Many European countries can pride themself on having one of the best education system in the world (in fact, I can't think of better ones elsewhere). They are particularily good at giving students a broad general education, so that everyone finishing highschool should know enough history, geography, foreign languages, maths and sciences not to look stupid. Education is completely free, even at university.
Yet, there are many problems. Here is the case of Belgium (where, btw, education is compulsory until 18), which is quite similar to the French, Dutch, German or Italian systems.
1) Curriculum problems : too many academic or theoretical subjects that are not useful in real life to get a job, except in research or teaching.
=> possible solution : introduce more useful and practical subjects, such as computering (from how to use a computer to webdesign and programmation), law, accounting and various categories of economy-related subjects.
I would reduce the number of hours in maths and sciences in exchange for computering and accounting, which are in fact practical applications of these (especially maths).
I would replace literature and a good chunk of one's mother-tongue by law. Legal vocabulary is also part of one's mother's tongue, and is more useful in daily life for everyone than poetry or 17th-century plays.
I would keep history and geography compulsory, but replace geography by geopolitics and economics (if fact, it is already how it was in my highschool).
I would add compulsory philosophy courses instead of morals or religion, and instead of some of the mother tongue's hours. Incredible as it is for a secular state, most Belgian schools still have (or had when I was there) compulsory religion (i.e. Catholic propaganda) classes. This is because most of the schools are owned and managed by Catholic institutions, apart from the poorly rated government-schools (usually for the lower class and non-European immigrants). Religion classes should have been banned long ago. I spent my entire school life arguing with my religion teachers at every single lesson - which didn't give me a good reputation among the Catholic directors of the school.
I would put an end to compulsory Latin or Greek everywhere, and keep it as an option (it is already the case in most schools), but have 2 or 3 compulsory modern languages. The EU has already pledged to introduce 2 foreign EU languages in all primary schools soon. Good step. However, I would change a lot the way languages are taught, and allow more options. For instance, most Belgian schools force students to have Dutch (in French-speaking schools) or French (in Dutch-speaking schools), even before English. Of course these are the two nationial languages, but it would be much easier domestically and internationally if everyone spoke English well first.
Another important change would be for all schools to offer as many optional subjects as possible, so as to increase students' motivation by having them choose the subjects they want to study (well, as much as possible).
I would also introduce classes divided by ability for each subject - or at the very least maths, sciences and foreign languages. The highschool diploma would have a A-level system like in the UK for each subject. Ideally, gifted children should be given the chance to specialise early in their subject(s) of predilection, so that they can pass some university-level exams in highschool and thus be dispensed in these courses at university. In other words, it would be a head start at university for brilliant students, and they also wouldn't need to take the university entrance exam for that subject.
2) University funding and entrance exams
European universities are usually exclusively state-funded. This is a double problem in my opinion. First of all, it consumes a lot of tax-payer's money, and therefore requires higher tax levels. The 2nd problem is that universities want as many students as possible because they get paid per registered head.
University extrance exams do not exist in Belgium, except at some non-universitary tertiary education schools (usually called "college" in English speaking countries). The results are disastrous. When I studied economics, there were 600 students in a single auditorium in the first year, then 200 in the 2nd year, 100 in the 3rd, and finally 80 in the 4th. With a 10-15% gradutation rate, it is self-evident that entrance exams are needed, as so many people are wasting precious years of their lives for nothing, and cost a lot of tax-payer money. So why hasn't it changed yet ? Because universities are happy to get more funds, even if that means that the quality is mediocre with 600 students per professor.
Entrance exams are not as an easy solution as it seems. University could make the exams too easy to get more students (and funds). So what about giving the funds only for students that pass their academic year ? This is even more stupid, as the level would immediately go down so that universities get what they want - money !
My idea would be to have entrance exams supervised directly by the state (who granst the money), so that they are difficut enough, and that after that most of the students manage to graduate.
Universities could get more funds from philanthropists, former students and especially companies (who get the best students in exchange). Education should remain free in any case.
3) length of schooling and university.
The number of years of compulsory education varies between EU countries. Belgium has one of the longest (compulsory until 18 years old). In the UK, school is compulsory from 5 years old instead of 6 elsewhere.
In Germany, there are 13 years of primary and secondary education before univesity (except in 1 state where it's 12 like elsewhere). What is more, German people cannot skip a year, if for instance a 6-year old child can already read and write and has a good level enough in maths. In most other countries it is possible. Another constraint is that students enter school according to their age during the school year (starting from August or September in Germany) rather calendar year. It means that a child born in June and another one in September of the same year will be in different school years in Germany. In my opinion, those two systems (no skipping and age according to school year) are ridiculous and should be changed, especially that German students already have 1 more year before university, and military service for men. So, some German people enter university 3 years later than other European (even 4 years later than British people who start school at 5 years old).
I don't mind that compulsory education start at 5 or 6 or finishes at 16, 17 or 18 (not before though). But instead of the age, I think that compulsory education should be about the level of education attained. So if one has to repeat a year once or twice, they should stay one or two years longer at school than others. Likewise, those who skip a year or progress more quickly in the class-by-ability system would be able to complete compulsory education earlier than others. This would be a good motivation to take school more seriously to avoid repeating a year and try to get the best grades possible. Those who complete "compulsory education" qualify to enter tertiary education, whatever their age. Those who fail more than 3 or 4 years could try to pass an easier version of the final test or drop some subjects, but would not be allowed in tertiary education.
