The Faculty of Arts, a patchwork of different study programmes, is facing some fierce budget cuts. But Marinus Jongman, former chair at the Groningen Student Union, is appalled at the cuts the faculty board is trying to make.
It can’t have escaped your attention that the university is facing fierce budget cuts thanks to our destructive government. The Faculty of Arts will not be spared. The faculty board is attempting to force some controversial educational reform as part of these budget cuts. Their plans are bad and detrimental to the faculty, and must be stopped.
They want to scrap 30 percent of all courses, because offering too many courses is apparently too expensive. That means we’d have to go from 1259 courses down to 850. How do they plan on doing this? By taking a bunch of unsavoury measures.
Their plans include 20 ECTS in faculty-wide (!) courses that would only consist of massive lectures. That would mean that students from completely different programmes, such as archaeology, media studies, and linguistics, would all have to take the same courses.
Together with the minor, this would demolish programme-specific courses, since accounting for 50 ECTS for each programme. In fact, the faculty board openly admits that this would be the first step towards their dream of a ‘broad bachelor’; the nightmare of any diverse arts faculty, a total horror show.
They also want to limit the number of electives allowed at programmes, especially the smaller ones. The smaller a programme, the fewer choices its students will have. This would in turn severely limit students’ ability to specialise in their chosen field.
Finally, many of the 5 ECTS courses have to become 10 ECTS courses. Supposedly, it’s to alleviate the workload, but it’s mainly because the board of directors wants to reduce the number of testing periods to eight a year. The board of directors shouldn’t interfere with education like that; it’s up to the programmes themselves. Who do they think they are?
It’s the nightmare of any diverse arts faculty; a total horror show
But even more importantly, these changes would greatly impact students’ chances at a positive binding study advice, as well as their well-being. It would also affect how programmes make their curricula, especially with the slow study penalty that’s coming. One of student party Letteren Vooruit’s first – and greatest – victories was banning courses worth 10 ECTS from programmes’ first years. I can’t imagine they would acquiesce to this new proposal.
Over the summer, the faculty board quietly decided that all of this will be happening, and it’s currently being integrated into the testing and exam regulations for 2025/2026. The board did so in spite of resistance from within the faculty and a letter from the faculty council stating it disagrees with the plans and doesn’t see the merit in them.
But it’s not over yet. All these changes will only be applicable once the TERs are enshrined, and for that, the board needs approval from the faculty council and programme committees. That means if the co-determination bodies disagree, the changes can’t take place.
Of course, we all know that budget cuts need to be made. But linking this reform to the cuts is a false equivalence. These measures aren’t the only way we can make cuts.
And yet the faculty board has never discussed alternative options with the faculty council, in spite of promising several times to do so. That’s a damn shame, and their failing alone should be enough to block these plans. Why would anyone agree to them without knowing the possible alternatives?
You have to vote in favour, lest the faculty suffer financial damage
By linking the educational reform to the budget cuts, the faculty board can force through its dream of faculty-wide courses and a broad bachelor. Because no alternatives have been explored, the co-determination parties are being pressured to conform. The board is essentially telling them to vote in favour, lest the faculty suffer financial damage.
I would like to beg the faculty council and the programme committees to judge the educational reform on its merits. Do you think this will improve study programmes? Will this create a faculty where people will want to study? If you’re not convinced, don’t hesitate to vote no! Use the rights you have been given!
This whole process lays bare the issue at the heart of our university: a top-down, hierarchical, undemocratic institution. The faculty board should have gone about the process the other way around: it should have left the budget cuts up to the people who design the study programmes. The faculty community should have been given the opportunity to come up with solutions.
Don’t let yourself be convinced by opportunistic arguments (‘Our colleagues worked so hard on this’) or be pressured into agreeing (the financial consequences of this false equivalence). If the board’s proposal fails, that is their problem, not yours. They should’ve done a better job.
I haven’t heard anyone say that they are in favour of these reforms, but so far, there’s been no large-scale resistance against the plans. I’d like to close out with a call to action: it’s now or never. Make your voices hears at the faculty council, the faculty board, your colleagues, in UKrant; everyone and anyone who’s willing to listen. Take up your pen like only academics can.
Marinus Jongman is a former chair of the Groningen Student Union, former faction member in the arts faculty council as part of Letteren Vooruit, and a student of international relations and international organisation