It's not strange to be for separation of Mosque and state while not discouraging Muslims to be valuable members of our society. I myself am all for the abolishment of ANY religious influence on the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. I'm also for interior religions, as in "freedom FROM religion", I just wish Wilders would broaden his views to include all religions ;) But I think he just wants to face the biggest problems first, or something.

Sorry I meant: we had: socialist + 2 Christian parties now we have: liberal (this means something else than it does in the USA, we mean classically liberal, free market.) + 1 Christian party + PVV (Geert Wilders' party) This is the first time since the second world war we've had such a liberal government.

Heavily subsidized is an understatement. But you could say that STUDENTS are heavily subsidized. Almost everyone gets study financing from the government. You understand this costs a lot of money, but it's worth it, since employees with a university background have a greater income, they pay more taxes later in life. This in turn pays for this subsidy system. Of course we have rampant problems with people who take ages to complete the simplest of studies. That's why from 2011 you can only complete your study in the (normal time + 2 years) subsidized. After that, any excess year you have to pay for yourself. You should SEE the student protest mails that are being sent, they speak of this as if it is the end of the world. The socialist party who was in power before the current somewhat liberal christian parties, supported by the PVV (Geert Wilders' party, who is against islamisation of the Netherlands, not against muslims as persons, a mistake often made) raised a generation with a sense of absolute entitlement. This is starting to change now. But no, no crushing student loan debt. No debt at all if you don't spend a disproportional long time in completing your study. You even get a higher subsidy if you rent your own room or live on a campus and don't live with your parents anymore.

We didn't always have subject elitism, we had a history of elite schools. Some universities, such as Leiden, are still considered great in certain subjects (e.g. Law), but not in all. I think you can compare it to Harvard / MIT, where MIT obviously excels in one direction, and Harvard is seen as a more generally prestigious university. So there are still SOME leftovers from before. But if you ask me, is someone going to employ a honors student from Leiden faster than one from Amsterdam, the answer is most definitely; no. As for historical perspective, we used to value a broad education, in the 17th century we had P.C. Hooft and the Muiderkring, (coincidentally he studied law in Leiden) who wanted to achieve this Leonardo-esque status of homo universalis. And of course we had the VOC (trading company), which brought us art from all over the world in our golden and silver centuries, but this was definitely not something for the poor. But you really should ask a history student ;)

If enough people are neutral a solution would never come to fruition. The saying holds as long as the proposed solution and problem are correctly defined.

Thanks for the clarification. What about SATs then? They must be geared towards making sure that the students who didn't take leadership roles, honors courses and college credit courses can still score acceptably. I think splitting the education system in seperate levels would be a good experiment. Here in Holland the first two years of your education you are in a class with all three levels. "Nerds" get bullied and there is a lot of pressure to be normal and not stand out. But once you get to the highest level (the one you need for university) you end up in an environment of people who also want to go to university. As a result of being surrounded by your peers, who want to achieve a common goal, has a very positive effect on cooperative exercises etc. In the first two years I had to do all the work with these, in the last four there was a much better team spirit. I don't disagree with the merrits of honor courses and extra courses. I just think that with some changes you would have more honor students and students could better achieve their potential. Feel free do debunk my statements, I like to learn ;)

I think Wikileaks should host this game*. Would be really helpful to have a central place with summaries on the cables and ratings on the summaries/cables etc. Good example of crowd-sourcing, this is. Also: publicity, popularity, awareness, lead to a higher probability of change. *In before: "But who will host Wikileaks? xD"

The part about deep specialization is true for Holland too, we assume general intellectual abilities and knowledge to be present in ALL university students, owing to the fact that you must have the highest level high school education (VWO, Gymnasium) to enroll. But I believe that in the USA you have ONE high school level (perhaps private schools have higher standards?). Is it true that you have this one-size-fits-all approach?

We have elite subjects (educations). For example Med. school is really hard to get into, whether you try at UvA (University of Amsterdam) or something like the middle-of-nowhere UG (Groningen University). On the other hand, there are relatively few requirements for getting into Social Sciences. I don't get the USA system. What's the worth of an education the market isn't waiting for, even if you attended the most prestigious university? Harvard art students still don't become CEOs. I myself am studying Law at the University of Amsterdam and there is no elitism whatsoever with regard to the university. There is, however, a lot regarding universities in general compared to colleges and between studies. (e.g. "Law is better than art history!") Makes more sense. Please tell me your stories, I'm really interested.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).