University should probably be 3 years (like in English-speaking countries) instead of 4, and be more specialised (i.e. drop optional subjects of general knowledge, as people can learn them by themselves or would have learnt them at school)
Yet, there are many problems. Here is the case of Belgium (where, btw, education is compulsory until 18), which is quite similar to the French, Dutch, German or Italian systems.
1) Curriculum problems : too many academic or theoretical subjects that are not useful in real life to get a job, except in research or teaching.
=> possible solution : introduce more useful and practical subjects, such as computering (from how to use a computer to webdesign and programmation), law, accounting and various categories of economy-related subjects.
I would reduce the number of hours in maths and sciences in exchange for computering and accounting, which are in fact practical applications of these (especially maths).
I would replace literature and a good chunk of one's mother-tongue by law. Legal vocabulary is also part of one's mother's tongue, and is more useful in daily life for everyone than poetry or 17th-century plays.
I would keep history and geography compulsory, but replace geography by geopolitics and economics (if fact, it is already how it was in my highschool).
I would add compulsory philosophy courses instead of morals or religion, and instead of some of the mother tongue's hours. Incredible as it is for a secular state, most Belgian schools still have (or had when I was there) compulsory religion (i.e. Catholic propaganda) classes. This is because most of the schools are owned and managed by Catholic institutions, apart from the poorly rated government-schools (usually for the lower class and non-European immigrants). Religion classes should have been banned long ago. I spent my entire school life arguing with my religion teachers at every single lesson - which didn't give me a good reputation among the Catholic directors of the school.
I would put an end to compulsory Latin or Greek everywhere, and keep it as an option (it is already the case in most schools), but have 2 or 3 compulsory modern languages. The EU has already pledged to introduce 2 foreign EU languages in all primary schools soon. Good step. However, I would change a lot the way languages are taught, and allow more options. For instance, most Belgian schools force students to have Dutch (in French-speaking schools) or French (in Dutch-speaking schools), even before English. Of course these are the two nationial languages, but it would be much easier domestically and internationally if everyone spoke English well first.
Another important change would be for all schools to offer as many optional subjects as possible, so as to increase students' motivation by having them choose the subjects they want to study (well, as much as possible).
I would also introduce classes divided by ability for each subject - or at the very least maths, sciences and foreign languages. The highschool diploma would have a A-level system like in the UK for each subject. Ideally, gifted children should be given the chance to specialise early in their subject(s) of predilection, so that they can pass some university-level exams in highschool and thus be dispensed in these courses at university. In other words, it would be a head start at university for brilliant students, and they also wouldn't need to take the university entrance exam for that subject.
2) University funding and entrance exams
European universities are usually exclusively state-funded. This is a double problem in my opinion. First of all, it consumes a lot of tax-payer's money, and therefore requires higher tax levels. The 2nd problem is that universities want as many students as possible because they get paid per registered head.
University extrance exams do not exist in Belgium, except at some non-universitary tertiary education schools (usually called "college" in English speaking countries). The results are disastrous. When I studied economics, there were 600 students in a single auditorium in the first year, then 200 in the 2nd year, 100 in the 3rd, and finally 80 in the 4th. With a 10-15% gradutation rate, it is self-evident that entrance exams are needed, as so many people are wasting precious years of their lives for nothing, and cost a lot of tax-payer money. So why hasn't it changed yet ? Because universities are happy to get more funds, even if that means that the quality is mediocre with 600 students per professor.
Entrance exams are not as an easy solution as it seems. University could make the exams too easy to get more students (and funds). So what about giving the funds only for students that pass their academic year ? This is even more stupid, as the level would immediately go down so that universities get what they want - money !
My idea would be to have entrance exams supervised directly by the state (who granst the money), so that they are difficut enough, and that after that most of the students manage to graduate.
Universities could get more funds from philanthropists, former students and especially companies (who get the best students in exchange). Education should remain free in any case.
3) length of schooling and university.
The number of years of compulsory education varies between EU countries. Belgium has one of the longest (compulsory until 18 years old). In the UK, school is compulsory from 5 years old instead of 6 elsewhere.
In Germany, there are 13 years of primary and secondary education before univesity (except in 1 state where it's 12 like elsewhere). What is more, German people cannot skip a year, if for instance a 6-year old child can already read and write and has a good level enough in maths. In most other countries it is possible. Another constraint is that students enter school according to their age during the school year (starting from August or September in Germany) rather calendar year. It means that a child born in June and another one in September of the same year will be in different school years in Germany. In my opinion, those two systems (no skipping and age according to school year) are ridiculous and should be changed, especially that German students already have 1 more year before university, and military service for men. So, some German people enter university 3 years later than other European (even 4 years later than British people who start school at 5 years old).
I don't mind that compulsory education start at 5 or 6 or finishes at 16, 17 or 18 (not before though). But instead of the age, I think that compulsory education should be about the level of education attained. So if one has to repeat a year once or twice, they should stay one or two years longer at school than others. Likewise, those who skip a year or progress more quickly in the class-by-ability system would be able to complete compulsory education earlier than others. This would be a good motivation to take school more seriously to avoid repeating a year and try to get the best grades possible. Those who complete "compulsory education" qualify to enter tertiary education, whatever their age. Those who fail more than 3 or 4 years could try to pass an easier version of the final test or drop some subjects, but would not be allowed in tertiary education.
University should probably be 3 years (like in English-speaking countries) instead of 4, and be more specialised (i.e. drop optional subjects of general knowledge, as people can learn them by themselves or would have learnt them at school)
Last edited: