Hacker News Reader

Was just talking with my boss about how they do it in Germany.

Essentially they do heavy tracking, if you can't cut it in the college track, you get put into blue collar training and apprentice programs. This is why they are such an industrial powerhouse still - they have a well prepared white collar and blue collar work force.

I went to school in Germany and live in the US now. I think every system has it's pros and cons. The German education system is interesting, because it's different from other countries. However, if it wasn't for the hefty price of education (including how important it is what school district you are in) I would prefer the US education system overall.

In Germany it's easy to be put on one of the two lower tracks which lead to apprenticeships [1], because you didn't do well in primary school. At that point is harder (but still possible) to go to college. It also leads to segregation because immigrants who don't speak German at home are unlikely to do well in primary school.

[1] Calling it blue collar is a bit of misnomer here because you can also do apprenticeships in white collar jobs, even software engineering.

Yup. I ended up in my apprenticeship because during elementary school I wanted to go to the school where all my friends went even though my scores were better. Stupid I know but I was a kid that wasn't able to make reasonable decisions.

Yet I ended up through a apprenticeship in Software Engineering and I could go back at any time and finish my 12 years then go to university. Part of me wants to go study and get a degree, but all universities I inquired at rejected me for not having 12 years despite working for 8 years now.

Could'nt you go to a Fachhochschule with your apprenticeship in Software Engineering?

You have to do 1 or 2 years of school (Fachoberschule) first. My friend did this, but it's a path that not many people will choose, because it's hard to go back to school for such a long time after you started to earn money.

It is true that it is too easy to be put on one of the two lower tracks during primary school. But there are multiple options (Fachhochschule, Berufsakademie) to go to university after you have finished your apprenticeship. Fachhochschule is free and in the case of the Berufsakademie you even get some money from a company while studying.

Primary Schools offer additional help to bring immigrant children up to speed with their german, though I'm not sure how many families use this option.

You can also almost always switch tracks, the farther down you are one track the harder it gets to switch up. I went for the second lowest (Realschule) and then went to a tertiary school (Fachoberschule). With that I can study in a University for Applied Sciences (different from normal University).

The german education system has many options open, the general push in the lower two tracks is to get you into a job as early as possible (there are lots of job fairs I went to) but still permit you to pick any of the other 20 options.

This is only functional if you have an equitable education system in K-12 that allows every child the preparation necessary to reach their potential. Speaking as the spouse of someone who's worked for a decade in urban education, we are very far from that reality.

Conceptually, it's nice to imagine a purely meritocratic system wherein everyone may ascertain the level of potential they desire, but the US is living through the hangover of centuries of systemic racism.

The only way this tracked solution could be truly fair is if access to education was universally available and equitable; in our current reality, what it actually would mean is that those who can afford the best education in K-12 will be highly over-represented in the college track and those who cannot will be under-represented.

So in the end it turns out to be an anti-meritocratic solution.

> Yeah, but isn't that also the "problem" with subsidizing K-12 public school?

Eh, 9-12 public school maybe. The dirty not-a-secret of K-8 is that it's effectively state-sponsored daycare as well as an educational system, so its role as a holding pen is a feature rather than a bug.

I find people who say things like this don't understand the great amount of good that elementary education provides. Basic literacy and mathematics skills are tough things to teach effectively. They're not at all difficult to provide if you have the time and resources to spend on your child, but many people do not (have the inclination or the time). Bad idea to punish the children of those people for their parents' decisions.

Until you've seen the difference a good elementary education can make for a kid growing up in The Bronx, I'd say hold off on the snap judgement.

I think I was unclear, or you're rounding my view off to a very different one that I admit is common.

I'm a child of teachers, and I know quite a lot of people who teach in inner cities or narrowly made it out of impoverished towns because of good education. There's a reason I said "as well as an educational system", and I definitely don't believe the daycare role of schools is a reason to cut budgets or cut schooling.

Educating kids is hard. Many people lack the time, knowledge, and resources to substantially educate their children themselves. Many students benefit from years of often-repetitive teaching to ensure information is available when they're developmentally and environmentally ready for it. I don't doubt any of this, and I absolutely think public schooling is a sensible solution to it.

My point was only that "you could say K-12 education acts as a state sponsored vacation" misunderstands the role of schools as daycares. Non-educational time at school isn't a vacation, it's a public service for two-income households that struggle to afford daycare. I'm not talking about teaching kids math. I'm talking about the existence of three-recesses-per-day kindergarten, or middle schoolers sitting in voluntary, teacher-run study hall after school.

