|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 17 2014 06:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 03:37 Millitron wrote:On September 17 2014 03:21 raga4ka wrote:On September 17 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote:
I think this oil stuff is really nonsense. You guys have enough resources on your own continent anyway and if the US wanted to have middle-eastern oil they could've just bought it. I simply don't see why the US would need to wage wars for resources. I thought US wagged wars when other countries tried to sale their oil in something other then US dollars ($) , like i've read that Iraq in the past tried to sell their oil for euros and Lybia for gold ? That way oil gets a lot more expensive for the americans and the value of the dollar drops ? In Syria though it probably has to do with Iran or just the positioning of Syria in general is good for oil pipes to get from the middle east in to EU ? I don't know how much of that is true , it's what i read on the internet for the purpose of this wars .... Its not just that oil gets more expensive if people can sell oil in something other than dollars, its also that the value of USD goes down. The Petrodollar lets the Federal Reserve print more money without significantly raising inflation. Since there will always (in the next 30-50 years) be high demand for oil, there will also be high demand for USD almost regardless of how much they print. But if suddenly OPEC can start selling oil for things other than USD, this whole scheme falls apart, and inflation skyrockets in the US. If this is true, then why don't OPEC, Russia, China, and the rest of the globe that doesn't like us decide to trade petroleum in a different currency like the Euro? If what you say is true, it would put the US in a significantly diminished position of financial imperialism, which I'm sure is what they're all rooting for, so why not do it? It would be some ironic justice, to say the least.
Russia and China don't do it because they need us economically. If we crash and burn, so do they. OPEC countries try it now and then, and then revolts start, claims of WMD's get made, and suddenly someone new who loves the Petrodollar is in charge.
I'm not saying the US started Arab Spring, but to say we were totally uninvolved would be pretty naive.
|
On September 17 2014 04:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 03:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't understand this "Petrodollar" argument. It just feels like something people with tinfoil hats scream. If the US dollar loses value they can import less, but exports go up which may even help reduce the deficit. There are pros and cons to over- and undervalued currencies. There are also monetary policies available if the US wants the dollar to go up in value. You don't actually need to wage wars and have the world trade oil in dollars for that. The whole argument sounds really weird.
If the US wants a highly valued US dollar the FED can increase the interest rate. Due to wage standards and other regulations, even with undervalued USD, exports will not increase appreciably. There's a reason that companies ship labor to Southeast Asia and India, and its not that USD is worth too much. Plus the petrodollar is just one thing leading to more war, especially in the Middle East. There's also massive amounts of lobbying from the Military-Industrial complex, there's politicians and the media fear-mongering for ratings, and there's the misguided idea that Western Democracy is the best social structure for every culture ever.
It depends on the industry. No way textile manufacturing is going to go to the US in a big way - it's just too labor intensive. For other industries proximity to markets, access to capital, skilled workers, energy costs or other factors are more important.
Costs in various countries for a 'typical' US firm:
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
|
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday.
Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted.
She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is "no need for us to rush."
Ginsburg didn't get into the merits of any particular case or any state's gay marriage ban, but she marveled at the "remarkable" shift in public perception of same-sex marriage that she attributes to gays and lesbians being more open about their relationships. Same-sex couples can legally wed in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts.
"Having people close to us who say who they are — that made the attitude change in this country," Ginsburg said at the University of Minnesota Law School.
The Supreme Court returns from a summer recess in early October. Ginsburg wasn't the only justice on the lecture circuit Tuesday; Justice Clarence Thomas was addressing a gathering in Tyler, Texas.
