Talk:Education in Serbia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Serbia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Education (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I kind of saved this from Speedy, but I have neither the time nor inclination to work on it anymore, it's an interesting subject so please help it out :) - FrancisTyers 02:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this should probably be hived out to: Education in Serbia and Montenegro (explaining post-communist education system) and Education in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (explaining communist education system), with Education in Yugoslavia as a disambig page. - FrancisTyers 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

U vezi sa značenjem termina Grammar school u Americi pročitajte istoimeni članak. Andrija 18:21,19 September 2006

Diplom equivalent to Bachelor?[edit]

Is it really correct that the old-style Serbian "diplom" degrees are only considered equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in the Bologna system? This is unlike the situation in e.g. Germany and Austria, where such degrees are usually considered equivalent to a Master's (which makes sense given the length and scope of study) - see Diplom. The "magistar", as I understand it, is purely a research degree similar to the Czech "little doctorate", the Scandinavian "magister", possibly the British "MPhil" and similar degrees that lie between the 2nd and 3rd Bologna cycle. 09:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is announced that all (former) students who completed their 4-6 years undergraduate studies (got a "diploma") will be equalised with masters [1],[2],[3],[4], [5], [6],[7]; "magistars" will have to study one more year in order to earn a doctorate.[8].You can also look at the articles No. 95 and 127 of the Serbian Law on Higher Education [9]. About Bologna-system degrees in Serbia see [10]Andrija January 10, 2007

OK. Maybe you'd like to update the article accordingly? I'd be glad to help, but my knowledge of Serbian is quite limited (I understand the gist of what the documents say, but no details). 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I haven't got time now.Maybe later. In the meantime you can ask Serbian Ministry of Education (link is in the article) or read the Law on Higher Education (in English; the link is in the text above) or see the article about Bologna process.By the way, where are you from? It would be nice from you to create an account, so that other users can leave a message on your talk page.

Bilo bi dobro da neko ko ima vremena iskoristi informacije sa sajta Ministarstva [11] da osavremeni ovaj clanak.Andrija January 10, 2007 21:15

A Diplom has been equalized with the Master's Degree [12].--Andrija 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed several spelling errors, added a citation needed tag and placed links for грађанско and веронаука. The citation tag is based on my personal experience. Currently from what I know all graduates of 4-year secondary schools can attend entrance exams for any faculty and difference exams are not required. I know of people who finished secondary medical schools and are were accepted at electrical engineering faculties. A source for that claim could be found here: [13] in the first paragraph. I also changed the "city education" bit. Грађанско васпитање as the subject is called does not trace its roots directly to word "city". Instead it's more closely related to concepts of civil society (or in Serbian "citizen's society"), citizen's rights and so on. This whole article needs to be reworked, but I don't have enough time do do that right now. (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Veronauka not only christian orthodox[edit]

You said that veornauka is a christian orthodox religion education, but it is not only christian orthodox. Students can choose whatever religion they want if that religion is recognized by the government. For example, muslim students have islamic veronauka, jewish have their own, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protector1990 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Article totally reworked - July 2012!!![edit]

I am the one who did MAJOR July 2012 changes (under different IPs). I reworked whole article and referenced it. I also solved copy edit tag. Some pictures would do a miracle. Looking forward to seeing this article as good article!!! (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Education in Serbia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The prose needs work. It is quite choppy, and ungrammatical in places. For example, "for getting a work" is one spot that jumped out at me.
    • The article is way too listy and choppy. Paragraphs should flow, and most should be at least three sentences. The multiple short sections should be combined in several places to create a cohesive narrative. In many places the bullet points can and should be turned into prose.
    • The lead needs to be expanded; WP:LEAD recommends two or three paragraphs for an article of this length.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The article is severely lacking in references. Multiple entire sections are unsourced, including statistics and potentially controversial statements.
    • References should not be bare links. Titles at least should be provided, and publishers, access dates and other information is desirable.
    • The lack of references makes it hard to know if there is original research in the article, and the lack of titles/authors/publishers, especially for foreign language sources, makes it difficult to judge reliability.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • The article needs additional coverage or context in quite a few areas. For instance:
    • I find it hard to believe that a 1000 year history of education can be properly summarized in four very short paragraphs (and again, consecutive two sentence paragraphs are not a good thing).
    • Multilateral agreements section - This section needs context. Why are these agreements important? What, if anything, did they change about education in Serbia? Also, these four points could easily be given in prose, rather than bullet points.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • While images are not required for GA status, if they are available they should be used. Are there no pictures of Serbian schools? Colleges? Students? Classrooms?
  7. Overall:

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. The severe lack of references, combined with the listy-ness, lack of context, choppy-ness and poor prose, are too severe, in my opinion, to be corrected within the usual timeframe of GA. I would suggest that the nominator, before renominating, take some time to restructure the article a bit, work on the referencing, improve the lead and history sections and comb through the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)