.
Nothing in your post makes mine wrong. We are saying the same thing, but with a different slant. You agree that weeding needs to be done, which means you agree that not all people should have college degrees. Our country is not set up to provide universal college education. We don't have the educational infrastructure that provides appropriate education outside of college education. If we just made universities inexpensive for all, it would result in a huge waste of money without anything to show for it. Now, if we could start setting up more appropriate vocational education for all, it would be a good first start towards inexpensive college education for those prepared for it.
And you don't have an argument, so you just insult me instead. As I said, I don't think we really disagree on anything, but you are loath to admit that you might have things in common with a Republican. I don't guess you are familiar with the for-profit colleges in the U.S. What happened with those, is that the for-profit colleges conned dumb people into thinking that their colleges would result in an employable degree, and so they got students to apply for financial aid. Then two things happened to the students, either 1) they were academically incapable and flunked out, still owing money for student loans or 2) they earned a worthless degree, were still working their old minimum jobs, and still owed money for student loans. Basically speaking, it's a waste of money to try to give a university type education to some people. Europe recognizes this fact, which is why it's harder to get into European universities than most American universities. They only let capable people into the university. (and learn to fix your quotes. You are fairly incompetent at that. )
No, my daughter believes in duty to country unlike you and paid for her education herself through loans. I would also bet she is smarter both intellectually and emotionally than you are.
Land based colleges are obsolete. Everything of significant real value that they offer to students could be provided at very low cost online.
I beg to differ, but never mind. (Our kids went to university because their parents made it known from the get-go that such was their ultimate goal.) It seems your mind is made up in the matter, so our exchange stops here ...
Land based universities and colleges are not useless, they are just obsolete. They are a waste of money in an age when knowledge and instruction can be transmitted at minimal cost over the internet. A motivated child can learn in a bad school - or any place. Why pay through the nose?
I have managed "training" courses in large corporations that learn off a CD-ROM - nice and cheap, but the training subject was basic. The higher up the content-ladder one goes, the more one needs a "teacher" with in-depth knowledge of the subject. Internet training just doesn't work for complex subjects, because the learner is not "challenged" to show mastery by Q&A-debate. Neither is their any real debate to deepen knowledge of the subject. The medium just cannot handle it - especially when hundreds pop in-and-out pursuing a subject. When like minds get together to discuss a subject, and they are educated-minds, the results are quite different. Just like what is happening on, say, the Economics Debate forum here. Economics cannot be taught here, which is why it is called a "forum", which means an "exchange of opinion". The debate can discuss a subject only in on its periphery. The real data comes from elsewhere having been produced by trained economists who dig deep to find it ... And that goes for any subject of real complexity - which is what most cutting-edge economic research is about ...
Students can group up instantly to discuss text, lectures etc. Over time a comprehensive FAQ w/discussion file will evolve. You may have noticed the headlines reporting that robots are now more popular in brothels than human whores - teachers beware.
Yeah, we could actually afford free college if we restricted it the top performers on standardized tests, like they do in Europe (and virtually everywhere else). That's not going to fly in the US for a multitude of reasons.
"In France, I've sent my kids to university for a tuition fee of less than $800 " Hardly. The cost was offset to taxation of all kinds. You may have written a check for $800, but you paid in other ways, and many other people paid your costs.
Wow, you have a shallow understanding of education. Its not just sitting down watching a CD, there is interaction with the class and instructor. Major universities hold "remote" courses in every discipline, its just like being physically present in the classroom except everyone is online and distributed all over the nation (and world in some cases). I guess communists aren't up to speed on modern education.
I still find this really odd .. this culture of 'everyone goes to college' we see in America. In this country, around 30% go to university, and anyone who wants to pursue tertiary education absolutely must start working to that end no later than age 14. Not only working towards it generally, but kids must also select subjects (in high school) which support entry to their preferred course. We also have a healthy apprentice 'industry', and very good govt trade schools which support these and provide nationally recognised qualifications.
Why though? It's really inexplicable, this 'let anyone in' approach. How and who does it help? Seems to be more problematic (dumbing down the overall standard significantly) than beneficial.