People don't get that when you make college free, you also take away a lot of the choice that goes into college. German colleges are free but the kids who are chosen to go to them are often selected by the third grade.
Lowering the cost of public universities while increasing the quality will pressure private universities to do the same, and thus make college more affordable and accessible for everyone -- it's a much better use of funds.
This is a very generalizing argument. Universities are free (paid by taxes obviously) in Finland, but there is no such thing like what you describe. In here the only prerequisite is that you have finished high school, then you can take the entry exams.. It's also not uncommon for someone to go into a university later in their life. My cs courses had a good bunch of people in their fifties re-educating themselves.
It's incredibly bad. ~40% after first semester. 60%+ will fail the first year. That first year is basically a post high-school buffer. Netherlands have a one year gap for kids to cool off and find what motivates them. France should really adopt that.
But that too is a small minority. To be exact, in 2013, 9% of all first year students in tertiary education took a gap year. About 1/3rd of them traveled during that time, most of the rest had a job. And although the data doesn't explicitly say, it does seem like that includes those work for a few months between the end of the school year of high school (in May/June) and the start of the year at university, in September/October or in January, depending on the specifics. I'm not claiming they included everyone with a summer job, just that what is claimed to be a 'gap year' isn't really in many cases, but more a 'I have a few months time and I need to pay for my studies, let's make some money'. A far cry from the GP's suggestion that there is some formal structure to go soul searching or whatever.
Don't know about the drop out rate in first semester, but the percentage of students passing the first year can be pretty low. In medicine, I think it's aroung 10%, in maths maybe 30%.
Space is not infinite, they check your 'file' and admission is based on your grades.
Also, priority is (or at least was years ago) given to people who come out of high school, making it impossible to get into university if you didn't go directly from high school.
Sorry, this isn't true in Argentina either (someone already mentioned it's not true in Uruguay).
We have excellent public and free university. Some of its faculties are very demanding, some are bogged down by endless red tape, but the education level is pretty good (according to who you ask, ranked among the best in South America). And everyone can get into university, no grades from high school requirements. The "hidden" fee is that university can be pretty demanding, and if you're poor and have to work to support yourself or your family, it's exhausting and very hard to keep up with your studies; this causes many students to drop out.
Here in Argentina there are plenty of private universities to choose if you wish, some cheap, some expensive. Everyone who's honest acknowledges public university has the better quality (with a few exceptions), but some people just can't have a job and afford the time/dedication public education takes, so they pick a private university with lower dedication demands. And that's a perfectly acceptable choice.
I'm from Argentina (Córdoba) and this is very accurate. I dislike a lot of things in my country but if there is something to be proud of is the universal access to education for everyone and the quality.
There are a lot of things to improve, IMHO some of the plans are a bit outdated and teachers get a low salary.
In Venezuela, there are free colleges run by the government and private for-profit colleges. In the last year of high-school you present a test equivalent of US's SAT, and the result is averaged with your high school notes. You fill a form with three options of profession-college, and according to your score, you're selected.
But the curious thing is that most public colleges are good, and most private colleges are bad. There are few private colleges that worry for academic excellence, but most are for profit. They sell degrees to people who can't get it on the public system. Students unable to get good scores has no other chance. Lazy rich kids who are not interested in studying, go to private colleges, basically, to buy a "title". Professor in private institutions are under constant pressure to pass students, while in public colleges they are free to evaluate according to their criteria (and I know a few professors that work both in public and private colleges).
A friend from India told me that the situation there is similar. I think that here there are profound differences with US and Central Europe colleges, where private institutions have a reputation to keep.
So, I can only say: good for you, Chile! That was the result of years of students' protests. I'm happy they have what we have and what England once had.
If college is free, then admission is strictly on academic grounds. There is nothing wrong with that: in fact, it is ideally the way it should be.
If you examine it honestly, you will see that your argument boils down to, "though I'm not rich, and certainly cannot afford private university, I do have some money and that should give me an advantage over applicants who are better qualified, but poorer."
By the way, even if tuition is free (and even if supplies like books are), there is really no such thing as absolutely free. You have to live somewhere, clothe yourself and eat. There will still be those who don't have time to go to school because they have to struggle to eke out a living.
Free universities are still difficult for the poor because to make the cut, you have to work hard and that requires support. In the world, having more money than someone else will almost always given you an advantage in one way or another.
Exactly. You nailed it. Free universities have indeed this "hidden" fee in my country. Everyone knows that if you are well-off, you'll do better even in our public universities. A lot of poor people simply cannot keep up with working and studying at the same time.
This isn't an argument against public education, but it's evidence that it's not enough. People should be able to take better advantage of this free education.
According to the "Bildungsbericht 2014" 50% of all persons eligible to enter tertiary education do so [0]. In 2013 51.7% of people in the relevant age groups (18 - 21) were eligible for enrollment in a tertiary education program [1].
These are just some quickly researched numbers. Feel free to criticize!
On a personal note: I am a german student and trust me, even at institutions regarded to be high-tier (e.g. LMU Munich), you will find lots of people that should have rather entered an apprenticeship for example.
Americans take it for granted that the level of education at American colleges is extremely variable. Cornell is called "college" but Tumbleweed State Technical College is called college, too.
The education one would get out of university in Germany is equivalent to a top-25 college in the US. On that front, the Germans are doing rather well. How many Americans have a degree from a top-25 institution?
You have to keep in mind that Germany has strong apprenticeship programs which include practical on-the-job training half of the time and vocational school the other half. Those are not included in the numbers above.
Not in Uruguay. Anyone can go into college without any entry exam nor grades taken into account. Also, there are private universities for those who prefer them.
