Should the PhD student make a comeback?

“PhD candidates are students too,” Professor Erik van Sebille recently argued in a column for DUB, emphasising at the same time that PhD candidates are “first and foremost employees and colleagues”. His column engages with a broader debate about the structure of the Dutch PhD system, focusing on how little attention Dutch academia sometimes pays to PhD candidates' education. Erik’s op-ed raises a fundamental question: what exactly is a PhD? Is a PhD programme primarily work, or is it, above all, education?

These are valid and important questions to examine with a critical eye, as they highlight an underdiscussed tension within the Dutch PhD system. If PhD candidates are, first and foremost, employees, why do we find it strange that PhD programmes are sometimes organised as work? However, if pursuing a PhD is essentially a form of education, why do we treat PhD candidates almost entirely as employees?

So, let me put forward an idea that some may find uncomfortable: perhaps PhD candidates in the Netherlands should become students again. Not because they earn "too much"; not because researchers-in-training deserve less protection; but rather because the current system is becoming unsustainable from a financial standpoint and ultimately putting Dutch academia as a whole under pressure.

The current model is starting to crack

The Netherlands has chosen to treat PhD candidates almost entirely as employees. While this provides them with a strong legal position, it also generates a crucial tension because employees are primarily assessed on their output for an employer, whereas students primarily work towards a degree. PhD candidates ultimately work towards a doctorate, which is why we organise PhD programmes as a form of education, with Graduate Schools, training sessions and credits, even though the legal and financial reality is that of an employment relationship.

In his column, Erik also asks: "Supervisors should not determine what PhD candidates can and are allowed to learn, should they?" This question clashes with how we have institutionally organised PhD programmes. After all, in an employment relationship, it is not unusual for an employer to determine which tasks should take priority. However, this inevitably clashes with the idea of a PhD as academic training.

This is not a mere semantic debate anymore, as the current model is visibly starting to crack.

Over four years, a Dutch PhD candidate costs a huge amount of money in salary, employer contributions, pension contributions, and collective agreement-related obligations. For instance, my most recent research proposal budgets 321,594 euros in staff costs for a single PhD candidate over a four-year PhD programme. But even that figure does not reflect the full costs, as it is based on the relatively low rate established by the Association of Dutch Universities (UNL), with Utrecht University having to make up for the shortfall.

Any private party wishing to fund a PhD programme at a Dutch university today should expect rates calculated according to the Integrated Cost System. Depending on the institution, IKS rates range from 480,000 to 650,000 euros. In this respect, Utrecht University (UU) is closer to the top of the league fee table than to the bottom. Therefore, it is not surprising that private parties often choose to have the research carried out elsewhere. We have priced ourselves out of the market.

In other countries, the same research budget can fund more young researchers

The situation in the Netherlands is also beginning to attract attention internationally. In many countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, PhD candidates primarily have student status or occupy a hybrid position between student and employee. The Netherlands, by contrast, is one of the countries that has structured PhD programmes almost entirely as employment. Colleagues from foreign universities are sometimes completely taken aback when I tell them that my younger colleagues at Utrecht University can currently fund little more than two PhD students with an ERC Starting Grant of 1.5 million euros. Although high overheads play a significant role here, the salary structure remains the largest cost item. In other countries, the same research budget can easily fund more young researchers.

We can continue to congratulate ourselves on the excellent terms of employment enjoyed by PhD candidates in the Netherlands, but if the result is that we are training fewer and fewer young researchers, then we must ask ourselves whether the system is still doing what it is supposed to do.

I acknowledge that treating PhD candidates as students is not a new idea. It was extensively investigated in the PhD Education Experiment, which ran at the University of Groningen from 2016 to 2024. That experiment still looms like a shadow over this debate and is, for many, a reason to shut it down right off the bat.

But the main problem in Groningen was not necessarily the idea that PhD candidates could be students. For many critics, the biggest problem lay in the inequality it created. Two PhD candidates in the same department were doing the same work, but one was treated as an employee while the other was a scholarship holder with a different legal status and remuneration. That was, quite rightly, difficult to defend.

A standardised reform of the PhD system

That does not mean that every form of "PhD student status" is fundamentally wrong. In fact, the Netherlands already has a hybrid system, as many international PhD students work on foreign scholarships or external funding without Dutch employee status. Implicitly, we already accept that PhD programmes can be organised differently.

Perhaps we should dare to think one step further. Instead of a small experiment alongside the existing system, we should think in terms of a comprehensive reform in which PhD students become, first and foremost, researchers-in-training once again. They would have a decent net income, good basic protection and clear rights to supervision and training, without the full employment structure that is making PhD programmes increasingly expensive.

To return to Erik’s column, this would also create scope to give the educational component a more prominent role. Less emphasis on churning out results for research groups, more emphasis on academic development and autonomy. If we truly view PhD candidates as students, this must also include greater intellectual freedom.

The current system is no longer sustainable

There are risks involved, of course. Reduced employee protection could lead to dependency or abuse of power, which is why a new system could function only with strict national minimum requirements for supervision, social security, and academic freedom.

The current model is not without its risks either. A system that is becoming an ever-greater financial burden leads to fewer PhD opportunities, reduced research capacity and less scope for early-career researchers.

Let me emphasise that I do not have a fully developed policy plan ready. The stakes are too high and the details too complex for that. Please take this op-ed as an attempt to reopen a discussion that we may have concluded a little too quickly in the Netherlands.

Perhaps the truly uncomfortable thought lies not in my proposal, but in the possibility that the current system is no longer sustainable.