Less than a year after the British government realised that the hike in tuition fees accomplished absolutely nothing besides landing students in more debt, Germany has decided to abolish fees for all universities. What's the German word for "deep regret at choosing the wrong place of study, tinged with envy and bitterness"?
Lower Saxony is the final German state to scrap tuition fees, meaning that all German universities are free of charge for all students – and yes, that includes overseas students.
"Tuition fees are socially unjust," Dorothee Stapelfeldt, senator for science in Hamburg, told the Times. The state scrapped fees in 2012. "They particularly discourage young people who do not have a traditional academic family background from taking up studies. It is a core task of politics to ensure that young women and men can study with a high quality standard free of charge in Germany."
Link - (
New Window )
Schools have been trying to blame states for mushrooming tuition costs, but that's bullshit. State aid has declined in relative terms and in many instances in absolute terms as well, but to blame that for the increase when most schools of consequence have turned over the bulk of their classrooms and dorms at least once, sometimes more, in the last quarter-century and added extravagant fitness and common spaces makes that poppycock. Schools have not had to make hard decisions about budgeting because of the almost infinite supply of low-interest loans available to students.
My alma mater, UVM, generated $100 mil in a capital campaign to build a beautiful new student center. It is beautiful, it would have been nice to have something like that when I attended, but it also would have been nice to see $100 mil spent on reducing tuition and/or increasing financial aid instead of blaming the state for the ever-increasing tab even as you're overhauling pretty much the entire university in a generation.
It's hard for those from Eastern Europe. Just try getting in from North Africa...
Not sure what you mean here - I see lots of Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians working in German factories where my in-laws live. Foreign born population in Germany is 12% (us 14%) according to UN.
Now if you are talking about them having political rights within Germany, I don't think most Germans feel an imperative to offer that to them.
The recent law change in 2005 made it easier for high-skilled professionals to enter the labor market, while it closed it significantly for low-skilled professionals. For non-EU immigrants, it's very hard to enter the labor market (the requirement is 3 years of consistent job experience or a technical/university degree).
So, I should have been more specific; non-EU Eastern Europeans have a tough time migrating unless they are classified as "skilled".
It's partly the nature of the country (no significant energy or agricultural resources that can soak those up like a sponge), and partly a symptom of Europe (Germany is one of the more liberal immigration restriction countries out there).
The recent law change in 2005 made it easier for high-skilled professionals to enter the labor market, while it closed it significantly for low-skilled professionals. For non-EU immigrants, it's very hard to enter the labor market (the requirement is 3 years of consistent job experience or a technical/university degree).
ok, my observations might be just local in nature - in my wife's hometown area, the young germans tend to move away and they bring in Eastern Europeans to work at the various food processing plants, gambling machine factories, etc.
But I'm not sure about the basis for your criticism of their policy. Is it bad economics or bad morally? (Note that my knowledge of economics is rudimentary, I am posting as an interested observer of German society since I am married to a German.)
It tends to be that high-skill immigration brings more positives than low-skill, but not always the case (depends on who you bring over).
And my observations are perhaps from more depressed regions (significant number of close acquaintences from Eastern Europe), who have incentives to limit direct competition for their jobs.
Morally, I am more opposed to the seemingly stringent limitations on immigration. Being born in a country should not limit upward mobility. So, while I am more critical of the European immigration model, perhaps I'm biased since I live in an area where immigration is encouraged and welcomed.
So, I should have been more specific; non-EU Eastern Europeans have a tough time migrating unless they are classified as "skilled".
oh ok, non-EU is a different story.
I guess I was going back to your original statement that cited a "social imperative", and trying to figure out what that meant.
Quote:
is "free migration" between those places (though restrictions apply).
So, I should have been more specific; non-EU Eastern Europeans have a tough time migrating unless they are classified as "skilled".
oh ok, non-EU is a different story.
I guess I was going back to your original statement that cited a "social imperative", and trying to figure out what that meant.
Ah, my apologies.
My response to a "social imperative" is that no countries social policy (social safety nets, immigration, free trade, ease of business, tax policy) is uniformly better than others.
Certain countries have prioritized some policies over others. So, while Germany is incredibly more progressive in certain areas than the U.S. (and, in my mind, better in some areas), they are less progressive in others.
The nature of tradeoffs was my only point.
It tends to be that high-skill immigration brings more positives than low-skill, but not always the case (depends on who you bring over).
And my observations are perhaps from more depressed regions (significant number of close acquaintences from Eastern Europe), who have incentives to limit direct competition for their jobs.
Morally, I am more opposed to the seemingly stringent limitations on immigration. Being born in a country should not limit upward mobility. So, while I am more critical of the European immigration model, perhaps I'm biased since I live in an area where immigration is encouraged and welcomed.
ok thank you. German attitudes about immigration are changing and they may yet see immigration the way many in the US do. But the Germans I interact with find it hard to deal with a multicultural model (although they don't produce enough babies for any alternative!) It's probably easier for their politicians to work within the EU model than go for the step of letting in significant numbers of people from areas of unrest (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine).