Source
|
Norway28747 Posts
On September 17 2014 01:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:You could also have them dig a lake. Great for the GDP. Great for reducing the number of jobless people. Also utterly useless and a complete waste of money. And the fact that you don't have free tuition and healthcare in peacetime does not mean you could not afford it if you cut down your oversized military a bit, it just means that americans for some reason don't like that stuff, probably because of FREEDOM!. Other countries, like Germany for example, manage very well to have a general healthcare system even for people who don't make a lot of money, and to have free tuition in college. I currently pay 111€/6 months in tuition at the university, and that comes with a free public transport ticket. But bombing Iraq is probably doing a lot more for the standard of living of the average american. Apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars costs 900billion dollar IN ADDITION to your already absurd defense spendings. So the military becomes even more expensive when they do the only thing a military is actually useful, fight wars. Apparently there are ~21 million college students in the USA. That is the number i have found, could be wrong. 900 billion would mean ~45000$ per student, but i guess that would be over roughly 10 years, so you could probably not afford free tuition, at least not at the absurd tuition rates you already have, just by not invading iraq and afghanistan. Still, 4500$ less tuition per year is probably something that would make students really happy. Did invading Iraq make anyone really happy? Alternatively, invest that money into having less debt, that will pay off in the long term too. Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them. If anybody can go to university, you end up with similar problems to inner-city public schools. Too many students, many of whom don't really care about learning, and too few teachers. It will decrease the quality of education the students who do want to learn will get. Now, maybe you could get away with free tuition by simply forcing students to maintain a certain, relatively high, GPA to stay enrolled, but that won't solve the problem for Freshmen. Given the fact that the US ranks among the highest when it comes to college enrollment rates and Germany for example ranking especially low, I doubt that this has any basis in reality. My guess is that the most important factor is how the economy is structured. Germany still has the whole "dual-apprenticeship" thing going and offers a viable alternative to a college education. Quite a lot of people here voluntarily choose to learn a craft instead of going to college and it can actually earn you quite a lot of money, I don't get that impression from the US. (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Education/Tertiary-enrollment) Also creating a college entry barrier through tuition doesn't keep the stupid people out of college, it keeps the poor people out of college. A timely visit to your nearest campus will probably confirm this.
Aren't german kids forced to choose future life path when they're like 10 or whatever? To me that hardly constitutes voluntary choice. 
|
On September 17 2014 11:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 01:41 Nyxisto wrote:On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:You could also have them dig a lake. Great for the GDP. Great for reducing the number of jobless people. Also utterly useless and a complete waste of money. And the fact that you don't have free tuition and healthcare in peacetime does not mean you could not afford it if you cut down your oversized military a bit, it just means that americans for some reason don't like that stuff, probably because of FREEDOM!. Other countries, like Germany for example, manage very well to have a general healthcare system even for people who don't make a lot of money, and to have free tuition in college. I currently pay 111€/6 months in tuition at the university, and that comes with a free public transport ticket. But bombing Iraq is probably doing a lot more for the standard of living of the average american. Apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars costs 900billion dollar IN ADDITION to your already absurd defense spendings. So the military becomes even more expensive when they do the only thing a military is actually useful, fight wars. Apparently there are ~21 million college students in the USA. That is the number i have found, could be wrong. 900 billion would mean ~45000$ per student, but i guess that would be over roughly 10 years, so you could probably not afford free tuition, at least not at the absurd tuition rates you already have, just by not invading iraq and afghanistan. Still, 4500$ less tuition per year is probably something that would make students really happy. Did invading Iraq make anyone really happy? Alternatively, invest that money into having less debt, that will pay off in the long term too. Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them. If anybody can go to university, you end up with similar problems to inner-city public schools. Too many students, many of whom don't really care about learning, and too few teachers. It will decrease the quality of education the students who do want to learn will get. Now, maybe you could get away with free tuition by simply forcing students to maintain a certain, relatively high, GPA to stay enrolled, but that won't solve the problem for Freshmen. Given the fact that the US ranks among the highest when it comes to college enrollment rates and Germany for example ranking especially low, I doubt that this has any basis in reality. My guess is that the most important factor is how the economy is structured. Germany still has the whole "dual-apprenticeship" thing going and offers a viable alternative to a college education. Quite a lot of people here voluntarily choose to learn a craft instead of going to college and it can actually earn you quite a lot of money, I don't get that impression from the US. (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Education/Tertiary-enrollment) Also creating a college entry barrier through tuition doesn't keep the stupid people out of college, it keeps the poor people out of college. A timely visit to your nearest campus will probably confirm this. Aren't german kids forced to choose future life path when they're like 10 or whatever? To me that hardly constitutes voluntary choice.
