A focus on the individual

Giving German Universities a Boost

Ranking wrangling

The Red Sea Programme: sailing a nutshell of hope in Red Sea waters

Emigration, isolation and the slow start of molecular biology in Germany

Hidden success of German university reform

Introduction. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of primary health care differs between students enrolled in Belgian and German government-funded universities. The secondary aim of the study was to determine the factors that might explain such a difference.Methods. Participants were recruited through all Belgian and German government-funded universities. Because not all the universities agreed to participate, recruiting was also done through social media groups of the universities. An anonymous online survey was used for data collection.Results. In total, 2238 completed surveys were evaluated, of which 544 from students in Belgium and 1694 from students in Germany. In Belgium, more students had a family physician (87%) as compared to the students in Germany (73%) (p < 0.001). During the two months prior to the study, 37% of the Belgian students and 35% of the German students attended a family physician (p = 0.37). More German students attended a specialist (40%) as compared to the Belgian students (24%) (p<0.001). The German students also attended the emergency department more frequently (6%) as compared to their Belgian counterparts (3%) (p = 0.004).Conclusion. Belgian university students were more likely to attend a primary care physician than the German students. The health care seemed to be better organized for Belgian students and they were more satisfied with the delivered care.

The recent advancements in information and communication technologies have altered instructional contexts and re-shaped them into smart learning environments. One of the most common practices of these environments are learning management systems (LMS) where the learners and instructors utilize a software platform to fulfill, support and manage instructional activities around predefined objectives. Successful implementations of LMS have brought a variety on its usage from different cultures, genders, age groups or schooling levels. Hence, this study focuses on understanding the role of culture on LMS design, in along with the effects of gender, age and school year variables. The study participants were German (n = 83) and Spanish (n = 83) university students attending a fully online course offered by a South Korean university. At the end of the course, the students were asked to fulfill a survey on effective LMS design by pointing which features of LMS were more important for them. The survey included twenty questions on four major design factors; content management (six items), ease of use (five items), communication within LMS (four item) and screen design (five items). The dataset was analyzed by non-parametric statistical techniques around four variables on four dimensions (and their related survey questions). The most important result was insufficiency of one unique LMS design for all students which demonstrates the necessity of student demographics tailored smart systems. Additionally, age and gender variables were not making significant differences on LMS design as much as culture and school year variables. The study also revealed that while German students would appreciate goal-oriented individual learning, Spanish students would value process-oriented group learning with active communication. Furthermore, many features of LMS were highly valued by the freshman students more than other levels. The paper discusses these variables with possible explanations from the literature and depicts implementations for future design practices.

This study analyses the legal framework for regulating student mobility at German universities. The authors of the article examine the legal framework for the implementation of student mobility in Germany from the perspective of international, federal and institutional levels. Using the methods of analysis, generalisation, and systematisation, the author describes international treaties (Bologna Declaration, Magna Carta of Universities, Lisbon Declaration, Sorbonne Declaration; Mobility Strategy 2020 for the European Higher Education Area (2011), Incheon Declaration (2015), Yerevan Communiqué (2015); federal laws (Federal Framework Law on Higher Education, Federal Law on the Promotion of Education, etc.) The functions of a number of organisations (Federal Ministries, DAAD, Alexander Humboldt Organisation, Conference of German Rectors, German Students' Organisation) responsible for promoting student mobility are described. It is established that their powers include: financing student mobility programmes, establishing cooperation with foreign universities, etc. The authors state that the regulatory framework for academic mobility in German universities is formed at the appropriate level and is in line with global and regional trends. Being at the origins of the Bologna process, Germany has gradually and systematically reformed the regulatory framework in accordance with the main provisions of the Bologna agreements. It has its own Internationalisation Strategy, which guarantees the involvement of universities in this process and thus the basis for the development of academic mobility of students of these universities. This can explain the high level and balance of student mobility in Germany.

Implementation of the Principles of State Innovation Policy and Ways of State Regulation of Innovation Activities in Financial Support of Innovation Projects

International conference «Germany and Russia: Ecosystems without borders» EcoSystConfKlgtu (October 5-8, 2020) took place within the framework of the annual VIII International Baltic Maritime Forum in Kaliningrad, Russia, organized by the Kaliningrad State Technical University (Russia). International conference «Germany and Russia: Ecosystems without borders» was held within the framework of the Year of Germany in Russia 2020/2021 and presented Germany as a modern progressive country and reliable European partner for Russia. More than a hundred Russian, German and foreign scientists, researchers and experts, representatives of leading Russian and German universities, scientific institutes, as well as business representatives took part in the conference.The Conference Proceedings International conference «Germany and Russia: Ecosystems without borders» include 3 main fields: 1. Digital ecosystems: society – ecology – economy 2. Green energy 3. Biotechnology The main goal of the conference is to exchange information on topical issues in the field of energy, ecology, food biotechnology, and recycling. The conference created the premises for the formation of joint long-term research projects between Germany and Russia.We would like to express our deep gratitude to the organizers of the Year of Germany in Russia 2020/2021 project: Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Russian Federation, Goethe-Institut, as well as the Russian-German Chamber of Commerce, which helped to implement the International Conference “Germany and Russia: Ecosystems without borders” and further develop Russian-German relations in the field of science.We thank very much the organizing committee and the members of the reviewers for their kind help in reviewing the articles.List of Organising Committee, Editors are available in the pdf.

In the wake of the recent university reforms, the new academic division of labor in Germany has subserviently followed the U.S.-model of creating a rift between research and teaching universities by establishing on the one hand so-called “elite universities” that benefit from considerable state funding and on the other hand trying to reduce the rest to pedagogical carbon copies of standard curricula that can only award bachelor‘s or at most master‘s degrees and where the teaching load allows (almost) no research. The so-called “excellence initiative”, an evaluation process taking place between 2006 and 2007, in the course of which 9 universities - among which the Free University of Berlin, the University of Munich, and the University of Heidelberg - were designated as “elite universities”, represents Germany‘s hitherto clearest and most highly institutionalized example of a state policy aimed at confining research to specialized institutions, such as was already the case with the Max Planck institutes, the Leibniz institutes and the Fraunhofer societies founded in the 1970s and 1980s. However, while earlier steps in this direction only created a wider array of employment options for researchers, the argument of this paper is that the excellence initiative represents what has been called a process of “indirect commercialization” (Reinhard Kreckel) or an instance of “academic capitalism” (Slaughter/Leslie) of/in the Western European university system, which traditionally relied on state financing and state control of university finances. To this end, the paper proceeds in two steps: First, following Reinhard Kreckel‘s argument that neoliberal globalization exerts new economic and fiscal pressures on the state that are then passed on to the higher education systems depending on them, the paper looks at how the new elite discourse of German higher education is producing new structures of exclusion instead of the professed more egalitarian and meritocratic system of self-designated “knowledge societies”. Second, using the examples of recent calls for grant applications by Germany‘s ministry of education and state-funded research agencies, the paper zooms in on the revival of area studies as one of the prominent targets of the excellence initiative and funding in order to show how strong state financial support for inequality and democratization research (in the context of Latin American studies) and transformation research (in the context of Eastern European studies) reinforces the main assumptions of modernization theory and reproduces the asymmetries of knowledge production characteristic of Euro- and state-centered approaches to the issues in question.

Geography education plays a key role in shaping students' understanding of the world and its complexity. The focus of this scientific work is on conducting a comparative analysis of teaching modules in geography at the Humboldt University in Berlin and our Faculty of Geography in Belgrade, with the aim of revealing and providing insight into different pedagogical approaches, curriculum structures and cultural influences that shape geography education in these two contexts. Using a mixed methods approach, data is collected from personal experience, recommended scientific examination literature and communication with professors and other students at the mentioned universities. The focus of the analysis includes: the design and way of implementing the curriculum, teaching methods, assessment practices and conducting exams, field work and the use of auxiliary scientific means in everyday teaching. In German universities, geography university modules show a strong interdisciplinary orientation, often integrating elements from environmental science, sociology, economics and statistics. Emphasis is on practical application of knowledge in modern times, as well as evaluation of students' critical thinking. A type of interactive method is advocating a debate on certain current world topics. In addition, there is a strong focus on sustainability and environmental management, reflecting the German republic's commitment to environmental management. In contrast, Serbian universities show a more traditional approach to geographic education, with a dominant focus on theoretical frameworks and conceptual understanding. Lectures and exercises are the primary mode of instruction, with limited opportunities for hands-on learning experiences. In addition, the curriculum tends to reflect the historical and geopolitical context, with a strong focus on processes and changes closely related to the Republic of Serbia. Cultural factors also significantly influence the teaching and learning process in both contexts. German education emphasizes the intellectual autonomy of students and independent learning, while Serbian education places more emphasis on instructions given by the professor and literal interpretation of knowledge. This work would contribute to a better understanding of two completely different types of higher education. By offering an insight into different approaches in teaching geography and different national contexts, it is an opportunity to develop and upgrade the curriculum at our faculty. By understanding these differences, educators can enrich their pedagogical practice and promote contemporary trends and global perspectives in geography education. By implementing these innovative trends, they would go beyond the traditional approach to science and step towards a modern approach.

