Posing Apprenticeships as a significant alternative to higher education is delusional. First because a true apprenticeship requires a contractual relationship between the apprentice and the master. That sort of contract is extremely problematic to modern business entities because it does not allow flexibility in staffing levels, requires a significant investment in training (several years), and because indentured service is generally frowned upon and body warrants are hard to obtain these days -- there is little viable recourse should the apprentice terminate the apprenticeship early.
In addition apprenticeship is difficult because it easily runs afoul of equal opportunity expectations and requirements (in the US). The difficulty in differentiating between individuals and in determining each person's unique skill set before they are on the job is the reason all soldiers go through the same basic training and then are assigned to their specialties (of course one could argue that military skills are often determined before hand - but that is an argument for prior training (college) not against it).
Indeed the significant latitude of the military is an indication of what is needed to create any semblance of a workable apprenticeship program which provides equal opportunity on a large scale - an organization where meritocracy is highly advantageous both to the organization and the individuals who lead it, extreme prejudice in the enforcement of contracts (e.g. execution for desertion), and very one sided contracts (e.g. imprisonment for AWOL).
Modern higher education has grown because it offers such a powerful solution to many of the problems created by apprenticeship particularly lack of equal opportunity, exploitation of apprentices, diversion of resources to training and away from profit making activities, and long term commitments to particular individuals who may not be suited for the profession.
"Posing Apprenticeships as a significant alternative to higher education is delusional."
This is absolutely absurd and just shows pure ignorance of the economic realities beyond your grasp. Germany thrives off of apprenticeships. You can't find a job without having an apprenticeship under your belt in Germany. Students spend between 50% to 70% of their time at a company, while the rest is spent on traditional education. Apprenticeships are a vital source to Germany's economy. Dismissing it based on your pet theories is bordering on asinine.
The German apprenticeship model doesn't scale well to less affluent and less homogenous countries (i.e. pretty much the rest of the world) - and it is my impression that German Hauptschule students don't apprentice in professions such as computer programming. Then again, if one accepts the idea that it is o.k. to channel children into career paths at the age of nine or ten and generally reserve the best schools for the upper social classes, then the German model might be as successful as you suggest.
Germany is successful despite the Hauptschulen, not because of it. The apprenticeships are one of the things that allow Germany to get away with its aweful schooling system.
This isn't just a hypothetical approach. In the Software Craftsmanship community, consultancies have run apprenticeship programs for years with very good results. Scaling to large businesses might not be easy, but they certainly aren't the only game in town.
I'm proud of my CS background and I wouldn't trade it, but it's interesting to work next to terrifyingly bright guys in their 20s with deeper grasp of design and modern technology than most CS grads.
Good points regarding the shortfalls of a proper apprenticeship in this instance (particularly in the US).
However, I strongly disagree that modern higher education does much to combat exploitation of new grads, resources diversion to training, or long term commitments. Higher education often fails quite admirably on these points as well.
The difficulty in differentiating between individuals and in determining each person's unique skill set before they are on the job is the reason all soldiers go through the same basic training and then are assigned to their specialties
At least in the US, that's definitely not how it works. Enlisted folk take the ASVAB before even joining. Based on those scores, they select what job they want to do before even signing on the dotted line. Recruiters are infamous for lying to enlistees about what jobs are actually like, or about whether enlistees will be able to change rates after/during bootcamp. In my experience (as an officer), most enlistees feel cheated by the system, but must "suck it up" because it's the military and they've signed away their life.
Officers join either via ROTC/Service Academy or OCS. With OCS, all officers are assigned their specialties before signing on the dotted lines. (Imagine if a doctor had to join without being guaranteed a spot as a doctor!) In ROTC or a Service Acacademy, officers have 4 years of training before they select which community to join. About 1/2 the officer corps joins this way, so about 5% of the overall military.
Higher education in countries like the US that usually assumes taking on loans already turn it into a form of indentured service - service on the loan that is, a loan that can't be gotten rid of even through bankruptcy.
Could an apprenticeship be structured like an education loan, but one that the company reduces the balance on when you stay with them?
To your point about military specialties, the range of military occupation specialties that an enlistment candidate is qualified for is determined by the enlistee's ASVAB score at the time of enlistment, not their performance during training. It is true that during training, enlistees undergo further testing (DLAB, etc...) to identify candidates for specialized and rare positions like linguists and such. And some lucky, high-scoring enlistees are given their choice of jobs prior to enlisting as an incentive for signing on the dotted line. But the bulk of enlistees are already pre-destined for an assignment, based on the needs of the service -based on body-count, not test scores-, the day they step off the bus for basic training.
In addition apprenticeship is difficult because it easily runs afoul of equal opportunity expectations and requirements (in the US). The difficulty in differentiating between individuals and in determining each person's unique skill set before they are on the job is the reason all soldiers go through the same basic training and then are assigned to their specialties (of course one could argue that military skills are often determined before hand - but that is an argument for prior training (college) not against it).
Indeed the significant latitude of the military is an indication of what is needed to create any semblance of a workable apprenticeship program which provides equal opportunity on a large scale - an organization where meritocracy is highly advantageous both to the organization and the individuals who lead it, extreme prejudice in the enforcement of contracts (e.g. execution for desertion), and very one sided contracts (e.g. imprisonment for AWOL).
Modern higher education has grown because it offers such a powerful solution to many of the problems created by apprenticeship particularly lack of equal opportunity, exploitation of apprentices, diversion of resources to training and away from profit making activities, and long term commitments to particular individuals who may not be suited for the profession.