A fine for students who take longer to graduate? Ill-considered, unwise and unfair

UU President Anton Pijpers said last Monday at the ceremony marking the Start of the Academic Year that our students are in danger. After all, the cabinet wants to charge an additional 3,000 euros from students who take longer than an extra year to complete their Bachelor’s or Master’s degree. 

The so-called "slow-progress penalty" is estimated to bring in 280 million euros. The expectation is that around 95,000 students will be affected. 

“An ill-conceived austerity measure” is how Pijpers describes the comeback of this plan, which was withdrawn at the very last minute over a decade ago. In his view, the penalty will lead to even more stress among students as well as increasing inequality between students from wealthy families and those from a working-class background.

As it turns out, many members of the DUB panel wholeheartedly agree with Pijpers' words. They subscribe to the statement we presented to them: "The slow-progress penalty must be withdrawn."

“Taking longer to complete your studies is already very expensive, as you start to work later,” Medicine student Thomas Visser writes in an email. “What’s more, people may have a good reason for taking longer than a year extra. They may be ill, for example, or simply need more time to be oriented regarding what suits them.” 

Master’s student Sterre van Wierst agrees that the fine is unfair. “Many students take longer to graduate because they change programmes. There may also be private circumstances preventing students from studying full-time. There are schemes in place for these students, but I don’t know if they’ll suffice.”

Unwise
“What a bad idea,” responds Philosopher Brandt van der Gaast, who believes students’ self-development (in the form of management or board activities, for instance) will be compromised if the fine is introduced. He fears the number of students will decrease and those who do attend university will be there just to score a diploma.

“You're not doing any harm to society by taking an additional year to complete your studies, so why impose such a penalty? The last time politicians suggested this, they soon realised how unwise it was. By the way, many politicians took longer than four years to graduate…”

He’s backed up by biologist Suzan Ruijtenberg. As a teacher and tutor, she strives to guide students' development. “A penalty for slow students is completely at odds with that,” she writes in an email.

Ruijtenberg is also of the opinion that there’s more to one’s time at university than the quick acquisition of specialist knowledge. “You’re also there to develop into a complete individual, ready for the labour market and life. By engaging in councils, management or board activities, elite or amateur sports, volunteer work and work placements, you discover your talents and develop a broader perspective.”

She acknowledges it might not be the government’s primary task to pay for personal development. “But businesses and society do expect future employees to have developed more broadly, to have seen more than just the exam material. This takes time, which isn’t always available in a three-year Bachelor’s or a one or two-year Master’s programme.” 

Patronising 
Education scientist Casper Hulshof agrees with many of the arguments given. “Whereas the main argument to justify the loan system was that the revenue would serve to improve education, that’s certainly not the case here,” he writes in an email, referring to a 2012 DUB article on the subject (available in Dutch only, Ed.).

“Those politicians in The Hague should get a life,” concludes research analyst Mies van Steenbergen. “I hate it when we forbid our kids to do what we were able to do – and did do – in the old days, or even punish them for it. They’re no longer allowed to drink before they’re eighteen years old and must acquire a certain number of credits to be allowed to proceed to the second year. And now there is this fine. I understand there’s no room anymore for perpetual students, but to be this restrictive and patronising...” 

More reasonable than the loan system
Innovation scientist Frank van Rijnsoever is the only one to call the penalty “a fundamentally defensible measure”. In any case, he finds it more reasonable than the now-abolished loan system, which affected all students. The slow-progress penalty mainly discourages undesirable study delays. 

“Every year that someone studies at university costs the government almost 9,000 euros. This means that the slow-progress penalty reduces the public’s contribution. I don’t think it’s strange for the government to set a limit for this contribution, as it concerns taxpayers' money.”

Van Rijnsoever also puts the impact on the average student in perspective. “If you take one year extra to complete both your Bachelor’s and your Master’s programme, you won’t be affected. In other words, you can still study for six years without consequences. After that, you’ll probably start paying a certain amount extra per month, but it won’t be 3,000 euros in one go.”

However, he does ask for leniency in the actual execution of the measure. “I think it should be possible to tailor it to those engaging in management or board activities, councils or elite sports, as well as to part-time or disabled students. Universities themselves are best equipped to determine who qualifies for such a tailored approach.” 

No stacking
Assuming that budget cuts are necessary and the slow-progress penalty is more than a symbolic and politically-motivated punishment, students Sterre and Thomas believe it would be better to consider other measures. 

Sterre thinks the “free” stacking of study programmes could be addressed. “I often see students doing two Bachelor’s and/or two Master’s programmes. They start the second programme before they complete the first, so they won’t have to pay the higher institutional tuition fees. I’m all for allowing students some time to complete their first Bachelor’s or Master’s programme, but I don’t think we should have to pay for students that choose to stack programmes and spend a longer time studying as a result.”

Thomas believes that raising tuition fees would be more acceptable than imposing a fine. “And if you then subsidise the students who can’t afford tuition, you’re levelling the playing field and creating more equality of opportunity to boot.”