International Schools Helsinki, who has kids in ISH, ESH?

[Rosamunda]

Given that you are not "fluent" yourself, not sure how you can assess someone else's fluency?
Anyway, it just depends what is meant by fluency (I'm an examiner so I have a fairly structured approach, but maybe my criteria are not the same as yours).

[sinikala]

Unless I missed it, the OP didn't state her mother tongue, nor that of her husband.

If neither of the parents are Finnish and there is no strong tie between the family and Finland I would be wary of directing the child into a standard Finnish education.
If Finnish is not the home language of the family or at least one parent - do not expect the child to reach fluency. And the reward of fluency will be minimal, except for access to further education in Finland.

The Finnish educational standards / Pisa results are all about a high average, the same idea as the US concept of "No Child Left Behind". If the child is already a year ahead of Finns of the same age, expect her to be dragged down to the average level.

If the kid is likley to be moved again, I'd aim for the IB it will give her a chance of continuity if you move her again.

In general terms, if I had a kid (touches wood), there is no way on god's green earth I'd want it educated here.

[sinikala]

Given that you are not "fluent" yourself, not sure how you can assess someone else's fluency?
Anyway, it just depends what is meant by fluency (I'm an examiner so I have a fairly structured approach, but maybe my criteria are not the same as yours).

They are functionally fluent in their jobs as professionals.. 2 are Social Workers and one is a police office. The 4th is an artist. I have no way of measuring fluency (nor am I interested in a discussion about the definition of fluency) but I would assume that the 3 in the helping professions must have a certain level of proficiency.

I wondered that too. I've only come across a few that to my poorly trained ear sound fluent. Though I occasionally see immigrants on telly being interviewed & they are at a different level to me, far above what I am capable of assessing. At least when they use words I don't know, it's a bit demoralising.

Fluency does seem to be many things to many people, for example our friend Onkko is generally undestandable, but far from fluent in English. Presumably whilst launching into his diatribe he missed the OP's use of the word fluent. Although his text is riddled with mistakes and far from fluent, he still gets his message across.

How about adults? Some of my husbands' colleagues live in Finland over 18 years and are not able to speak fluent Finnish - did they not try hard enough - or is it really that difficult and hard to learn?

Your husbands' colleagues are arrogant assholes who wont even care to be part of this society and thats why they arent looked as one, deserve be one or deserve be anything else that usable foreigner.

Therein lies the difference. Some might regard Onkko's english as pretty fluent (Penelope probably wouldn't). It flows - so does diarrhoea - but gets the message across.

I have been here 11 years. My in-laws don't speak English, but I don't often see them as they live in Helsinki. Although most of my written work is in English, I try to speak to colleagues in Finnish where possible and the same with my wife. I put in some effort, and there is slow (frustrastingly slow) improvement, but I am sufficiently self-aware to know that I'm unlikely to become fluent in Finnish any time soon - for soon read "in the next couple of decades".

Back to ex-pat schooling - I also did the ex-pat kid process: 3 private schools abroad, then 2 state schools in London and the North of England.
I was several years ahead in the private school (we all were). Then suffered from having to sit through several years of material I'd already covered when I moved into state schools. French was the worst, I'd been doing French from the age of 8, and at age 12 was lumped into a class where the kids had done 1 year, my god it was dull.
Been there, done that, bought the school tie, don't recommend it.

It was deleterious to my educational career - and to at least one of Penelope's kids as well IIRC. Lucky for me, I managed to get there in the end, but it would have been much easier if my folks hadn't pissed me around with different school systems.

The risks are surely lowered by picking one system and sticking with it.

[Rosamunda]

I agree that switching around from one school to another can have a detrimental effect on some children (my eldest: six schools in his first six years of schooling) and I wouldn't recommend it. True International Schools (the ex-pat with a relo budget variety) are generally pretty awful places since the student and teacher turnover is quite high (often around 30% p.a.) which leads to a lack of stability. Every year the new kids on the block have to assert themselves in the hierarchy of things (as do the teachers I suppose) and then cultural differences superimpose themselves on that which further complicates things. My eldest desperately needed a stable relationship with a committed teacher who knew how to deal with his learning difficulties (dyslexia and mild ADHD) but you rarely get those kind of specialist teachers in international schools and if you do, they don't always stay around for long. On the other hand, I do think children benefit from learning to adapt to new environments and mixing with kids from different cultural backgrounds (most Finnish schools are mostly... monoculturally Finnish - but that is changing) so some of the disadvantages of international moves are compensated for by the exposure to The Big Wide World.