No, we have all the freedoms! Honestly though we just have three different schools after 4th grade depending on how well you performed before. The lowest tier is becoming a little obsolete though and it has basically become a two tier system.
|
Norway28747 Posts
how common is it for tier 2 kids to go to university?
|
On September 17 2014 12:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 11:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 17 2014 01:41 Nyxisto wrote:On September 17 2014 01:20 Millitron wrote:On September 17 2014 00:54 Simberto wrote:You could also have them dig a lake. Great for the GDP. Great for reducing the number of jobless people. Also utterly useless and a complete waste of money. And the fact that you don't have free tuition and healthcare in peacetime does not mean you could not afford it if you cut down your oversized military a bit, it just means that americans for some reason don't like that stuff, probably because of FREEDOM!. Other countries, like Germany for example, manage very well to have a general healthcare system even for people who don't make a lot of money, and to have free tuition in college. I currently pay 111€/6 months in tuition at the university, and that comes with a free public transport ticket. But bombing Iraq is probably doing a lot more for the standard of living of the average american. Apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars costs 900billion dollar IN ADDITION to your already absurd defense spendings. So the military becomes even more expensive when they do the only thing a military is actually useful, fight wars. Apparently there are ~21 million college students in the USA. That is the number i have found, could be wrong. 900 billion would mean ~45000$ per student, but i guess that would be over roughly 10 years, so you could probably not afford free tuition, at least not at the absurd tuition rates you already have, just by not invading iraq and afghanistan. Still, 4500$ less tuition per year is probably something that would make students really happy. Did invading Iraq make anyone really happy? Alternatively, invest that money into having less debt, that will pay off in the long term too. Speaking of free tuition, one thing having expensive tuition does that's beneficial is that it acts as a filter. University is not for everyone. It being expensive is a good way to get prospective students to think hard about whether or not it really is for them. If anybody can go to university, you end up with similar problems to inner-city public schools. Too many students, many of whom don't really care about learning, and too few teachers. It will decrease the quality of education the students who do want to learn will get. Now, maybe you could get away with free tuition by simply forcing students to maintain a certain, relatively high, GPA to stay enrolled, but that won't solve the problem for Freshmen. Given the fact that the US ranks among the highest when it comes to college enrollment rates and Germany for example ranking especially low, I doubt that this has any basis in reality. My guess is that the most important factor is how the economy is structured. Germany still has the whole "dual-apprenticeship" thing going and offers a viable alternative to a college education. Quite a lot of people here voluntarily choose to learn a craft instead of going to college and it can actually earn you quite a lot of money, I don't get that impression from the US. (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Education/Tertiary-enrollment) Also creating a college entry barrier through tuition doesn't keep the stupid people out of college, it keeps the poor people out of college. A timely visit to your nearest campus will probably confirm this. Aren't german kids forced to choose future life path when they're like 10 or whatever? To me that hardly constitutes voluntary choice. No, we have all the freedoms! Honestly though we just have three different schools after 4th grade depending on how well you performed before. The lowest tier is becoming a little obsolete though and it has basically become a two tier system.
Could you expand on this a bit more? In what ways are these tiers different? Definitely a foreign concept to me.
|
Practically speaking only the kids finishing first tier ("gymnasium") have the qualification to go to university. You can also study if you have learned a trade and a few years of experience, but most people who didn't get their qualification right away will just finish the last two years that you don't have at the two other school forms and get their qualifications that way.
I didn't look up the numbers but practically I guess it's rather unlikely that people who didn't go to the gymnasium right away will start to study.
Edit: @post above:
You basically finish four years of elementary school together with everybody else, then depending on your grades you'll have five years of education at one of the three different types of schools. (Hauptschule/Realschule/Gymnasium). The 'Hauptschule' was supposed to give you a practical education and ideally will lead to people learning a trade, but nowadays it doesn't serve any purpose anymore because the education is just really bad. The 'Realschule' is basically the same thing but a little more difficult, and the 'Gymnasium' is supposed to be the most difficult type with two/formerly three additional years to prepare you for college.
Also most states offer "one school solutions" where everything is combined under one roof. Also every state is a little different, but that's the general concept.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled House on Tuesday approved a bill to block the Obama administration from implementing a rule that asserts regulatory authority over many of the nation's streams and wetlands — an action that critics call a classic Washington overreach.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule that it says will clarify which streams and waterways are shielded from development under the Clean Water Act, an issue that remains in dispute even after two U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Agriculture groups and farm-state politicians call the proposed rule a power grab that would allow the government to dictate what farmers can do on their own land. They said the rule is an example of governmental interference by bureaucrats who don't know as much as farmers and ranchers do about how to be good stewards of their land.
