德國專門高等學校創建之初，官方便宣稱其與綜合性大學「差異但等值」，以此建構德國高等教育之「二元體制」，但現今德國正經歷發展轉變過程，其未來之發展與角色定位為何？本文先探究高等教育二元體制之肇建及其後之趨同發展與進而產生的分類困境，而後再進一步闡釋高等教育體制發展之影響因素及其可能模式，最後探究高等教育體制的合理模式。在過去約半世紀的發展歷程，專門高等學校在辦學績效、法制與政策層面及第三使命等不同向度之發展下，其與綜合性大學有趨同之發展趨勢，未來影響二者間關係的重要因素包含博士學位授予權、第三資金，以及學校規模之逆轉等，二者關係的發展可概括為三種可能模式：維持現狀、進一步趨同或差異化。若是「學術漂移」現象持續推進，未來即無履行差異功能之不同高等學校類型，而是僅存在以學術研究成果為依據、被區分為一流／二流的大學。高等教育體制的合理模式，不應按照僵化的法律分類方式，而應以高等學校承擔的任務做為區分方式，從而形成一種「多樣化統一體系」之高等教育體制，況且專門高等學校已發展為重要且成功的辦學模式，不應拋棄職業教育的特色與應用型研究的優勢，故本文以「東施何須效顰」之隱喻為題。

When Germany’s universities of applied sciences (UAS) were being established in the 1960s, it was conveniently claimed that they and the traditional comprehensive universities were to be “different but equal.” Such was the official policy at the commencement of Germany’s dual system of higher education, but how have the various developments which have taken place since then affected their respective roles and orientations, both now and in the future? I this paper I begin by discussing the establishment of Germany’s dual system of higher education, how it developed, and the subsequent difficulties encountered regarding the differentiation of these two avenues of higher education. I then examine the factors which have influenced these developments as well as the possible directions they may take in the future. In the past half century, despite differences in educational results, legal systems, policies and “third mission” characteristics, UASs and comprehensive universities have become more similar. Important factors influencing the relationship between the two include the right to grant doctoral degrees, third-party funding, and the likelihood that UASs will one day outnumber and have more students than comprehensive universities. There are three possibilities for their future relationship: maintaining the status quo, further convergence, and further differentiation. Even if Germany’s two forms of higher education become functionally equivalent, if the phenomenon of academic drift continues unabated, the two will still be differentiated in terms of academic and research quality, i.e., as first-class and second-rate. A rational model of a dual system of higher education should not be based on rigid legal classifications; rather, differentiation should be determined by the tasks to be undertaken by each type of institution. In this way it is possible to form a system of higher education characterized by unity within diversity. Moreover, since UASs have already developed into an important and successful mode of higher education, it is preferable for UAS’s to put their best foot forward by continuing to make the most of the unique characteristics of vocational education and the advantages of applied research.