I disagree with your @sinikala) post about Finnish schools though. Yes, PISA is all about averages. But I don't think that proscribes excellence. From 8th grade onwards children are being graded in just about everything they do and the grade point average is crucial to obtaining a good lukio place. (Note: going to an IB primary school in no way guarantees the student a place in an IB high school - entrance is by grade point average and an entrance exam). Discussing all this recently with a teacher in France who was studying the system, she pointed out that this element of competition that exists from 8th grade onwards could explain why the students perform so well in PISA tests (which take place in 8th grade - 15 year olds). Interesting point which hadn't really occured to me. Lukio entry is highly competitive, this situation does not exist in eg: the UK/France where students just migrate (drift?) en masse from middle school to sixth form (selection in the UK is at a much earlier age).

Also about fluency... whereas I don't know many people who moved here as adults and speak Finnish close to a native level (which is what I would call fluency, C2 on the European Common Framework etc), I do know children who have moved here and acquired fluency through being schooled in Finnish, even though the language is not spoken at home. In fact I know one or two who are among the higher achievers in their class. The younger you start, the more likely you are to become actively bilingual.

I don't think learning a second language is ever a waste of time (even if that language is Finnish), eg: because the processes involved in assimilating a second language are so important to neurological development (bits of the brain) which makes learning other things (not just languages) so much easier. Maybe another reason why Finns do so well in PISA tests is their early exposure to second language learning. In Wales, children who learn Welsh get better grades in English than those who don't.

etc

[Upphew]

I disagree with your @sinikala) post about Finnish schools though. Yes, PISA is all about averages. But I don't think that proscribes excellence.

Excellence is not proscribed, but neither it is as actively encouraged as it might be in other countries. You go to the school you are assigned to (1st to 9th grade) and the parents don't get to shop good school, not that it would matter as the next school is most likely just as good as the first one. We'll see how long this lasts as there seems to be hint of white flight going on in the areas with most immigrants. And as it is said before: Finnish system is best for Finns...

From 8th grade onwards children are being graded in just about everything they do and the grade point average is crucial to obtaining a good lukio place. (Note: going to an IB primary school in no way guarantees the student a place in an IB high school - entrance is by grade point average and an entrance exam). Discussing all this recently with a teacher in France who was studying the system, she pointed out that this element of competition that exists from 8th grade onwards could explain why the students perform so well in PISA tests (which take place in 8th grade - 15 year olds). Interesting point which hadn't really occured to me. Lukio entry is highly competitive, this situation does not exist in eg: the UK/France where students just migrate (drift?) en masse from middle school to sixth form (selection in the UK is at a much earlier age).

It is not only lukio anymore, you might need better GPA to gain entry to a vocational school than lukio. Sure there are few lukios that seem to push all their students to exceptional achievements, but I'm not entirely sure if it is the school or the material (probably both). After lukio I kinda agree with sinikala and the kid might be better off in some foreign university, but then it is not parents decision anymore. Or shouldn't be, tuition might say otherwise. Excellent university abroad will be crapload more expensive than Finnish one.

[sinikala]

Excellent university abroad will be crapload more expensive than Finnish one.

Actually not, you are missing the bigger picture.

It's all about lost earnings. The average Finn graduates at 25-26, many even later. The average in the UK is to graduate at 21-22, and depending on which month you were born (July or August) you can also graduate at 20 without skipping a year.

Entering the workplace 4-5 years earlier can more than compensate for the cost of studying.

[sinikala]

I agree that switching around from one school to another can have a detrimental effect on some children (my eldest: six schools in his first six years of schooling) and I wouldn't recommend it. True International Schools (the ex-pat with a relo budget variety) are generally pretty awful places since the student and teacher turnover is quite high(often around 30% p.a.) which leads to a lack of stability. Every year the new kids on the block have to assert themselves in the hierarchy of things (as do the teachers I suppose) and then cultural differences superimpose themselves on that which further complicates things.

We are going a way off topic here so apologies to the OP for the thread hijack. Whilst I agree with much of the above, I disagree with the bit in bold. It surely depends on the school. In my experience (as an oil brat - I was in such schools until I was 11) - the class sizes are small so more contact time per pupil. The teachers tended to be young, high calibre and motivated. The quality of teaching was excellent and tailored to the individual so we were allowed to go at our own pace. Which for most of us ended up putting us way ahead of the UK curriculum.