The EPA proposal would have "devastating consequences on every major aspect of the economy," from farming to manufacturing and road-building, Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., said. Southerland is a co-sponsor of the bill, which would block the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from developing or finalizing the proposed rule.
The House approved the bill, 262-152. Thirty-five Democrats joined 227 Republicans to support the bill. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., was the sole Republican to oppose it.
The measure is not expected to advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Source
|
On September 17 2014 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Practically speaking only the kids finishing first tier ("gymnasium") have the qualification to go to university. You can also study if you have learned a trade and a few years of experience, but most people who didn't get their qualification right away will just finish the last two years that you don't have at the two other school forms and get their qualifications that way.
I didn't look up the numbers but practically I guess it's rather unlikely that people who didn't go to the gymnasium right away will start to study.
Edit: @post above:
You basically finish four years of elementary school together with everybody else, then depending on your grades you'll have five years of education at one of the three different types of schools. (Hauptschule/Realschule/Gymnasium). The 'Hauptschule' was supposed to give you a practical education and ideally will lead to people learning a trade, but nowadays it doesn't serve any purpose anymore because the education is just really bad. The 'Realschule' is basically the same thing but a little more difficult, and the 'Gymnasium' is supposed to be the most difficult type with two/formerly three additional years to prepare you for college.
Also most states offer "one school solutions" where everything is combined under one roof. Also every state is a little different, but that's the general concept.
I presume you are taught English in Gymnasium? What about the other schools? Also, do you guys learn 'England English', 'American English', or some combination. An example might be how they teach to spell 'color' (as opposed to 'colour').
|
On September 17 2014 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:
You basically finish four years of elementary school together with everybody else, then depending on your grades you'll have five years of education at one of the three different types of schools. (Hauptschule/Realschule/Gymnasium). The 'Hauptschule' was supposed to give you a practical education and ideally will lead to people learning a trade, but nowadays it doesn't serve any purpose anymore because the education is just really bad. The 'Realschule' is basically the same thing but a little more difficult, and the 'Gymnasium' is supposed to be the most difficult type with two/formerly three additional years to prepare you for college.
Also most states offer "one school solutions" where everything is combined under one roof. Also every state is a little different, but that's the general concept.
so...4th grade...defines the rest of your life? like a caste system?
|
On September 17 2014 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:
Practically speaking only the kids finishing first tier ("gymnasium") have the qualification to go to university. You can also study if you have learned a trade and a few years of experience, but most people who didn't get their qualification right away will just finish the last two years that you don't have at the two other school forms and get their qualifications that way.
I didn't look up the numbers but practically I guess it's rather unlikely that people who didn't go to the gymnasium right away will start to study.
Edit: @post above:
You basically finish four years of elementary school together with everybody else, then depending on your grades you'll have five years of education at one of the three different types of schools. (Hauptschule/Realschule/Gymnasium). The 'Hauptschule' was supposed to give you a practical education and ideally will lead to people learning a trade, but nowadays it doesn't serve any purpose anymore because the education is just really bad. The 'Realschule' is basically the same thing but a little more difficult, and the 'Gymnasium' is supposed to be the most difficult type with two/formerly three additional years to prepare you for college.
Also most states offer "one school solutions" where everything is combined under one roof. Also every state is a little different, but that's the general concept. I presume you are taught English in Gymnasium? What about the other schools? Also, do you guys learn 'England English', 'American English', or some combination. An example might be how they teach to spell 'color' (as opposed to 'colour').
There's no difference in language between us and the Brits. Our colloquial mannerisms are certainly far different, but that's not to do with foundational English. (E.g. Brits saying taking the piss, or us Americans saying something like ain't that a hoot)
PS: To be frank, heavy British accents and colloquial talk is akin to gibberish non-sense to me, though same as those in the deep Bayou.
|
I presume you are taught English in Gymnasium? What about the other schools? Also, do you guys learn 'England English', 'American English', or some combination. An example might be how they teach to spell 'color' (as opposed to 'colour')
English is taught in all three schools. At gymnasium you're required to pick another language too for four years, at least in my state. Most schools offer French,Spanish or Latin.(still required for some medical degrees)
English spelling was kind of mixed. Most teachers seemed to prefer teaching the British orthography,maybe because foreign English teachers think it's fancy, but literature was almost exclusively American so both basically.
so...4th grade...defines the rest of your life? like a caste system?
