> By pre-1990 standards about 20% of the students should have been failed.
Interesting, I find that number quite low.
The failure rates for most CS courses at my BSc/MSc university (VU Amsterdam) usually hovered around 50% in the post-00s era, especially for the hard-line courses such as computer networks, finite fields and data structures. We were allowed to do an unlimited number of retrials (6 months in between), but still over a third of the students would drop out before completing their BSc.
When I started my PhD at a British university I was obliged to do some MSc courses. Basically every course started with: No one will fail this course. At first that seemed like a comfortable idea since I didn't want to be distracted from my research. Soon I learned that actually means the course is going to be boring as hell.
I don't believe the Dutch system works better than the British one. We've had our share of choice fanatics. Despite Andy Tanenbaum raking in millions, my current department is also a whole lot better funded than the VU.
I think it has more to do with attitude than politics. Tanenbaum basically created the department with his bare hands, writing Minix and his well-known books in the process. He's no longer actively involved in teaching, but he created a culture of outstanding education. There's still an enormous amount of attention on making courses more interesting, challenging and up-to-date. It's easy to get lazy and lower your standards, but not impossible to say no and become a better university.
I don't understand the value of failing students in this way. At medical school I failed some exams but was allowed to retake them, and received coaching for one of the re-takes. (Relax, I had to prove I'd learned the material before I could work with patients.)
At my brother's economics PhD, however, the school (can you guess which it is) took pride in failing 50% of the class. Why? And when the students are going into so much debt, why is this appropriate? Pick students who can pass your exams in reasonable numbers, reject those who cannot, and then invest in teaching the ones you chose.
Bravado over failing students to demonstrate how difficult your course is is a waste of human talent.
It's not about failing students. Sure, students could be failing because your education is poor. That was not the case. It's about challenging students to the point where those with the intellectual prowess and discipline and the rest go on to study something that more closely matches their abilities (and the university should help them with that).
Debt is never a serious problem in the Netherlands. The government interest rates are so low that if you loan the maximum and put the money in bonds or a high interest savings account you'll actually turn a profit.
It might be the socialist in me, but schools should always be public. No business should be involved in educating the next generation.
I think of universities more like a R&D department for the general public. (which also is why I think all software developed in universities should be Free)
Almost every country in the world is more socialist that the (former) U.S. None of those countries' university systems come close to that of the U.S. And what are the best universities in the U.S.? MIT, CalTech, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, etc. (private) vs. UC Berkeley and UCLA (public). The latter two are soon to feel the financial collapse of California.
This would be true if the business were selling degrees.
If the business were selling an education, then it would actually result in increased revenue, since students would have to stay around longer to learn required materials.
Lots of business sell education instead of certifications. The problem here is the government stepping in and mucking around with standards, creating financial incentives that looked good in theory but don't work in the real world.
This happens a lot with well-meaning politicians trying to "help"
Interesting, I find that number quite low.
The failure rates for most CS courses at my BSc/MSc university (VU Amsterdam) usually hovered around 50% in the post-00s era, especially for the hard-line courses such as computer networks, finite fields and data structures. We were allowed to do an unlimited number of retrials (6 months in between), but still over a third of the students would drop out before completing their BSc.
When I started my PhD at a British university I was obliged to do some MSc courses. Basically every course started with: No one will fail this course. At first that seemed like a comfortable idea since I didn't want to be distracted from my research. Soon I learned that actually means the course is going to be boring as hell.
I don't believe the Dutch system works better than the British one. We've had our share of choice fanatics. Despite Andy Tanenbaum raking in millions, my current department is also a whole lot better funded than the VU.
I think it has more to do with attitude than politics. Tanenbaum basically created the department with his bare hands, writing Minix and his well-known books in the process. He's no longer actively involved in teaching, but he created a culture of outstanding education. There's still an enormous amount of attention on making courses more interesting, challenging and up-to-date. It's easy to get lazy and lower your standards, but not impossible to say no and become a better university.