A brief overview of the German higher education and it’s stratification.

I have chosen the country of Germany to briefly study its system of higher education
and it’s stratification. As the average part time graduate student with a tight schedule
and other assignments to manage, I regrettably was only able to read the Kehm
and Mayer et. al chapter excerpts as my main sources and one additional peer
reviewed source. I also need to mention I watched few unofficial YOUTUBE videos for a  better
visual explanation of the complex education structure. I will say that the chapter
excerpt by Mayer, Muller, and Pollak was highly confusing and the chapter excerpt
by Kehm to be more useful. The whole public education system in Germany is
very complex and not so linear like the American public education system.
This being said, it was personally challenging for me to differentiate the significance
between Gensamthochschulen, Fachhochschulen, Berufsakademie, Realschulde, and
Gymnasium. As a non-German language speaker, I found myself rereading the material
several times and having to turn to YOUTUBE for graphic visuals.
Before I touch upon higher education systems in Germany, I have to first explain the
public school system before the university level tracks. Unlike the linear American
public education (in which children attend Kindergarten through high school) in Germany,
children at the age of eleven, are to make a choice of completing their public education
in one of three tracks. One track leading to higher education studies, one track leading
to a possible higher education of the vocational nature, and the last track leading an
earlier transition into the workforce. Before students can transition into higher education,
they must take the Abitur, which is slightly comparable to the American SAT exam; however,
the exams are different depending on field of study. The Abitur, is more of a completion
exam rather than the American SAT exam which is mostly used for college entrance
requirements.
The public higher education system in Germany is primarily characterized as a binary
system in which most students enroll in Universities or Fachhochschulen (which are
universities with applied sciences). Public higher education in Germany is tuition free.
There is a small fee per semester; however, this fee includes a student commuter pass
allowing student to use the German public transportation systems. It is also important to
mention that there is also Berufsakademie’s, which are colleges of “advanced vocational
studies”. Berufsakademie’s are private schools with a direct vocational three year focus. 
The public higher education system in Germany has had several reforms and expansions
throughout history. The more focused reform and expansion takes place after the fall of the
Berlin wall. The Unification Contract, which was signed in 1990, set off a drastic change
in the economic, social, and political context that mostly focused on Eastern Germany
adapting to the Western Germany systems. This would mean that Eastern Germany also
adopted the Western Germany Binary public education system that is in place today.
Policy reformers were able to liberate higher education institutions directly from the
state allowing them to be more autonomous; however, the institutions are now evaluated
with more instruments other than the state in regards to measuring performance, quality
of teaching, and accountability. 
Similar to American higher education history, since its original start, there has been a
tremendous growth in higher education enrollment and an increase in its diversity.
Mayer et al. (2007),  would describe the reason for  the growth of enrollment as a way
for former elite sectors of the system trying to maintain their relative status as well as
the “less privileged parts of the system continuously striving to catch up with the status
and resources of the more privileged ones” (p. 241). According to  Mayer et al. (2007), 
In 1993, the influx of enrollment led the German science council to recommend “the
new influx of new students be redirected away from the universities and toward the
Fachhochschulen (Universities with applied sciences)” (p.244).
 Mayer et al. (2007), find that educational inequality declines in terms of gender as well
as in terms of class of origin. According to Mayer et al. (2002), in the long run, social
inequalities in obtaining tertiary education have declined. The decline in overall
educational inequality is mainly due to declining inequality in the early transitions of
the German educational system. Mayer et al.’s (2002), findings suggest that social
inequalities at the post-secondary and tertiary level of education are strongly correlated
to the educational choices made by children of different class levels and educational
background among the different options available in the German educational system.
The choices the families make are strongly related to costs and risks involved with the
specific educational track choices. The working class families choose the less costly
and less risky options. Working class families tend to choose the non-tertiary level
vocational education and trainings  to avoid the more costly and risky alternatives at
the Fachhochschule and more so at the universities. The vocational alternative would
appear to be more  secure, inexpensive and well valued on the labor market.
Mayer et al. (2002), conclude that “ differential (constrained based) choice among
different institutionally shaped options is the main mechanism driving the process
of class based social inequalities in tertiary education attainment” (p.50).  In other words,
the different education track choices keeps the overall social inequalities to repeat itself
since the working class families tend to keep choosing the vocational tracks and the
elite families to keep selecting the elite universities. 

