How to get rid of the distinction between higher education and less education?

The new president of Erasmus University, Anilian Bredenwood, hates the distinction between higher and less educated education and prefers to keep it. practical and theoretical. Proposals of a similar nature have already been made in the House of Representatives, most recently by the Boer Burger and Bij1 movement, which argued in favor of the practical (mbo), theoretical (hbo) and scientific (wo). However, these divisions also have hurdles.

First and foremost, the label affects our image. There is a famous example of the Fiat Croma. Journalist car week who tested an improved version of it in 2008 I got compliments from everyone For the sweet waggie, they even saw the name written on the back door. Then the zest melted like baking butter in a hot frying pan. Coincidence or not, both versions of the Fiat Croma, on the market between 1986 and 1995 and between 2005 and 2011, have never achieved a market share higher than a quarter of a percent. The Fiat Marea, the model that served this market segment among Cromas, achieved the maximum 0.9 percent. So it was clear that both Croma models were less attractive, or that name did something. So yes, the brand is important.

raw materials

However, there is a mistake in proposing to call university graduates who are scientifically or theoretically educated from now on. Because I see a large percentage of practical students walking around in technical universities. They want to solve a problem. Scientific insights, theories, and models are raw material, but they are not – as with science – the goal. It has been designed, built and tested. Everything is very practical. In the end, doctors and teachers are also practitioners. A person who uses scientific theories and ideas is not necessarily impractical. As sociologist Kurt Lewin said, “Nothing is more practical than a good theory.”

Moreover, if you classify all university education as theoretical or scientific, you risk scaring potential students with a more practical position. They think: Well, I’m not going to college, because you’re just sitting there thinking.

I understand the aversion to distinguishing between high and low learners. A hierarchy is suggested, while the basic types of training are different. So it makes sense that a more accurate nomenclature should be sought. Perhaps the most neutral description is the length of the training. The path to a university degree, including preparatory training, takes longer than vocational training. You may also wish to clarify whether the study program is theoretical, practical, or both. In any case, you can ask yourself if “Long Term Theoretical Practical Training” is a practical and attractive qualification.

I don’t know exactly what the solution is either. I know that when designing it is important to consider the potential negative side effects of the new solution. We know this from both theory and practice.

Jasper van Kuijk on Twitter: Tweet embed