Well theoretically you're not born into your school(although obviously family background plays a large role) so I don't think you can call it a 'caste system'. Also you can switch or get your qualifications later in life. But yes, I guess there is a certain kind of selection happening pretty early.
|
On September 17 2014 15:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +I presume you are taught English in Gymnasium? What about the other schools? Also, do you guys learn 'England English', 'American English', or some combination. An example might be how they teach to spell 'color' (as opposed to 'colour') English is taught in all three schools. At gymnasium you're required to pick another language too for four years, at least in my state. Most schools offer French,Spanish or Latin.(still required for some medical degrees) English spelling was kind of mixed. Most teachers seemed to prefer teaching the British orthography,maybe because foreign English teachers think it's fancy, but literature was almost exclusively American so both basically. Well theoretically you're not born into your school(although obviously family background plays a large role) so I don't think you can call it a 'caste system'. Also you can switch or get your qualifications later in life. But yes, I guess there is a certain kind of selection happening pretty early.
You say it is determined by 'grades'. Are those grades based on some sort of testing or just whatever the 1-4th grade teachers give them?
|
It 's actually not determined by anything besides your parents. Your teachers give you a recommendation which school to visit after 4th grade. Then your parents can decide what they want you to do. So even with really bad grades you can still go to the gymnasium. At least it was like that 20 years ago. So it depends on the choice your parents make.
And even afer visiting the "tier 2" school for 6 years you can just switch to finishing the "tier 1" school afterwards, without any real delay. It's probably quite some work to catch up but not impossible. There were some people who did it when I went to school.
|
On September 17 2014 14:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2014 12:28 Nyxisto wrote:
You basically finish four years of elementary school together with everybody else, then depending on your grades you'll have five years of education at one of the three different types of schools. (Hauptschule/Realschule/Gymnasium). The 'Hauptschule' was supposed to give you a practical education and ideally will lead to people learning a trade, but nowadays it doesn't serve any purpose anymore because the education is just really bad. The 'Realschule' is basically the same thing but a little more difficult, and the 'Gymnasium' is supposed to be the most difficult type with two/formerly three additional years to prepare you for college.
Also most states offer "one school solutions" where everything is combined under one roof. Also every state is a little different, but that's the general concept. so...4th grade...defines the rest of your life? like a caste system?
Funny, the american „second lady“ is just now visiting Switzerland to learn about our education system.
You obviously have no clue about „Dual-Path“ Education. Here is how it goes in Switzerland:
Nice graph that Shows everything i just wrote much clearer (fuck me :p): http://www.edudoc.ch/static/web/bildungssystem/grafik_bildung_e.pdf
Mandatory School
9 Years of Mandatory School --> Split into performance based Gorups after 4-5 years.
Students of the highest level can attend the Gymnasium which leads to University or do an apprenticeship.
Second level can do an apprenticeship.
Third level can do an apprenticeship.
You also can just search a normal Job (but i wouldn't recommand that to anyone)
What is an apprenticeship in Switzerland ?
In Switzerland you can learn nearly every job that doesn’t require massive experience or extreme education from the ground up. Be it Programmer, Electrician, Baker, Butcher, Carpenter, Plumber, Brewer, Chemist, Cook. Just about everything besides stuff like doctor, lawyer, translator and teacher (well, you can even become teacher with minimal academic education).
How does this work?
For 3 years you work ~3-4 days in a company and attend school for 1-2.5 days a week (you actually have to apply for apprenticeships to the companies directly). You get paid by the company (not much) and the company has the obligation to teach you the Job, in school you get all the theoretical stuff. After those 3 years you are basically good to go live and allowed as a skilled labourer in your field wherever you are.
This isn’t a „dead end“?
During the Apprenticeship there are also diffrent „levels“ of difficulty in school you can pick, the highest one (which you also can do later if you did your apprenticeship at a lower level) allow you to join an „University of applied sciences“ where you then can get a Bachelor and later Master (and from there you also could transition to a „normal“ University).
Still not sold, why do an apprenticeship if I end up in University anyway?
First, you don’t. Having a „bachelor of applied sciences“ is enough to get really good jobs. It is in fact often seen as better than a Bachelor from a normal university because you allready have worked for at least 3 years at a Company (you have experience).