Quote:
In terms of the economics, it depends. Both low-skill and high-skill workers bring significant value to a home country, but it does displace native workers and can be a drain on domestic resources.
It tends to be that high-skill immigration brings more positives than low-skill, but not always the case (depends on who you bring over).
And my observations are perhaps from more depressed regions (significant number of close acquaintences from Eastern Europe), who have incentives to limit direct competition for their jobs.
Morally, I am more opposed to the seemingly stringent limitations on immigration. Being born in a country should not limit upward mobility. So, while I am more critical of the European immigration model, perhaps I'm biased since I live in an area where immigration is encouraged and welcomed.
ok thank you. German attitudes about immigration are changing and they may yet see immigration the way many in the US do. But the Germans I interact with find it hard to deal with a multicultural model (although they don't produce enough babies for any alternative!) It's probably easier for their politicians to work within the EU model than go for the step of letting in significant numbers of people from areas of unrest (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine).
Agreed. I'm Dutch, and for as liberal as they are, they have imposed much more stringent restrictions on immigration that I don't agree with (and the rationale behind it depends on how cynical you want to be).
As you mentioned, people will and are changing their ways. This will be yet another of those.
Quote:
In terms of the economics, it depends. Both low-skill and high-skill workers bring significant value to a home country, but it does displace native workers and can be a drain on domestic resources.
It tends to be that high-skill immigration brings more positives than low-skill, but not always the case (depends on who you bring over).
And my observations are perhaps from more depressed regions (significant number of close acquaintences from Eastern Europe), who have incentives to limit direct competition for their jobs.
Morally, I am more opposed to the seemingly stringent limitations on immigration. Being born in a country should not limit upward mobility. So, while I am more critical of the European immigration model, perhaps I'm biased since I live in an area where immigration is encouraged and welcomed.
ok thank you. German attitudes about immigration are changing and they may yet see immigration the way many in the US do. But the Germans I interact with find it hard to deal with a multicultural model (although they don't produce enough babies for any alternative!) It's probably easier for their politicians to work within the EU model than go for the step of letting in significant numbers of people from areas of unrest (former Yugoslavia, Ukraine).
It's interesting, people talk about the difference in fertility rates between France and Germany as though the French are somehow more fertile, but they're almost exclusively a function of immigration policies. If France treated its North African immigrants the way the Germans treated their Turkish workers their birthrates would be very similar, and if the Germans extended full citizenship and welcomed families as opposed to merely workers theirs would again be comparable.
Fertility in France is around 2.0, but Sudan, for example, is over 4. Split France into long time residents vs recent immigrants and I bet the long-time resident rate is right down in the 1.4 range.
Finally, as I understand it, all European countries use standardized testing to separate college-bound students versus vocational training at an early age, around 13 years old. So, all of you BBIers who did only OK in the SATs but went on to college, like me, would instead would have been a well-trained vocational worker. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but your life options would be a lot more limited.
Fertility in France is around 2.0, but Sudan, for example, is over 4. Split France into long time residents vs recent immigrants and I bet the long-time resident rate is right down in the 1.4 range.
I've seen the stats before, a couple years ago, and I think it's even a little lower than that.
Finally, as I understand it, all European countries use standardized testing to separate college-bound students versus vocational training at an early age, around 13 years old. So, all of you BBIers who did only OK in the SATs but went on to college, like me, would instead would have been a well-trained vocational worker. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but your life options would be a lot more limited.
Not so simple, it is not just testing but also teacher and parent input that determines the high school track - and there are 3 paths, vocational, Realschule, and Gymnasium. (Acually the vocational/Realschule split takes place around 16.) I have asked Germans what they do with "late bloomers" and they say that folks do move from Realschule to Gymnasium. From what I've seen Realschule is like high school without AP and Gymnasium is like high school with AP.
I've come away with the conclusion that it is not as drastic as it appears, but I still wonder about it.
Quote:
money to spend on education by supporting colleges and universities. Also, as I understand it, throughout Europe, if you want to participate in sports, then it's your cost to join sports clubs- imagine if U. S. colleges and universities did not have to support the various sports programs.
Finally, as I understand it, all European countries use standardized testing to separate college-bound students versus vocational training at an early age, around 13 years old. So, all of you BBIers who did only OK in the SATs but went on to college, like me, would instead would have been a well-trained vocational worker. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but your life options would be a lot more limited.
Not so simple, it is not just testing but also teacher and parent input that determines the high school track - and there are 3 paths, vocational, Realschule, and Gymnasium. (Acually the vocational/Realschule split takes place around 16.) I have asked Germans what they do with "late bloomers" and they say that folks do move from Realschule to Gymnasium. From what I've seen Realschule is like high school without AP and Gymnasium is like high school with AP.
I've come away with the conclusion that it is not as drastic as it appears, but I still wonder about it.
sorry, this thread has been about Germany so I'm talking about Germany...don't know about other European countries.