Chopping and changing school does make the child adaptable, helps the kid to learn how to blend in, also at least in my case motivated the child to work hard - sink or swim. On the downside I think it gave me restless legs, I constantly need new challenges and get bored too easily. Probably put that down to ADHD nowadays.

I disagree with your @sinikala) post about Finnish schools though. Yes, PISA is all about averages. But I don't think that proscribes excellence.

Havings worked at Aalto for 2 years and been involved in the supervision of some 15 graduate and post-grad theses over the last decade, plus numerous post-grads who drop out and never complete, I can tell you that there is something rotten in the state of Finland. Something stifles the brightest students. . By the time they get to tertiary level very few stand out. Not having gone through highschool here I can't be sure, late specialisation is perhaps an issue it means they drag out their edcuation much longer than in some other countries and many simply lose interest / motivation.

The closest I can pin it to is that something happens in high school to knock the wind out of the sails of the most able.

From 8th grade onwards children are being graded in just about everything they do and the grade point average is crucial to obtaining a good lukio place. (Note: going to an IB primary school in no way guarantees the student a place in an IB high school - entrance is by grade point average and an entrance exam). Discussing all this recently with a teacher in France who was studying the system, she pointed out that this element of competition that exists from 8th grade onwards could explain why the students perform so well in PISA tests (which take place in 8th grade - 15 year olds). Interesting point which hadn't really occured to me. Lukio entry is highly competitive, this situation does not exist in eg: the UK/France where students just migrate (drift?) en masse from middle school to sixth form (selection in the UK is at a much earlier age).

There may be competiton / examination within classes, but my understanding is that the Finnish approach is to mix the ability of the class. There is not much streaming here.
Even if there is competition, by putting the most able together with the least able it's going to drag the average down.

I have no experience of the UK's current scondary education system, but in my time at 11 we were streamed into 3 ability level classes (I think on the basis of Richmond test results). Movement between the highest (A) and lowest levels (C) never happened. Those who struggled in the top stream (A) and drop down and found their level in (B) classes. Those who came up from the middle (B) stream and moved to the top stream (A) invariably struggled. So I think streaming was pretty accurate measure of ability.

On the up side the (A) stream kids were allowed to move along at their own pace without being hampered by those of lower ability. The downside being that the (C) stream kids were at 11 yrs old told that they would never reach university, which is incredibly harsh.

Also about fluency... whereas I don't know many people who moved here as adults and speak Finnish close to a native level (which is what I would call fluency, C2 on the European Common Framework etc), I do know children who have moved here and acquired fluency through being schooled in Finnish, even though the language is not spoken at home. In fact I know one or two who are among the higher achievers in their class. The younger you start, the more likely you are to become actively bilingual.).

I don't think I wrote that it's not possible, but it is by no means guaranteed.

I don't think learning a second language is ever a waste of time (even if that language is Finnish), eg: because the processes involved in assimilating a second language are so important to neurological development (bits of the brain) which makes learning other things (not just languages) so much easier. Maybe another reason why Finns do so well in PISA tests is their early exposure to second language learning. In Wales, children who learn Welsh get better grades in English than those who don't.

You'll also find that those children in England who take German, French and Spanish also get better grades in English than those who don't. IMO it's less to do with neurological development than with being forced into studying language structure and rules, some of which rubs off and improves the native tongue. It's also strongly related to the way English language is taught in UK schools (badly). It may sound odd but I never had a single formal English language lesson after the age of 11, only literature.

Almost all the English grammar I know I picked up from my German teacher who quite often had to teach us English grammar first to give us a frame of reference for teaching German (she was a Herman). According to one of my ex's there was a trend 20 odd years ago to not correct poor grammar, as it stifled creativity. And it's clear that things have only got worse. Just look at the dismal spelling in so many UK posters on here to see the result.

[Rosamunda]

I agree, international schools vary, they are all different. But they tend to employ young, highly-mobile teachers who may or may not be great at their job but it doesn't matter because three years down the line they'll have moved to Bahrain, or Budapest, or Bangkok.... That was my feeling, though we did have some great teachers we certainly had some that were terrible and, overall, the remedial help for children lagging behind was basic at best (there was no streaming). Then there's ESL: in any class in an international school there will be a handful of kids who barely speak English at all and others who are so unstable they are a liability in the classroom (I very briefly taught in a international school as a replacement teacher but quickly admitted defeat).