References 

Forest, J. F. & Altbach, P. G. (2006) (Eds.). International Handbook of Higher Education, 
Volume 18. Dordrecht: Springer. 
Mayer, K., U., Walter, M., Pollak, R. (2002).  Institutional Change and Inequalities of Access
in German Higher Education. Institutional Forms and Equality of Opportunity,Prague.
Shavit, Y., Arum, R. & Gamoran, A. (Eds) (2007). Stratification in higher education:
a comparative study. Stanford: Stanford University Press

Justifications of Affirmative Action Policies in Several Countries - 02.05.2018 - Ruben Rodriguez

It is definitely interesting to read about how affirmative action policies and cases in different countries are formed and how they are rationalized for various reasons. As a US citizen and student, I myself have only been exposed to the US affirmative action cases. Regrettably, I have never really encountered or researched any other cases of higher education affirmative actions throughout the world. Michele S. Moses does an excellent job in not only covering affirmative action in France, India, South Africa, United States, and Brazil; Moses also explains the justifications behind each countries affirmative action stance. Moses categorizes the justifications into four categories. The first category being remediation, in which the justification for affirmative action is to rectify past discrimination and to correct unfair treatment of minority races, class, and sex. The second category of justification revolves around economics. The justification of affirmative action and its economic value incorporates how countries want to integrate all of its citizens with a better education to than enter in to a workforce. With a better education, one will then be ready for the workforce which will overall impact the country to build a stronger economy. Moses categorize the third category as diversity. The justification for diversity encompasses how affirmative action is beneficial to the overall learning experience. This means that a diverse setting actually improves the learning experience because a diverse population infuses different opinions and perspectives when it comes to problem solving and other skill sets. The fourth justification is social justice. Moses describes social justice as the integration and elimination of institutionalized inequalities. Michele S. Moses emphasizes that social justice should be in fact the primary reason for affirmative action; however, justifications in “France, India, and South Africa all mention justice as associated with affirmative action, but it is not the primary argument used” (Moses, 2010, p.221).

In my opinion I would agree with Moses in that social justice should be the primary reason for affirmative action across the globe. Social justice is what ties all the other justifications together. By putting social justice first, we can make up for the wrongs of our past of disadvantaged minorities. When can make the effort to better all of the citizens to improve our country's workforce and economy. With the inclusion of everyone from diverse backgrounds, classes, sex, and ages, the learning experience would be most beneficial to everyone. It should be a priority for a country to make sure it’s citizens are educated. It is not only beneficial to the workforce and the economy; it just makes a nation stronger.

I did find it interesting that in France, there were no national affirmative action policy and that the institutions themselves took the initiative to establish affirmative action programs. This example should be set in every institution and even in the workplace. One should not rely on the government to start making a change if one institution can do it legally on their own.

It is saddening to know that not everyone is in agreement with the affirmative action ideas in higher education. According to Smith (2014), “many people lack a detailed knowledge of affirmative action, which could serve as a contributing factor in negative attitude formation toward diversity initiatives” (p. 480). In the case of Abigail Fisher versus University of Texas, Abigail argued that she was not admitted to the University of Texas because she was white. This is a reflection of how several people feel that affirmative action policies are not beneficial to them; therefore, it is a “bad idea”.

Another interesting country to research its higher education is Argentina. Silvina Gvirtz and Betina Duarte do a great job at describing the historical changes in access policies in Argentina as well as describing the current assess system. It was not so surprising to read that the current access policies of public universities in Argentina seem to be more beneficial to families with higher incomes than families with lower incomes. This problem of inequality seems to be prevalent in most Latin American countries. It seems to be the opposite here in the United States. The private elite universities, such as Harvard, seem to cater and maintain families with higher incomes.

What I did find interesting is that Argentina’s higher education’s system has high dropout rates, low graduation rates, and slow studying process. Considering that most of public universities are free, I can see how students try it out and do not take it seriously. This seems like the most logical explanation for the dropout rates and low graduation. I wonder if this would possibly be the case in The US. If public universities were to become free throughout the country, would the US encounter the same issues?  

References

Gvirtz, S., & Duarte, B., (2012) Equity and unrestricted access in the Argentine university

system. As the world turns: Implications of global shifts in higher education for theory, research, and practice, 151-168.

Moses, M. S. (2010). Moral and Instrumental Rationales for Affirmative Action in Five National

Contexts. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 211-228.

Smith, E. L., (2014) An examination of the relationship between mindset, attitudes toward

affirmative action, and perceptions of diversity. Senior Honors Projects, 2010-current.

480. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/honors201019/480