Escaping the loud party chatter, I found myself in a calmer conversation that turned into a deeper debate. This time it wasn’t about the best nightclub or the funniest movie—it was about something more profound: education, and how little we share, talk, and listen between different educational institutions.
As is common among students, it began with some lighthearted complaining about workload and deadlines, but then it shifted to a discussion on how higher education shapes the way we think, analyze, and conduct research. Somewhere along the way, someone mentioned the university of applied sciences, which sparked a disagreement.
The mention of ‘research’ and ‘university of applied sciences’ immediately triggered a response from another student at the University of Groningen. He claimed that these two types of institutions have nothing to do with each other, arguing that calling a university of applied sciences a ‘university’ was more of a marketing move than a reflection of its actual value. At first, this seemed like snobbery—dismissing anything outside academia. But as the conversation continued, it became clear that there was a deeper issue.
The tension in the discussion wasn’t just about prestige or hierarchy—it was about misunderstanding. Neither university students nor those from universities of applied sciences are taught to talk to each other and listen, let alone collaborate. The two forms of education exist in separate silos, with little to no dialogue between them.
If both institutions communicated more, we’d see a richer educational experience and innovative solutions to real-world problems
As someone who studied at both, I felt compelled to step in and explain that research at a university of applied sciences is different, but not lesser. One is often more practical, and focused on tangible real-world applications, while the other research is often more theoretical and groundbreaking. Both approaches have value, but they serve different purposes. The problem isn’t that one is better than the other—it’s that we, students and educators, aren’t encouraged to see the complementary nature of these two types of education.
Maybe it is precisely this incapability of conducting a dialogue that creates different tensions as well, from budget cuts to family conflicts. We need to know how to talk to one another without sounding judgmental, condescending, or mocking. From both sides.
If students of applied sciences understood that reading papers isn’t about sounding snobbish and quoting at parties, but about grasping the theoretical field better, their desire to enrich their project through collaboration with ‘such a snob’ would be greater. If university students saw hands-on projects not as a ‘lesser’ way of studying but as applying the theory, they might seek fresh perspectives on their research more.
If universities and applied sciences institutions communicated more, we’d see a richer educational experience and innovative solutions to real-world problems, instead of being stuck in a rigid hierarchy.
The party debate never got resolved, but it made me realize that the divide between the two forms of education isn’t about superiority—it’s about our lack of understanding. And to understand, we need to share, talk and listen more.
LIZA KOLOMIIETS