Things might have changed since when you were 11. Kids have changed. Teachers have changed.

The smallest class sizes we have had were when my children moved into a Finnish state school. But that varies a lot and class sizes have grown recently. Private international schools don't necessarily have small classes, but IMO class size is not a big issue. I don't think it would be an important criteria for me choosing a school. Some teachers can cope easily with 20-25 kids in a class, others mess up with only 12-15.

There is no streaming in Finland (or in the UK in primary/secondary) and there probably never will be. Schools offer fast-track extra classes in maths (and maybe some other subjects) for clever kids who get through the stuff quickly. In lukio you pace yourself, it's totally modular. You can take as long as you like. I think it is possible to get through lukio in 2 years but most take 3 or 4 years. I agree that many boys just fizzle out (4 years of lukio, then a year in the army, then godknowshowmanyyears to get a degree (assuming they get into Uni at their first attempt), working part-time in Stockmann while looking for something else... I agree many 18-25 year olds are in a rut. Ammatikoulu are a great alternative but like Upphew said, it is getting harder and harder to get a place on a good vocational course. Maybe the bright ones fizzle out at Uni because their studies are so incredibly boring, OK they are not there to be entertained but... some of the stories I hear make me think Finland wouldn't be my first choice location to take a degree.

Agree about the grammar. But language is more than grammar. It's also about being creative, having a rich, broad vocabulary and an interest in words. Since UK schools stopped teaching foreign languages (thanks to Ofsted stats etc), the general level of literacy in state schools has plummeted.

End of ramble. But I think we agree on most things.

[sinikala]

It would be nice to agree to disagree or even agree to agree, but I can't resist ...

The smallest class sizes we have had were when my children moved into a Finnish state school. But that varies a lot and class sizes have grown recently. Private international schools don't necessarily have small classes, but IMO class size is not a big issue. I don't think it would be an important criteria for me choosing a school. Some teachers can cope easily with 20-25 kids in a class, others mess up with only 12-15.

The point of class size from my understanding is a crucial factor in the standard of education. This is why private school children have a huge advantage over state school kids.
It extends into tertiary teaching too - Oxbridge have a very good ratio of students : staff, the former polys have far fewer staff... spread thinner, less contact time per student.

There is no streaming in Finland (or in the UK in primary/secondary) and there probably never will be.

There is no streaming in UK primary. But in the UK there is surely still separation of ability at secondary level - be it streaming / setting or banding, no?
This article implies there is still setting http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 992951.ece

Schools offer fast-track extra classes in maths (and maybe some other subjects) for clever kids who get through the stuff quickly. In lukio you pace yourself, it's totally modular. You can take as long as you like. I think it is possible to get through lukio in 2 years but most take 3 or 4 years. I agree that many boys just fizzle out (4 years of lukio, then a year in the army, then godknowshowmanyyears to get a degree (assuming they get into Uni at their first attempt), working part-time in Stockmann while looking for something else... I agree many 18-25 year olds are in a rut. Ammatikoulu are a great alternative but like Upphew said, it is getting harder and harder to get a place on a good vocational course. Maybe the bright ones fizzle out at Uni because their studies are so incredibly boring, OK they are not there to be entertained but... some of the stories I hear make me think Finland wouldn't be my first choice location to take a degree.

The problem is not at the University level, it's that the students here are poorly prepared for university and are too old when they get there.
By studying so many subjects up to 19-20 they have little knowledge in depth. Some of the basics which 2nd /3rd year degree students (22-23 years old?) seem to not understand I covered at A-level (16-17 years old), and would be at the latest covered in the first year at uni in the UK (18-19 years old). By the time they graduate (if they graduate!), no problem. But it takes them some time to catch up - which is why degrees here are so damned long.

As an aside - my undestanding is that the extra maths at Lukio is similar to the UK A-levels in Maths and Further Maths. That doesn't really mean the students are progressing any faster, just those who are good at maths / interested have a wider and more challenging curriculum to study (Maths is a big subject)

Like Upphew I think you are still missing the big picture. The point of school is to prepare productive members of society... ready for working life. There is nothing wrong with learning a trade / skill, but realisitcally if the child's parents are graduates, then the child is probably going to be funnelled towards university too.

