Financing Universities in the Federal Republic of Germany

Financing universities in times of increasing demands in all fields of public expenditure is a problem of nearly all European counnies not least because of the ongoing process of European integration. Comparing the different national systems of financing universities may be a means to foster cooperation and competition in a step by step growing network of universities in the European Community. This paper tries to give some insights into the German system; special considerotion is given to its federal structure and its implications for the universities' financthg system, because these problems may be of interest to other countries also. Of course this survey cannot be complete; details must be left to detailed information. The first part of the paper gives a survey of the higher education system in the Federal Republic of Gennany. The second part deals with the sources of funds, including the structure of mong streams to the universities. The third part refffs to the restrictions in using state money in the universities and the problems resulting; the fourth and final part concentrates on problems of the future, especially getring third party finds, and the diversifiation. of financing.     

Legal Defensibility of Standards: Issues and Policy Perspectives

What legal issues may arise in setting content or performance standards? What precedents are relevant? What practices are defensible?     

A nation at risk: The economic consequences of neglecting career development

Conclusion Computer-based career systems should be the focal point of popular, and effective career development initiatives which are of tremendous benefit to individuals. Such initiatives also have the potential to significantly reduce public expenditures and enhance the nation's competitive position internationally. The key lies in helping people understand that we can no longer afford to neglect the career development needs of Americans.I am most grateful for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you. I encourage you to promote the use of computer-based career systems by defining their benefits in economic terms. However, be sure you can prove your system does more than simply entertain its users, or leave them with extensive computer printouts.Phillip S. Jarvis is Manager, Careerware Research and Product Design, STM Systems Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and the author of CHOICES. This is the text of a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Association of Computer-Based Systems for Career Information ((ACSCI) in St. Louis, Missouri on December 2, 1988.     

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.