The scientific collaboration between Israel and Germany was not initiated, as commonly believed, by the Max Planck Society or by German scientists who wanted to revive collaboration with their former Jewish colleagues. Rather, it was initiated in the mid‐1950s by two Israeli scientists from the Weizmann Institute and a German scientist at the time at CERN in violation of the widely accepted cultural boycott by Israel against Germany. The initiators succeeded in procuring political support; large‐scale collaboration between the Weizmann Institute, German universities, and the Max Planck Society was developed. In the aftermath of the Second World War, German science suffered from the Nazi expulsion of Jewish scientists and partial international isolation; the collaboration with Israel enabled young German scientists to overcome this isolation and benefit from stimulating Israeli research environments. In times of economic hardship, the collaboration helped Israeli science materially, provided contacts to chemical industry, and strengthened the cooperation between Israeli and European science. The collaboration was built, in part, on postwar myths created by German scientists and the Max Planck Society about their former anti‐Nazi attitudes. Despite the difficult beginnings and some hidden political agendas, the collaboration developed very successfully. Germany became Israel’s second most important partner in the scientific field, after the USA. Today, normalcy prevails in many – though not all – of the Israeli‐German collaborative projects; the past is not forgotten, but science is in the fore.

&lt;B&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Exposure to natural or manmade disasters is associated with long-term health consequences, including those for mental health. Trauma can be considered as the severe mental health outcome of such kinds of disasters. University students as an academic population can also be exposed to different types of disasters in their life. However, most students tend to remain within the academic society due to their coping capacities. It is possible that some students who are suffering from a trauma may not have been identified and that some may even have healed due to individual resilience.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;B&gt;Participants and procedure&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; This study investigated samples of German and Sri Lankan university students (N = 356), attempting to identify relationships between emotional intelligence and its impact on trauma compared with resilience capacities. A purposeful sampling method was used for data collection.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; &lt;B&gt;Results and conclusions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Independent sample t-test and hierarchical multiple regression analysis demonstrated that German students and Sri Lankan students used different levels of resilience capacity and emotional intelligence in their trauma coping.

T he need for the principle of gender equality to be established in all national and European programs is increasingly recognized in European Union (EU) member countries. On average, only 9% of top research positions in the EU are held by women, despite the fact that women now constitute 50% of first-degree students in many EU countries.* And the percentages of women professors are increasing only slowly, at a rate of around 0.5 to 1.0% per year. Forward-looking education and research policy must create the prerequisites for a fair representation of women in all areas and at all levels; simply to wait for gender balance is not an option. One of the German government's primary goals is to increase the participation of women in science and research in Germany, particularly in positions of leadership at higher education and research institutions. In 1998, only 6% of full professorial positions at German universities and about 4% of positions of leadership at German nonuniversity research institutions were held by women. In the same year, about 14% of full professors in the United States and France were female.[*][1] The situation in Germany is completely unsatisfactory and underlines the need for action. The forthcoming generational shift, especially at German higher education institutions where many of the researchers hired in the 1970s will be retiring soon, presents an opportunity to significantly increase the proportion of women in positions of leadership. A new program, entitled Equal Opportunities for Women in Research and Higher Education, which starts in 2001, is designed to help us reach our goal of 20% female professorships at German universities by 2005. Other programs aimed at advancing the careers of young postdoctoral researchers require 40% of new hires to be female. In the autumn of 1998, the supervisory bodies of the 16 largest national research centers in the Federal Republic of Germany, which together form the Hermann von Helmholtz Association (HGF), adopted basic policy decisions on gender equality in an initiative of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research. In these research institutions, women hold only about 2% of leadership positions, a situation that is clearly unacceptable. Under the new policy, equal opportunity commissioners are to be appointed at the executive level, and staff development plans with specific targets for gender equality for the next 5 years are to be submitted for all areas of scientific staff. In addition, in the federal budget for 1999, we have created 100 permanent employment opportunities in research institutions that are designed specifically to help women reach top leadership positions, and we have established a framework for specific programs for women in leadership positions. For example, a program entitled A Springboard for Advancement (Anstos zum Aufstieg), which was started at HGF centers but which we aim to extend to other research institutes such as the Max Planck Institutes, provides leadership training, coaching, and mentoring for female scientists as well as assistance with systematic career planning and networking. Also, it is now possible, for the first time, for research institutes to offer child care facilities that are funded out of their regular budgets. In addition to these programs, strategic projects such as the Centre of Excellence Women and Science, an information resource providing international networking facilities and expert databases, are designed to bring about structural change and raise awareness. We are also actively supporting the International Women's University's EXPO 2000, where 900 female researchers will work together for 100 days, and are introducing an auditing program monitoring the human resource policies of universities and research insitutes. Encouraging gender equality is essential for innovation and international competitiveness in education, science, and industry. Fair representation of women will help us broaden the basis of scientific questions, methods, and approaches; foster change; improve research quality; and bring about a fairer distribution of resources. [1]: #fn-1