Back to the Times article above

Employers have their grumbles. Although basically satisfied with Finnish education, businesses say the system, which is free throughout, takes far too long. “The average age of graduation in universities is now 28, which is very high,” says Markku Koponen, director of education at the Confederation of Finnish Industries EK.

I agree graduation at 28 is too late. The 20s are the most productive years of most people's lives, before they become weighed down by family and commitments.
A large proportion of Finland's brightest, most energetic youngsters while away those years sitting in lecture rooms when they should be contributing, earning and paying taxes.

The brightest 20 somethings range from the laid back eternal students relying on their own parents, to the motivated kids trying to get through as fast as possible andstill only graduate at 24(!), to married couples holding down crappy jobs to keep their family & kids(!) fed whilst their studies suffer or are put on hold. When you were a student how many of your classmates were married or had children? Thats for after university, no?

I don't think that the problem is in the Universities, the damage already seems to have been done before that. Pisa scores and high average level of education in the populace aside, if the aim is to get the kid through uni, then Finland is not the best place to do that.

[Upphew]

Like Upphew I think you are still missing the big picture. The point of school is to prepare productive members of society... ready for working life. There is nothing wrong with learning a trade / skill, but realisitcally if the child's parents are graduates, then the child is probably going to be funnelled towards university too.

Back to the Times article above

Employers have their grumbles. Although basically satisfied with Finnish education, businesses say the system, which is free throughout, takes far too long. “The average age of graduation in universities is now 28, which is very high,” says Markku Koponen, director of education at the Confederation of Finnish Industries EK.

I agree graduation at 28 is too late. The 20s are the most productive years of most people's lives, before they become weighed down by family and commitments.
A large proportion of Finland's brightest, most energetic youngsters while away those years sitting in lecture rooms when they should be contributing, earning and paying taxes.

The brightest 20 somethings range from the laid back eternal students relying on their own parents, to the motivated kids trying to get through as fast as possible andstill only graduate at 24(!), to married couples holding down crappy jobs to keep their family & kids(!) fed whilst their studies suffer or are put on hold. When you were a student how many of your classmates were married or had children? Thats for after university, no?

I don't think that the problem is in the Universities, the damage already seems to have been done before that. Pisa scores and high average level of education in the populace aside, if the aim is to get the kid through uni, then Finland is not the best place to do that.

After we get students to graduate few years earlier, we get to hear how the graduates are too expensive and want full time jobs and aren't flexible enough. But government is happy, as then the ex uni students start their families earlier: it is certainly in their interest to get full time job before breeding.

edit. or at least so I, and many others, did: last few years a course here and another there and working between them with funny wages...

[Rosamunda]

It would be nice to agree to disagree or even agree to agree.

Yep!

The point of class size from my understanding is a crucial factor in the standard of education. This is why private school children have a huge advantage over state school kids.

Maybe, which is one good reason why I'm glad mine were schooled in Finland (ave class size 19.8 versus 25.7 in the UK). Of course when I was in primary school I was in a class of 44 and we were packed like sardines. We had teachers "imported" from Down Under (I know a ton of Australia songs off by heart...) and one who had been brought back from retirement, he was so old (and fierce) we lived in terror.

It extends into tertiary teaching too Oxbridge have very good ratio students to staff, the former polys much less staff... spread thinner, less contact time pers student.

True but bigger classes also mean that the Unis and Polys can afford better salaries (they need fewer staff).

There is no streaming in Finland (or in the UK in primary/secondary) and there probably never will be.

There is no streaming in UK primary. But in the UK there is surely separation of ability at secondary level - be it streaming / setting or banding, no?
This article implies there is setting
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 992951.ece

My undestanding is that the extra maths at Lukio is similar to the UK A-levels in Maths and Further Maths, for students strong in maths. That doesn't really mean the students are progressing any faster, just those who are good at maths / interested have a wider and more challenging curriculum to study (Maths is a big subject)

In lukio, long maths is a different syllabus to regular maths. It is equivalent to A level I guess. The fast-track maths programmes I mentioned are in secondary school (yla-aste). But in Finland every high school student has to study maths at some level unlike the UK where you can get through 6th form without doing any maths or science subjects at all. You can complete 6th form without doing any English or modern languages. Many universities have to run academic writing courses now, to improve the weak literacy skills of the undergraduate in-take.

