Talk:Humboldtian model of higher education

2006?
The banner above regarding the 2006 educational assignment does not appear to belong here, whereas it is correctly placed on Talk:Humboldtian science. Was it copied over from there in error? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Guilty ;) Serten II (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Creativity economy and architecture

 * Articles
 * Stanford Research Park
 * William Rainey Harper
 * University of California and the Morrill Land-Grant Acts
 * liberal arts education
 * de:Palais_des_Prinzen_Heinrich Palais_des_Prinzen_Heinrich
 * de:Freie_Universit%C3%A4t_Berlin
 * de:Freie_Universit%C3%A4t_Berlin


 * Links
 * IMK Aufbaustudium Marketing & Kommunikationsmanagement
 * https://www.hu-berlin.de/pr/pressemitteilungen/pm1309/pm_130930_00Wie Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft die städtische Ökonomie von heute prägen Mode, Medien, Marketing – wirtschaftliche Aktivitäten in kulturellen und kreativen Kontexten spielen in Berlin und anderen europäischen Städten eine immer größere Rolle. Die Förderung der Kultur- und Kreativwirtschaft ist eine beliebte Entwicklungsstrategie. Auch in der Wissenschaft wirft die Verbindung von Kreativität und ökonomischem Handeln viele Forschungsfragen auf. Die Erkenntnisse gehen mittlerweile weit über sektorale und lokale Sichtweisen hinaus. Den aktuellen Forschungsstand diskutieren Wissenschaftler auf dem „2nd European Colloquium on Culture, Creativity and Economy“ am 10. und 11. Oktober 2013 in Berlin.
 * des Gebäudes Grimm
 * Big Easy berlin
 * der Kreativwirtschaft: Diagnosen und Handlungsoptionen herausgegeben von Bastian Lange[[User:Serten II|Serten II] (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit, we don't have an equivalent of de:Forum Fridericianum. I shouldn't be surprised tho - I have long noted that we don't have de:Reiterstandbild Friedrichs des Großen, though there are ample sources in English!

Ahem.

The section on implementation and influence still needs a few good references, and it would be nice to know what universities other than Berlin are directly attributable to the Humboldtian theory. It occurs to me also that there must be quotable references to it from the founders of the Freie Uni, but that can probably be left till you develop this to GA level. I'd also like to see more than a throwaway reference to how Humboldt's ideal has panned out in German schools - can you find a source on that that covers the situation 150+ years after the Prussian reforms? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For the 150+ system, see Prussian education system, youre right however in asking for better interfacing of the two. Freie Universität is important, I have inserted some hints in the link list. For the holy shit, see the discussion on Talk:Frederick_the_Great, which made me start all this. Actually, they dont seem to bother about anything since 1945 in Fritzens own article, so why care about the statue? Serten II (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