The district I grew up in had a public debate about whether to move to half-day kindergarten, where the two sides were "it'll cut school costs" and "it'll cost parents more in daycare". No one even claimed it was an educational debate, because less than half the day was spent on education. None of this has anything to do with whether teaching literacy in the Bronx is important.

I'm simply asserting that "provides childcare for free" is an intentional benefit, not an accidental drawback, of public schooling.

Apologies for completely misreading your post. And I agree with everything you've said.

Not a problem - as I reread my own post I realized that it only made sense in a very narrow context.

To the extent that I'm upset by education-as-daycare, it's only because I think they ought to be separate public services so each one can be done more efficiently. But that's a serious pipe dream, so for now I'd rather just double the budget of what exists and trust that the people involved are well-meaning enough to use it sensibly.

I was homeschooled from 4th to 8th grade and doing a few hours a day of work I still finished by Christmas. By comparison most classses never seemed to finish their textbooks.

Going back for high school felt almost painfully slow. I don't think kids need to be crammed with as much information as possible, but you could probably double the content without leaving most people behind.

I agree, but only if everyone is motivated to be an active participant - looking back on my own high school days, the kids who had trouble mostly had no incentive to be there.

It's probably utopian, but I still think a lot of problems could be solved by paying kids for marks. There are lots of arguments made about intrinsic motivation to learn being enough, but learning is also difficult and uncomfortable. Some extrinsic motivation to develop a functional learning style might be exactly what those currently underachieving are missing.

Maybe where you grew up but that’s not what you’ll find in states/districts that take education seriously. 8th graders in the northeast are generally able to read at an adult level and understand basic arithmetic including algebra and geometry.

I don’t know if you understand how difficult it is to teach 12 year olds but that’s a miracle not daycare.

This is the second version of this reaction I got, so I think I made my point wrong.

I don't mean at all to say "it's not education". I did get educated in a northeastern public schools, I had a lot of excellent teachers who worked incredibly hard and committed their free time and money to education.

My point is that K-8 public schools are both source of education and - intentionally, explicitly - daycare alternatives. Not "school is useless, it's a holding pen", but "schools intentionally provide non-educational support for parents including childcare".

My public school had full-day kindergarten that was about 70% recess. When budget cuts hit, there was a public discussion of whether to go to half-day kindergarten, and the two sides were "it'll save money" and "parents will have to pay for childcare". My district had after-school activities with no real educational value to help keep kids occupied until ~4PM, and then another hour of unstructured study hall after that. The formal purpose of the thing was to provide a place for kids who didn't go to daycare or go home alone.

I don't even think this is a bad thing! The parent comments suggested "free college is a vacation" and "well by that light, so is K-12 education". My point was that children don't take vacations, and the daycare role of primary schooling is a benefit, not a hazard.

There's a lot of countries where it's not normal to keep going to school until you are 18.

In New Zealand, you can leave school when you're 16 and start an apprenticeship. I think that by 16, most people will know if they're definitely not going to be going to university, and I think that 11 years of schooling is enough to set people up with the basics for life. It's the point where (at least in New Zealand) you start specialising, picking specific subjects that are going to help you with, or be required for, university

Comparing a college education to K-12 public education doesn't make sense. In general, one needs to understand some mathematics up through Algebra and have some reading and writing abilities to be an employable, productive adult. Whether the public school system in the USA does a good job of providing a basic education is a different discussion.

I’m not the kind of engineer that has a STEM only mindset and I see a lot of value in good Liberal Arts education, but let’s be realistic -- whether it’s because of nature or nurture, there are plenty of college freshmen who are just not going to be intellectuals. Even if it was free (and it would never really be free), it's not a positive thing to encourage them to spend four years majoring in communications or the like.

>Comparing a college education to K-12 public education doesn't make sense. In general, one needs to understand some mathematics up through Algebra and have some reading and writing abilities to be an employable, productive adult. Whether the public school system in the USA does a good job of providing a basic education is a different discussion.

It does seem like this baseline understanding does shift with progress though. For example our ancestors did not need a lot of education to push a plow, but more education will be needed with the continued elimination of physical labor.

You need to be basically educated in algebra, literature and philosophy/civics to be a productive, contributing voter and citizen. Forget vocation.

I agree, but many college graduates (and for that matter some people with advanced degrees I've run into) have no or little understanding of philosophy/civics, history, literature, etc.