Anyway, like Upphew I think you are still missing the big picture. The point of school is to prepare you to be a productive member of society... ready you for working life.

And I think that on paper a fully-integrated high school curriculum like the Finnish lukio, the French baccalaureat or the World Schools' IB does that a lot better than A levels. You keep referring to Oxbridge and private schools and I'm willing to believe that they are doing a great job. But I don't think they are a benchmark for measuring the success of the national education system.

There is nothing wrong with learning a trade / skill, but realisitcally if the child's parents are graduates, then the child is probably going to be directed towards university too.

Really? I would discourage my children from going to university (Finnish style) unless they want an academic career or aspire to being doctors, lawyers etc (which they don't). There are thousands of engineering graduates in Finland who are out of work, or in work for which they are way over qualified. What's the sense in that? Learning a trade gives a student a real opportunity to work for himself, become an entrepreneur, move abroad, rather than work for years and years in an office for somebody else. In Finland very few university graduates ever become entrepreneurs. In fact there is almost an aversion to entrepreneurship (as opposed to innovation).

Employers have their grumbles. Although basically satisfied with Finnish education, businesses say the system, which is free throughout, takes far too long. “The average age of graduation in universities is now 28, which is very high,” says Markku Koponen, director of education at the Confederation of Finnish Industries EK.

I agree with him, graduation at 28 is not good. The 20s are the most productive years of most people's lives, before they become bogged down by family and commitments.

A large proportion of Finland's brightest, most energetic youngsters while away their 20s in lecture rooms when they should be contributing, earning and paying taxes.

The brightest 20 somethings here go from the laid back eternal students relying on their own parents, to the motivated kids trying to get through as ast as possible and graduate at 24(!) to married couples holding down crappy jobs to pay for their family & kids(!) whilst their studies suffer or are put on hold.

Penelope, may I ask, when you were a student how many of your classmates were married or had children? Thats for after university, no?

I think your picture of school, study, work, family, work, retire is very conservative and quaintly old-fashioned. One thing I really do like about the Finnish education system is its flexibility and the fact that kids can get a trade, work, study some more, work some more, take a sabbatical etc In fact there is nothing stopping me from applying to Uni if I want to (a friend of mine also just 50 graduated last year with a Masters in Psychology). It is much easier to find a work/study/life balance than it is in the UK where everyone has to follow the same tracks, all doing the same stuff at the same time. What in hell is wrong with having married people with kids in university? (oh yes, I remember, kids "bog you down"!) And I'm not sure than 20-somethings are the most energetic members of society. That's a huge generalisation. You could equally argue than 50-somethings are far more energetic and contributive members to society since they have no kids to bog them down and at the same time they have a wealth of experience to share. Or maybe you think everyone over 50 is geriatric and should be preparing for retirement.

But I do agree that there should be time limits on university courses. After all, a chimpanzee could get through a Masters Program given an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time.

[sinikala]

You keep referring to Oxbridge and private schools and I'm willing to believe that they are doing a great job. But I don't think they are a benchmark for measuring the success of the national education system.

I referred to private schools vs. state schools and Oxbridge vs. ex-polys in response to you writing ...

IMO class size is not a big issue. I don't think it would be an important criteria for me choosing a school.

as they are the extremes of the ratios of staff to student. Nothing more.

Of course there are other important factors, but I'm pretty sure that class size has a big say in the quality of education a child receives. The biggest leaps in understanding are made when the teacher interacts directly with the pupil. Big class = less contact time.

There is nothing wrong with learning a trade / skill, but realisitcally if the child's parents are graduates, then the child is probably going to be directed towards university too.

Really? I would discourage my children from going to university (Finnish style) unless they want an academic career or aspire to being doctors, lawyers etc (which they don't). There are thousands of engineering graduates in Finland who are out of work, or in work for which they are way over qualified. What's the sense in that? Learning a trade gives a student a real opportunity to work for himself, become an entrepreneur, move abroad, rather than work for years and years in an office for somebody else.).

The issue of apprenticeship vs. University is a different topic. Irrespective of what you are recommending to your kids, statistically the fact remains that the child of two graduates is more likely to go to university than the child of two people who have not been to university. Don't have to like it, Governments spend fortunes trying to change it, that's just the way it is.

In Finland very few university graduates ever become entrepreneurs. In fact there is almost an aversion to entrepreneurship (as opposed to innovation).