MOve request
I doubt "Humboldtsches Bildungsideal" is to be translated into English. Richard David Precht (Anna, die Schule und der liebe Gott) cannot be wrong, Gerda Arendt seldom is. I suggest to mnove it to the German term. Serten II (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * English (US) is my mother tongue. What we're talking about here is what my language calls a "model".   And what do you know?  At this version of this other article in the lead we refer to this as the "Humboldtian model".
 * Recommend renaming this to Humboldtian model of higher education. There's 2 or 3 Google books hits for that phrase. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In which source would that be? "Higher education", - I would understand Gymnasium also, misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The google book hits I already provided, for a start. If you want to reject those, that's great, but kindly explain why? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)   As for your reaction to Higher education, usually brevity makes a stronger argument, but a sentence or two of elaboration would help me understand. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In Germany, Höhere Bildung (seems equivalent to higher education) includes Gymnasium, roughly but not really equivalent to High School, - University - academic - seems different, therefore I vote to explain rather than translate and be misunderstood. (Example: High School and Hochschule are two completely different things.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ich weisse. Long ago and in a galaxy far, far away habe ich ein Jahr im Gymnasium studiert.  And upon my return to the US ceased any effort at retaining my German language skills, no offense.  The point is, this is the English wikipedia.  At least in the US "higher education" is almost always understood to mean college/university with those terms being understood in common speech as a difference without a difference.  Technically one could argue that there are also other institutions under the "higher education" umbrella, e.g., Vocational education.  A person holding that view would argue that we can't use the name Humboldtian model of higher education because Humboldt's methods are inapplicable to local "vo-techs".   However, we have no problem giving people degrees in botany even though they mainly studied orchids.  The only somewhat MOS-compliant English language alternative I know is Humboldtian model of university education but to this native-language speaker that would create far more confusion than Humboldtian model of higher education.  Why?  Native (US) speakers will never be confused about Humboldtian model of higher education applying to both colleges and universities, but native US speakers may not understand that the Humboldtian model of university education also applies to the many institutions in the US that have chosen to call themselves "colleges" and yet can still trace their method's origins to Humboldt's model. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ja der NAEGuy, oide Wurschthaut, habe die Ehre! I just introduced some of the entries which are available in German, Bildung, Bildungsbürgertum. That said. I am cautious with further edits. You have the lead. Serten II (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back to Humboldtian education ideal. The German is just not familiar in English, and offers no advantage over stating in the lede what the original German term is and explaining the broader ramifications of Bildung - indeed I see saying above that there is an article we can link to. Redirects are cheap; I'm going to create a redirect from Humboldtian model of higher education.  is correct, "higher education" is conventionally enough used for post-secondary education that it should be clear everywhere. (The alternative term used in the UK is tertiary education.) However, the model obviously has ramifications for pre-university education also, so I think the shorter title is the correct one. I've also done some copyediting. There are a couple of long quotations in the references that require a statement of where they are taken from; possibly this is the adjacent footnote? I think they would also be more usefully summarized. But I don't have the books (or teh familiarity with the topic), so I won't do that., pinging you here too in case you're the one with those sources to hand. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a quick google search. You can see the parameters I used.  If you think other paramters are more fair, shows us the results you get!
 * The name "ideal" instead of my mother tongue's common "model" also smacks of our approval -- and I do like this approach to education but my like/dislike is not listed in our MOS as being relevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did the search on Humboldt Bildungsideal, however without the marks due to the flection. The winner is? Serten II (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read and apply the MOS with respect to foreign language titles, the "winner" should be painfully obvious.
 * There is a clear winner among the English-language contenders, Humboldtian model of higher education. In such cases the MOS instructs us to use that English phrase.  For topics arising in foreign languages, the dominant foreign language phrase is to be used as article titles only when there isn't a clear English winner.  That's not the case here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I been told by a friendly person on the science talk page, that humanity stuff and social constructs like rules anyone can change are just a sort of cargo cult. Only cold tekkie scholarly figures count ;) Serten II (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So? How does that have bearing on applying our MOS to the stats in the table?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had used the same approach to show the notability of my draft for the IPCC consensus - no one reacted. MOS is just a social construct ;) That said, I care more about Pius Walder, but the stats are stats. Does Moes ask for scholar or pure google? Serten II (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about moving to Humboldtian model of higher education then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * * Support Gerda's idea NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * NO objection, Your Honouress! Serten II (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved, article and DYK template adjusted, please take of the rest, - traveling, no time --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellence Initiative
Changed from initiated in the second half of the 2000s to "in 2005-06." Former phraseology means the second half of the 21st century. Sca (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
After receiving help calls, I did one round of copy-editing. I suggest further changes but am not bold enough to simply make them:


 * 1) Please avoid linking the same terms more than once.
 * 2) The lead should be a summary and needs no references, - they should all go to the body.
 * 3) I don't need four refs for one fact. One or two good ones might be better.
 * 4) I believe that the article would be more focused if details were omitted. Example: that Humboldt followed Schleiermacher more than Fichte is of not much value if not explained how, could be dropped. The funding of German vs. US universities seems only remotely related to Humboldt.
 * 5) I was surprised to get to the 1970s after 21st century.


 * tbd
 * done
 * at least not in the lede ;)
 * Competing concept, imho important, but I reworded the section to have more focus
 * restored, thnx Serten II (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me that I had no time to read all related talk pages, nor all sources, - revert what I got wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

ps: having looked at the German article, I see even more reason to simplify/shorten this one, at least for now and for DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda, I saw your edits, which were mostly fine and which clarified a few things for me. I went through the article again and made quite a few changes, mostly to put it into colloquial (but academic) English, to make it more concise, and to improve paragraph cohesiveness and sentence flow. Then I saw your comments, just above. Serten II and Gerda, see what you think of it now. If you still think it needs paring down (i.e., cutting out some things) or further changes, go ahead and do that. I'll wait a while, then I'll look at the article again. CorinneSD (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It reads fine to me, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am happy and thankful for your help and suggestions. Serten II (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this is addressed to Gerda, me, or both, but I just want to say it has been a pleasure to help you. CorinneSD (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understood "both" and concur that it is a pleasure, - I love everyone adding what they can do best. At present - DYK level - I advise to rather keep the article short, possibly shorten even further (see below, drop the details about Fichte and Schleiermacher). After DYK, add and go for Good article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