The German school system divides students into three distinct groups starting in the fourth grade, meaning the decision is made in the third [1]. The three divisions are 1. Hauptschule (central, lower-level school) 2. Realschule (technical school) and 3. Gymnasium (uni-prep school). Once placed into one of these three tracks, it's very difficult to switch between them - more so in the later years, since they each have a different number of years required in order to graduate.
Over the past few years, the system has been changing to allow parents greater say in their children's future, resulting in the same mixups that happen in the United States when parents can override course placement decisions. I can go into more detail on this if anyone wants.
Although this is true, it is only half the story and school system.
You leave out the Fachoberschule, Berufsoberschule (name and curriculum depends on the state) and Berufsschule/Apprenticeship system. While the biggest factor in if someone will go on to study later in life will be if a student attended the Gymnasium from 5th grade on, every single person in Germany has many options to get to a university or university of applied sciences. As for the the schools I mentioned before:
Students from the Hauptschule (until 9th grade) and Realschule (until 10th grade) can attend the Fachoberschule, depending on a certain core GPA and extra coursework for Hauptschul students. Which is leading towards the 12th or 13th grade, depending on if the student wants to attend a university of applied science or a university.
Furthermore, students who do an apprenticeship after the 9th or 10th grade can enter a Berufsoberschule with successful completion of their apprenticeship. These students are often allowed to skip the 11th grade (same curriculum as the Fachoberschule).
Whereas, I have to fully agree that it is hard to switch from Hauptschule or Realschule to a Gymnasium, but it is not impossible and I know multiple people who studied at universities, while starting out at the Hauptschule.
Starting with 5th grade, primary school has 4 years (or 6 in 2 states, and possibly different numbers in experimental cases).
And while switching between the tracks indeed is difficult, it is possible to either gain the Abitur after going to one of the "lower" levels by taking additional years of schooling, or start at uni (especially universities of applied science) without it all. The article you linked gives the (to me surprising, I wouldn't have expected the numbers to be that high) statistic of
> The most traditional route has always been graduation from a Gymnasium with the Abitur; however this has become less common over time. As of 2008, less than half of university freshmen in some German states had graduated from a Gymnasium. Even in Bavaria (a state with a policy of strengthening the Gymnasium) only 56 percent of freshmen had graduated from a Gymnasium.
That said, this early split certainly is a heavily debated topic and in many cases likely is not optimal.
Czech have similar system. It is easy to get into technical university if you know some math. Real hard are humanities, some art schools take perhaps 0.5% of applicants.
Not sure about market. Most musicians and painters I know are self educated and have daily job.
University does not have monopoly, one can always pay for private university (which is not that expensive). But state university is highly selective and most prestigious.
Prep schools are not for university, they're for "great schools" which is a separate system and pretty much unique to the country. Neither prep schools nor the bac are relevant to universities (outside of having the bac), universities are free-ish and anyone can attend (at least the first year, there's no entrance test)
Prep schools in France can be damn selective as well. And prep schools tend to have contracts with universities so drop out from prep schools can be admitted to universities (they might or might not have to pass an exam for that). Prep schools are somewhat equivalent to the first two years of university, with a bit of literature/philosophy and foreign language classes, but prep schools are much intense and exams are harder (disclaimer: I did prep school and a "Grande Ecole", and and also have an Msc from a University).
"kids who are chosen to go to them are often selected by the third grade."
Not really. I had a friend during elementary school and he was advised to go to the Hauptschule (lowest middle school). Right now he is pursuing a PhD program at one of the "elite" german engineering schools.
"Wer will, der kann" (more or less "You can if you want to")
It's just a few programmes like med where people get selected strongly. Even there you can get in if you're okay with waiting for a few years. Usually you just register at the university and begin studying there.
What? The goal of journalism according to whom? Because Tom Wolfe--from whom a very large chunk of modern journalists can be said to descend--would laugh at that notion. There's also the natural fallout of "impartial journalism" having that imprint; Chomsky and others have noted that it leads to a massive endorsement of moneyed and powerful parties in most cases at which you'll point. Which may be fine for you, but certainly not me.
Thomas Kennerly "Tom" Wolfe, Jr. (born March 2, 1931)[1]
is an American author and journalist, best known for his
association and influence over the New Journalism literary
movement in which literary techniques are used in objective
even-handed journalism.
The term "objective even-handed journalism" is a link to another Wikipedia article, which begins:
Journalistic objectivity is a significant principle of
journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer
to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship,
but most often encompasses all of these qualities.
Looking over this, it seems that he editorialized and opined on a great many subjects, but those appear at least to have been contained to essays, novels and opinion pieces.
I'll freely confess not knowing the man, or his work, and only know what's contained in and linked from the Wiki articles, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but to the idea that he would laugh at journalistic objectivity seems off to me, from what I'm reading.
I was on a jury once. Many, many people can't follow simple jury instructions, figure out the difference between an argument and a statute (seriously), etc. And most of them had an education level beyond college. It was the most eye opening experience of my life.
Yeah, the jury system is scary. It's also better than any other alternative that anyone else has come up with so far.
Much the same criticism can be applied to representative democracy in general. It sucks but it beats, e.g., the plutocratic cult-of-personality that Russia currently has. And what about Somalia? Rule by warlord?
FWIW my jury experience differs from yours. I have been on a number of juries in my life and I wound up with a relatively good opinion of most of my fellow jurors. There was only one juror (out of IIRC about six juries) that, it was immediately obvious, was very close minded and basically unclear as to her civic responsibility. But most of my experience is 15 or 30 years old. Perhaps jurors have gotten dumber since then?
If you're doing this for a living the last thing you should be doing is relying on Google ads. The publications that make money at this have sales staffs (and much higher CPMs, and no CLC campaigns)
Lowering the cost of public universities while increasing the quality will pressure private universities to do the same, and thus make college more affordable and accessible for everyone -- it's a much better use of funds.