Terzo
Platinum Member
- Dec 13, 2005
- 2,589
- 27
- 91
I was watching German news the other day. Around August 1 is when the "Azubis" start the practical side of their vocational training.
See, in Germany it goes basically like this:
1) At the end of the 4th or 6th grade, a decision made mostly by your elementary teacher(s) based on your 4-6-year performance history, tracks you into either a college-prep track (Gymnasium) or a vocational track (Realschule/Hauptschule).
2) From about grade 5 (or 7) until grade 10, you take traditional "high school" classes with a vocational slant.
3) Based on your grades following grade 10, you then apply to be an apprentice, almost like applying for a job. If successful, you are accepted into the program, get paid, and begin your vocational training alongside the theoretical work at school.
4) If your apprenticeship goes well, the idea is that you will get a full-time job with the company.
This system has existed in various forms since the Middle Ages and is the backbone of Germany's export economy.
Anyway, back the news report I heard the other day: Germany is short by some 60,000 positions in filling the open apprenticeships this year. Not enough Germans are graduating high school with the marks to get into the apprenticeship programs.
I don't know how well American companies (or the public) would take to it. BBC news did a piece on it a while ago. I don't know how I like being put on a career track as early as middle school, but your description of it doesn't sound too restrictive.
Anyways, the two tidbits that stood out to me are...
Employers and government pay for them, with the wage to the apprentice often about a third of what they get when they are qualified.
With all the political budget issues we have I doubt many people would back more government spending, though funding apprenticeships (especially if they fill needed positions) sounds like a good use of tax money.Employers bemoan the lack of applicants, but the problem is partly money. The better the funding for apprenticeship schemes, the more the burden on the coffers of the funders, namely companies and tax-payers.
The dilemma is that training for the future costs money today - as pay to the apprentices and for the teaching facilities - and when funds are tight, the pressure on those funds is greater.
The other bit about spending money now for return later doesn't seem like something that American companies would embrace. I know I'm being harsh, but I feel like the corporate creed is to make a quick buck by any means necessary. Why do something silly like invest for the future?
