Have Anglo-Saxon concepts really influenced the development of European qualifications policy?

This paper considers how far Anglo-Saxon conceptions of have influenced European Union vocational education and training policy, especially given the disparate approaches to VET across Europe. Two dominant approaches can be identified: the dual system (exemplified by Germany); and output based models (exemplified by the NVQ ‘English style’). Within the EU itself, the design philosophy of the English output-based model proved in the first instance influential in attempts to develop tools to establish equivalence between vocational qualifications across Europe, resulting in the learning outcomes approach of the European Qualifications Framework, the credit-based model of European VET Credit System and the task-based construction of occupation profiles exemplified by European Skills, Competences and Occupations. The governance model for the English system is, however, predicated on employer demand for ‘skills’ and this does not fit well with the social partnership model encompassing knowledge, skills and competences that is dominant in northern Europe. These contrasting approaches have led to continual modifications to the tools, as these sought to harmonise and reconcile national VET requirements with the original design. A tension is evident in particular between national and regional approaches to vocational education and training, on the one hand, and the policy tools adopted to align European vocational education and training better with the demands of the labour market, including at sectoral level, on the other. This paper explores these tensions and considers the prospects for the successful operation of these tools, paying particular attention to the European Qualifications Framework, European VET Credit System and European Skills, Competences and Occupations tool and the relationships between them and drawing on studies of the construction and furniture industries.

Workload Schedulers - Genesis, Algorithms and Comparisons

In this article we provide brief descriptions of three classes of schedulers: Operating Systems Process Schedulers, Cluster Systems, Jobs Schedulers and Big Data Schedulers. We describe their evolution from early adoptions to modern implementations, considering both the use and features of algorithms. In summary, we discuss differences between all presented classes of schedulers and discuss their chronological development. In conclusion, we highlight similarities in the focus of scheduling strategies design, applicable to both local and distributed systems.