Faculties are no longer required to offer honours programmes

The Executive Board made a second attempt to scrap the requirement to offer honours programmes in the University Council meeting held last Monday. Last year, most council members opposed the proposal. This time, however, UU Rector Wilco Hazeleger managed to secure enough supporters.

According to the Executive Board, the faculties incur high costs to offer additional classes to a relatively small group of students. Moreover, the revised university teaching model offers sufficient opportunities to broaden and deepen their knowledge, which should satisfy the students who currently seek that extra challenge in the honours programmes.

In other words, the standard curriculum should offer students an additional challenge. According to the Executive Board, many other universities in the Netherlands are also reviewing their honours programmes.

Sense of community
Over the past few weeks, the proposal has sparked discussions similar to those held last year. After all, don't the honours programmes foster the sense of close-knit communities that UU values so much? Wouldn't UU be depriving ambitious students – those who wish to attend prestigious Ivy League universities, for example – of an opportunity to distinguish themselves?

According to Hazeleger, a sense of community is fostered in many places and ways. He also sees ample opportunities for students to engage in extracurricular activities, both within and outside their studies. The rector believes that most UU graduates who attend Ivy League universities do so to pursue a PhD, for which honours programmes matter less than grades and motivation.

Involving student representatives
The Executive Board’s strongest asset in its second attempt to scrap honours programmes was the promise that faculty boards would closely involve their consultative bodies in any changes they implement. It also promised that faculty councils would be granted the right to advise on such matters and that programme committees would have the right of consent.

During the UU Council meeting, Hazeleger had to tone down that commitment somewhat. The board intends for faculty councils to advise on the ending of the honours programmes and for the programme committees to examine exactly how the measures will be incorporated into the curriculum. Legally speaking, whether a programme committee has a right of consent or a right to advise depends on the nature of the proposed changes. And he was keen to stick to that.

This led some council members to grumble, but in the end, the prospect of student representatives at the faculty and programme levels having their say won over most UU Council members.

This did not happen until Hazeleger had agreed to several conditions put forward by students. For instance, a roadmap will be drawn up setting out how and when programme committees may express their views. Programme committees will also be given "the resources and time" to reach a balanced judgement. Finally, faculty councils and programme committees will be trained on how best to make their voices heard on this issue.

Depth
Ultimately, almost all council members voted in favour of lifting the obligation to offer honours programmes. Hermen Horzelenberg, chair of the largest student party, Vuur, made it clear that it had been a difficult decision. However, on behalf of his party, he expressed confidence that the consultative bodies at the faculty level would properly assess their board’s plans.

Only two single-member groups voted against the motion. Student councillor Lloyd Opdam, from Academisch Belang Utrecht (formerly from VSP) doubts that suitable alternatives offering the same depth will emerge. He also regrets that opportunities for students to conduct their own "curiosity-driven" research are diminishing, and that it will become harder for students to set themselves apart from the rest.

Sara Aksakal, from Student Coalition Utrecht, would also have liked the programmes to be retained, with their “small-scale nature, high standards and sense of community”. She fears that the absence of an obligation to offer them may lead to greater inequality. Some students will be able to follow an honours programme at one faculty but not at another.

Opportunities for students who can achieve more
According to Hazeleger, it is not certain that all faculties will discontinue their honours programmes. He pointed out that the faculty councils of Social Sciences and Science had asked additional questions about an alternative approach they had been presented.

The advice sent by the Faculty Council of Science to the faculty board in mid-February was, in fact, highly critical. According to the council, it is not "sufficiently clear" why the current programme would be inadequate or should be discontinued.

In its letter to the Faculty Board, the Science Council emphasises that they should still have something for students who want and are capable of more. They have the impression that the proposed alternatives don't serve that group as well. Finally, the council also believes that the honours programme should only be discontinued once alternative forms of education have been sufficiently tested and evaluated.

All other faculty councils have already issued positive recommendations. However, a member of the Veterinary Medicine faculty council asked her board to ensure the new curriculum includes more in-depth courses alongside broader courses.

When asked, Rector Hazeleger reiterated that all Bachelor’s students who have already started an honours programme or will start one next year will be able to complete that programme. They will also receive a certificate as usual.

Students will still be able to join several university-wide honours programmes (therefore, not offered at the faculty level).