University concept
User:Serten II, I see that you have made a few changes to the end of the section Humboldtian model of higher education. It still needs work. Here are the last three sentences:


 * In addition to Humboldt, the group of reformers in Prussia included philosophers such as Fichte and Schleiermacher, and Berlin University was a focus of national cultural revival.[19] Humboldt was aware of other German philosophers educational concepts, such as Kant, [[Hegel]} and Fichte. Schleiermacher was an important influence on the Berlin university.

In general, this second half of the paragraph is not well tied into the first half of the paragraph. The paragraph starts out speaking about the features of the university. Then you start describing "the group of reformers in Prussia". What does that group have to do with the features of the university?

Regarding the first sentence, I don't see the reason for the inclusion, after the mention of philosophers, of "and Berlin University was a focus of national cultural revival". I don't see the connection between the two halves of that sentence. Then you return to a discussion of philosophers in the second sentence.

Regarding the second sentence, I don't see the point of mentioning the names of philosophers of whose ideas Humboldt was aware. What does it matter what, or who, he was aware of? It only matters if he was influenced by them, or considered and then rejected their ideas. (Also, there is a formatting error at the link to Hegel.)

Regarding the third sentence, since you did not include Schleiermacher in the group of reformers (first sentence), mentioning Schleiermacher suddenly as an important influence on the university (but not on Humboldt) doesn't make much sense. The sentence is not well tied into the rest of the paragraph.

I'm sorry to give you such bad news, but if you want a good article, this has to be improved. CorinneSD (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets say this is early german idealism on the operative level, That means those philosophers and reformers discussed eizher on the theoretical and practical level and made their ideas work and their ideas about education, via the "kulturnation" concept was crucial for the early german nationalist movement. In so far i am willing to be more readable for an anglosaxon audience (which had nationstate since centuries). As for your next section, corinne, ask for forgiveness, not for allowance and do edits where you think necessary. I think its already ok for dyk. Regards Serten II (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 *  I've done as much as I can. I think you'll have to help with this and the comment below. User:Serten II I've got to hand this over to Gerda Arendt. I'm sorry to say that I'm having difficulty understanding you. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

20th and 21st centuries
User:Serten II I see you've changed "In the 1960s" to "Already in the 1960s". There's a problem with this. "Already in the 1960s" is almost like saying "As early as the 1960s", and this is sixty years or more since Humboldt developed his ideas, and I don't see much mention of the model in the intervening years, so the 1960s cannot be considered early. Here are some possible alternatives. The right one depends upon what the case was:


 * By the 1960s - This means "In or before the 1960s; beginning not later than the 1960s". It suggests that there was some discussion of the ideas before the 1960s.


 * Beginning in the 1960s - This means just about the same thing as "By the 1960s", but this looks toward the future more, and suggests that whatever began in the 1960s continued.

If you need more alternatives, I will give this some thought. CorinneSD (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humboldtian model of higher education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102172822/http://www.kva.se/globalassets/vetenskap_samhallet/forskningspolitik/utskottet/debattbok_appendix_fstrat_eng_2008.pdf to http://www.kva.se/globalassets/vetenskap_samhallet/forskningspolitik/utskottet/debattbok_appendix_fstrat_eng_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the page Humboldt's Ideal gets merged into this one. That page is a more or less direct copy/translation of the German version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtsches_Bildungsideal that is now linked through the language version to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.229.147 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Flaw?
"One flaw with the Humboldtian model is that unlike English universities, German universities traditionally did not provide   housing for their students. Following in the footsteps of the great German universities, the University of California adhered to that rule for over 80 years after its 1868 founding.[30] "

I'd say it is a bit weird to call this a flaw and it is subjective. Housing for students in Europe is extremely different than in the United States, and come to think of it, you'd still pay less for (social) housing as a student in Europe as paying for housing provided by expensive US universities. But I digress, as this is my opinion. It isn't a flaw. It is an aspect or a difference, but not a flaw. Wikipedia should stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44E:F192:1:24B4:34DE:92C8:A254 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)