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/

by Tomte • 9 years ago

96 94 9 years ago

onli• 9 years ago

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.

merb2• 9 years ago

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

phreeza4• 9 years ago

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?

jfaucett• 9 years ago

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.

igk6• 9 years ago

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

igk6• 9 years ago

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

merb2• 9 years ago

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.

lispm8• 9 years ago

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.

igk6• 9 years ago

I 'm not sure if they are talking about "dualstudium", but I think this is a thing which needs to be advanced. There should be a separation between "skill education"(learning things for a job) and "human education" (learning things to become a better human/just for understanding). The latter we already enforce with 9 year Schulpflicht (which one could debate about prolonging) and then leave to the individual.

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.

sjg0072• 9 years ago

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.

igk6• 9 years ago

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

zaph0d_• 9 years ago

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.

weinzierl3• 9 years ago

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

HarryHirsch3• 9 years ago

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.

dsfyu404ed• 9 years ago

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.

JepZ• 9 years ago

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.

FabHK• 9 years ago

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.

medymed• 9 years ago

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.

matt4077• 9 years ago

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.

phreeza4• 9 years ago

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.

opportune• 9 years ago

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.

Shivetya• 9 years ago

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.

autokad• 9 years ago

caps leads to shortages (no place to attend).

thescriptkiddie• 9 years ago

Then build more universities?

closeparen• 9 years ago

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.

rayiner• 9 years ago

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.

biztos• 9 years ago

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.

geff822• 9 years ago

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.

lispm8• 9 years ago

For software developers and medium sized enterprises, the Duales Studium is an excellent way to grow new talent.

geff822• 9 years ago

Absolutely. I just say that not the majority is doing this.

sytelus• 9 years ago

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.

80801• 9 years ago

Why

Zahlmeister5• 9 years ago

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.

DangerousPie• 9 years ago

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.

erdbeerkuchen• 9 years ago

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.

VMG• 9 years ago

Or educational systems could simply compete. People would be able to pick, and the most productive and effective system would win out.

Zahlmeister5• 9 years ago

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...

lispm8• 9 years ago

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.

Zahlmeister5• 9 years ago

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.

jojoo2• 9 years ago

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.

Zahlmeister5• 9 years ago

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

Thamiel8• 9 years ago

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?

What American universities can learn from Germany (2016)

Related Stories