Of course an individual’s qualifications are not reflected solely in marks. A lot can be established in personal interviews, but this costs employees responsible for staffing time.

This is one reason why many companies organise their own vocational education and training programmes. They have a look at which training institution fits in best with what they do and then develop curricula together with it. Such collaboration enables them to ensure that graduates from these programmes have a certain level of skills. The graduates, in turn, know that they can reckon with a future with the company.

Could Germany’s dual education and training concept of combining vocational school education and in-house training be of any use here?

It would make sense, only that it doesn’t fit in with the system. Dual education and training is based on very close co-operation between the education institution and the private sector. Although there are indeed enough firms in countries like India that are economically strong enough to implement such a concept, the question remains whether they would actually do it. This already starts with practical training. Taking someone on who lacks training or studying and simply leaving him or her to do the work, that is, not just having an individual looking on but actually trying things out requires considerable trust on the part of companies, which most of them are entirely unfamiliar with. The second aspect is formal training itself. Many countries do have training and education institutions resembling our vocational schools, such as the colleges. But the reason they are called colleges is that they impart knowledge. In the case of the technical colleges, for example, this may also have a practical dimension, but there are no arrangements to generally provide students with a practical approach.

So it is not possible to simply copy our system, which, after all, developed over the past 100 years.