But there is another way to make it „up“: You can just work on your job for a few years and after you got some experience attend a diploma-course/test which makes you for instance an « expert in accounting » or « master-elictrician » (you most likely, in fact it is basically mandatory, need to attend a private evening school to have a shot at these tests, these are HARD. People that don’t attend evening school before doing these tests have a below 1% success rate).
The biggest Problem Switzerlands education System faces atm is, that not all of These "higher Schools" give you a Bachelor/Masters... Which means that foreign bosses have no clue what they are despite them being even.
This System is leaps and bounds better than the „UNIVERSITY OR ARRANGE YOURSELF WITH BEING BOTTOM OF THE PIT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVE“-Bullshit many countries have in place.
|
The entire system of higher education in Germany has lost what matters most: the end as well as the means to the end. That education, that Bildung, is itself an end — and not "the Reich" — and that educators are needed to that end, and not
secondary-school teachers and university scholars — that has been forgotten. Educators are needed who have themselves
been educated, superior, noble spirits, proved at every moment, proved by words and silence, representing culture which has grown ripe and sweet — not the learned louts whom secondary schools and universities today offer our youth as "higher wet nurses." Educators are lacking, not counting the most exceptional of exceptions, the very first condition of education: hence the decline of German culture.
What the "higher schools" in Germany really achieve is a brutal training,designed to prepare huge numbers of young men, with as little loss of time as possible, to become usable, abusable, in government service. "Higher education" and
huge numbers — that is a contradiction to start with. All higher education belongs only to the exception: one must be privileged to have a right to so high a privilege. All great, all beautiful things can never be common property: pulchrum est paucorum hominum. What contributes to the decline of German culture? That "higher education" is no longer a privilege — the democratism of Bildung, which has become "common" — too common. Let it not be forgotten that military privileges really compel an all-too-great attendance in the higher schools, and thus their downfall. In present-day Germany no one is any longer free to give his children a noble education: our "higher schools" are all set up for the most ambiguous mediocrity, with their teachers, curricula, and teaching aims. And everywhere an indecent haste prevails, as if something would be lost if the young man of twenty-three were not yet "finished," or if he did not yet know the answer to the "main question": which calling? A higher kind of human being, if I may say so, does not like "callings," precisely because he knows himself to be called. He has time, he takes time, he does not even think of "finishing": at thirty one is, in the sense of high culture, a beginner, a child. Our overcrowded secondary schools, our overworked, stupefied secondary-school teachers, are a scandal: for one to defend such conditions, as the professors at Heidelberg did recently, there may perhaps be causes — reasons there are none.
|
Dutch education works sort of similar to the German version and it is about somewhat equal ability in classes.
Reality is that not everyone is as smart as everyone else so after elementary school you split your student population in to 2-3 groups roughly based on their ability to learn. Smart kids go with smart kids and dumb gos with dumb to put it very bluntly. This means that schools can better focus what they teach.
And no this is in no way a rigid system. At least here in the Netherlands if your getting high grades, average 8 out of 10, you can move up to a higher education level, or when you pass your exams you can move up into the next level.
The split is made around 12 years old and then between 16 and 18 you finish the education after which you can either do a higher level or move on to learn a job. Highest level can go to University if they chose while the rest go's to collage. And if they finish Collage they can once again chose to go to University aswell.
The system is not designed to exclude people from pursuing certain levels of education but to steer children to the appropriate level of education for them.
|
On September 17 2014 17:00 Velr wrote:
This System is leaps and bounds better than the „UNIVERSITY OR ARRANGE YOURSELF WITH BEING BOTTOM OF THE PIT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVE“-Bullshit many countries have in place.
Can you give me examples of such countries? Since this is the US politics thread, I'll assume the US is first and foremost on the list.
|
Basically every country whiteout a good apprenticeship programm that goes parallel to purely academic education.
France and Ireland come to my mind first (because i know these two), the UK and the US are probably the same.
Sure you can still achieve something whiteout getting a bachelor in these countries. But its way harder than it should be. There are miriads of children/young adults that are just fed up with School at the age of 15-20 and there has to be a way to still let them start a succesfull career whiteout making it unecessary difficult.
There are actually many "children" in switzerland that choose not to go for University and instead make an apprenticeship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/articles/manufacturing_export_chart.png)