And why they don't they become entrepreneurs? The explanation at least to me seems pretty strightforward - high risk and low rewards. People with families need the steady pay-cheque. Risk taking is easiest for those free of responsibility, and here there is no great benefit of working for yourself.

I think your picture of school, study, work, family, work, retire is very conservative and quaintly old-fashioned.

Conservative, agreed. Old fashioned?! Hardly, that's the way the modern world works. Again, don't shoot the messenger.
Perhaps you are in for a bit of a shock as Universities here are rapidly moving in the direction of the UK/US model.
- Degree study times are being limited so that 5 year degrees become the norm not 8 year degrees.
- The tenure track system of the US universities is starting to come in to structure academic career paths for those who want to become professors.
Once that is in place they will be forced to take a top-down look at why high schools are failing to produce the calibre of student required for 5 year degree studies.

One thing I really do like about the Finnish education system is its flexibility and the fact that kids can get a trade, work, study some more, work some more, take a sabbatical etc In fact there is nothing stopping me from applying to Uni if I want to (a friend of mine also just 50 graduated last year with a Masters in Psychology). It is much easier to find a work/study/life balance than it is in the UK where everyone has to follow the same tracks, all doing the same stuff at the same time.

That's all very nice, but in the modern world it's not 50 year old psychology graduates who create wealth and keep the balance of trade in the black. Not me who set the world up that way, just the way it is.

What in hell is wrong with having married people with kids in university? (oh yes, I remember, kids "bog you down"!) And I'm not sure than 20-somethings are the most energetic members of society. That's a huge generalisation. You could equally argue than 50-somethings are far more energetic and contributive members to society since they have no kids to bog them down and at the same time they have a wealth of experience to share. Or maybe you think everyone over 50 is geriatric and should be preparing for retirement.

There is nothing wrong with having married people with kids in university, but you can't deny it's a tad harder to do a degree at 28 with a spouse, kids and a dayjob than it is at 21 with no commitments. There is no underlying prejudice, which is what you appear to be implying, it's just a fact. Far easier to get the degree over and done with when you are young and carefree.
Here the student time creeps into the time of life when people are settling down. The whole education process here is too long. It needs to be and will be streamlined.

[Tiwaz]

Chopping and changing school does make the child adaptable, helps the kid to learn how to blend in, also at least in my case motivated the child to work hard - sink or swim. On the downside I think it gave me restless legs, I constantly need new challenges and get bored too easily. Probably put that down to ADHD nowadays.

Ah, sink or swim. It is great way to make few excellents, some less so excellents. But problem is, there is going to be large amount of bloated corpses floating who did not figure out the swimming part.

One can argue that having few shining examples ouweights the losses, but that is quite easily questioned.

In the end, having few but bright is rarely as effective in long term as having good overall average. Few averages working together tend to always beat few shining stars.

[Rosamunda]

Good point. In her book "Hot Spots" Dr Lynda Gratton (prof of Management Practice at LBS) explains how the role of high-flyers/ high-achievers is often over-rated in modern organisations. In her opinion innovation and growth are achieved with a cross-boundary approach, with team members volunteering to work together in highly-cooperative "hot spots" where communication skills and collaboration are really important. Unfortunately many high achievers (academically speaking) are not the best communicators, or team players and lack the social skills required for working in fast moving innovative projects. It seems Finland scores highly in the innovation stakes, so the country must be doing something right. She quotes examples from several Finnish companies in her book. According to her, highly-competitive working environments are not conducive to innovation and creativity in organisations.

Hot spots very rarely arise in highly aggressive competitive situations, because everybody is defending their own pitch, their own terms. Nobody really wants to work with anyone else. So don't expect hot spots to arise in an organisation where the order of the day is being highly competitive.

I think there is some truth in the fact that, from an early age, students need to be encouraged to work effectively in teams and collaborate on projects. Blended-learning methods using a multi-media approach are great new tools for doing that. Also integrated learning (eg CLIL) encourages a cross-boundary approach to learning. I like the idea that every student in a class, even the ones who don't get the best grades, can have something to contribute.

[ordinary_life]

Good point, Penelop. I actually experiencing some highly competitive environment. There is absolutely no very trusted cooperation. People are having plan B, C, D for themselves. All collabration with others is to achieving own goal and ready for showing self off... nothing for "big picture".