Letteren Vooruit is against the educational reforms the arts faculty board is planning. But the faculty council can’t directly adjust or veto them, the student party explains in an op-ed. ‘It is important to understand the limits of our role.’
There are many mixed reports and incorrect perceptions about the role of the Faculty Council (FC) and the content of various educational reforms. Letteren Vooruit, the sole student party in this year’s Faculty Council, would like to explain our current situation and position.
The Faculty Board (FB) is planning some major educational reforms to address the financial challenges that our faculty is facing. These changes are driven by the tough financial situation facing Dutch universities, and are worsened by recent government decisions to cut university funding. On top of this, our faculty has been struggling for years due to reduced study advance funds from the Dutch government and predictions of declining student enrolment.
To keep offering a diverse range of programmes, the FB has proposed some major changes. The first is a reduction in electives, starting from 2025-2026, which means that smaller programmes will not be able to offer elective courses, and possibly need to share courses with other programmes.
Larger programmes will still have some choices in electives, but the overall choices will be reduced. The second reform is faculty-wide courses, starting in 2026-2027, which have caused a lot of anger, frustration, and rumours within our faculty.
Reducing electives will significantly limit opportunities for specialisation
While we understand the financial challenges driving these changes, Letteren Vooruit believes the proposed reforms will harm students’ academic experience and future prospects. Reducing electives will significantly limit opportunities for specialisation, which for many Arts students were a way to tailor their studies and stand out in a competitive job market. These changes will make it harder to transition from academia to a career.
The faculty-wide courses aim to promote interdisciplinary learning but raise additional concerns, as they are being rushed into implementation, with departments struggling to understand their roles and responsibilities. As a result, we fear the courses will lack the quality and coherence necessary to benefit the students.
The faculty-wide courses in the first year, combined with the FB’s wish to limit the number of testing moments by shifting 5 ECTS courses to 10 ECTS courses, puts students at risk of failing to pass the binding study advice (bsa).
As the student representatives of the Faculty of Arts, Letteren Vooruit works hard to advocate for students’ interests, but it is also important to understand the limits of our role in how these reforms will be implemented.
Programme committees have the legal right to enforce changes, but we do not
The FC primarily serves as an advisory body to the FB and while we can raise concerns, ask questions, and give input, our actual decision-making power is limited. We do not have the judicial authority to directly adjust or veto educational reforms. Final decisions regarding the structure of individual programs lie with programme committees, who have the legal right to enforce changes, but we do not.
The lack of communication from the FB has also made it harder for staff and students to understand the reforms and the role of the Faculty Council. The FB has also failed to provide alternative measures and solutions for the faculty’s financial issues. This has led to frustration and unrealistic expectations from various areas in our faculty.
To address these issues, we have frequently tried to push for better communication, though we have not always been heard. We did successfully advocate for an informational blog for students and continue to lobby for an increase in information and participation sessions.
On behalf of Letteren Vooruit: Tim Tresoor, Lana Fahham, Alana Swinkels, Anna Astakhov, Dominic Kruize, Savvas Parasidis, Grace Woods, Hessel Berger, Ruben Feddes