The beauty is that you might not *need* your parents to pay for the costs of education if you play your cards right.
I agree that not knowing about fully English classes would be a problem..

A 'proper' Dutch study is in fact really hard to find. All the learning material tends to be English at least.

People who go to college in Europe have "plenty of money".

Gross.

If EU universities really want American students they should tour the US to recruit them and let them know what a great deal it is. Like Canadian universities, I have never seen them recruiting here.

How US students get a university degree for free in Germany - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32821678

I found that article quite interesting. As a German, I only know things from my perspective of course, but as a US student, I would most likely go to Europe too, because it's cheaper and far away: you get to live in another culture, learn another language...I'm quite with steephie concerning that.

If the Germans want to subsidise American Higher education, then that's their own business. If I was German, though, I'd be furious.

From an environmental point of view, increasing the number of students travelling back and forth across the Atlantic seems something of a disaster.

I am also curious about which country lets children go to university? I don't recall seeing any.

@Octavious: The German policy is about treating all people equally and fairly, not as financial objects. Why does that make you furious?

Octavious is always furious about weird things. It's his shtick.

Please do not attempt to troll. This is a serious, serious debate ;)

Even from a capitalist point of view, the German policy makes financial sense because they draw in good, capable students, who will enrich their universities, and many of whom will likely stay and enrich the economy with skills, knowledge, and intercultural experience.

From one perspective, it's a shrewd business policy.

I'm not furious. I have a feeling of Zen like calm regarding how the Germans choose to waste their money :). If I was German, however, I would question why it is that my political leaders see funding foreigners through university as a higher priority than tackling German's many social issues. 10% of German youngsters are functionally illiterate, and yet they think the best way to spend their money is paying for middle class Yanks to get degrees. That is not what I consider fair.

Your own government just dropped tax credits for low income people and lying to them and you're complaining about the notion of foreigners getting educated as being unfair?

Fascinating sense of justice, that.

Well Octavious, welcome to real life: it's not fair.

Apart from that, those are two very different things that have no connection. That illiteracy rate is a problem of the system, not funding...

Once again Putin's ability to get to the nub of the issue is astounding. So few of us would have been able to see that the crucial point of German higher education funding is the British tax credit system.

Sorry if I manage to be perplexed by your sense of fairness or whether you even have one. It's not exactly intuitive.

There is no connection between illiteracy and higher education, GOD? Really?

No connection between funding and the problem in Germany, Oct. C'mon.

Not they way you try to make it up, no. The illiteracy rate is a problem of the German system that tends to forget about people. Pupils are separated after four years of primary school into three classes. If you fall into the lowest one, the Hauptschule, you can practically give up. Few people get far from there. Nevertheless, German teachers are amongst the highest-paid in the world and study at least six years before being full teachers The schools and their equipment are usually in good condition, the gyms are nice. Of course, educational facilities can always need more money for this or that, but there is no general, broad lack of anything to be seen. It's the system...

And as wjessop already pointed out: financially that policy makes sense on the long term. And I really like to live in a diverse society and would like to study abroad. So no, as a German I am not furious at all about the government's approach to free university education for foreigners.

It's profitable for a country to have well-educated people there and the money invested goes to German universities in the end. Some of the students will stay in Germany which is the net profit for the German economy.

"If I was German, however, I would question why it is that my political leaders see funding foreigners through university as a higher priority than tackling German's many social issues. 10% of German youngsters are functionally illiterate, and yet they think the best way to spend their money is paying for middle class Yanks to get degrees. That is not what I consider fair."

ah, the old "we have other problems". if so many people think that (and they do, i hear that argument all the time, why do we still fund culture? after all, people are homeless and unemployed!

Isn't it racism to differentiate based on nationality, anyway? I know it happens with many things, but is it legal to subsidize Dutch people in the Netherlands in a certain situation without subsidizing foreign people in the Netherlands in the same situation?

Yes. Britain charges more for foreigners than it does for UK citizens.

"Racism to discriminate on nationality?"

The English language is so inept and unhelpful sometimes.

@kasimax: I agree that Octavious' argument sucks, but I can think of no reason why we still fund culture. It depends on what cultural aspect we speak about and I'm sure that some need funding, but where it concerns things that are no economical no-brainers, I really think it's odd that we choose to subsidize culture of all things.

Sorry, discrimination. Misspoke because I was thinking about too many things at once :-)

@steephie I think it's nationalism, not racism

"I can think of no reason why we still fund culture"

so steephie, you'd cut all funding for theatres, cinemas, museums, artists, musicians, painters, directors, actors, ...?

And we fund culture because that's essential about being humans:
The creation of something that serves no other purpose than it's own existence. That's what we call culture and it's great and should be funded to be protected from too much commercialisation.

@kasimax: Not all, but yes to the sentiment. Subsidizing to kickstart things is fine by me. Theatres constantly asking relatively low prices because they get subsidies long-term and don't need to charge the customers for all costs really makes me wonder how you're going to explain to someone that a non-profitable theatre show takes priority over saving lives.