The university is a diploma factory, but the tide can still be turned
What will and should education at the UvA look like in the year 2024? Student Titus van der Valk wonders in the reflection below. “Your mouse movements are used to measure whether you’ve actually read papers.”
The educational regime at the UvA, anno 2024. Attendance at working groups is mandatory. Most students around me are not at the study group to learn, but because they have to be there. In communication studies today, students receive an automated threat that informs them that they will be deregistered from the course if they miss another study group. Many courses have mandatory midterm deadlines and progress assignments. Students also work on weekends when deadlines are scheduled for Monday mornings, so courses set deadlines for Monday mornings. Freshmen are hit extra hard with the BSA.
To pass a course you must write a paper, take an exam, attend all the study groups, and turn in progress assignments on time. But if the exam was too hard or you missed a part of the assignment, you get to retake the whole course next year. This fosters the constant “now or never” feeling of UvA students. I even hear rumors of mouse-tracking software in the political science program which measures whether you actually read the papers based on your mouse movements. The extent to which you have read the papers contributes to your final grade. In many undergraduate studies these days, you don’t even get to choose the topic of your thesis. Students must choose from a list of curated research questions.
A friend of mine was short 400 words for her thesis. Saying more with fewer words is apparently not possible. So now the thesis won’t be graded and she gets to study for another year. If this does not work for you and you need an exception, you may submit a request to the examination board which will respond in six weeks. They will probably reject your request but you can always try. After all, studying is no fun. Exam boards make as few exceptions as possible as this is unfair to other students. Education is about meeting requirements, not about being engaged in learning.
Diploma factory
Our education has become more and more like a diploma factory. Many students are going nuts over the excessive regulation. Yet according to the UvA, there are good reasons for this. Studying is expensive, also for society, so the university wants students to succeed quickly. Measures such as compulsory attendance ensure that students get their degrees faster. If we give students too much freedom in the educational process they get distracted by parties, lie in bed longer, read maybe only one article a week, and then when the exam is just around the corner they are far from prepared.
This is not fair to students. If we offer education it is also with the intention that most of them pass. Besides, some subjects are important but not particularly fun, so students need extra pressure.
In addition, the hope is that as long as students actively participate in education, their interest in the field will naturally grow. And equality of opportunity plays a role: Students who have not inherited sufficient schooling skills from home are believed to have more difficulty thriving in a free and open learning environment. Finally, education is largely funded by the government based on the number of degrees awarded.
Ownership
The bottom line: Educational efficiency must be achieved through control and discipline. But what are the effects of this? Education may be very efficient, but efficient in what exactly? Students are mostly jumping through hoops. Many aspects of education that are important but difficult to measure are thus compromised. Strict rules kill intrinsic motivation. If a student is not enjoying a subject but is primarily concerned with fulfilling set conditions as precisely as possible, there is no more room for self-reflection. Our ownership of knowledge is thus taken away from us. There is much less room for creativity, critical thinking, experimentation, and passion.
Everything revolves solely around the immediate utility function. But companies, for example, are increasingly complaining about recent graduates who are no longer able to think critically and inquisitively or take initiative. Rarely do they speak passionately about their field or what they learned in college.
There are certainly teachers who recognize that you can’t force good teaching, but their subjects and liberal teaching methods often don’t last long. Students are so accustomed to jumping through hoops that when there is suddenly no clear hoop, but space to discover themselves academically, they have no idea what to do with it. Students then appear to prioritize courses that do involve pressure. Because some subjects are rigorous, all subjects must become rigorous to compete, slowly relegating the teacher to the role of policeman.
What kind of society are we creating this way? Should we as an academic institution accept this consumerist attitude toward academic education? As a university that is supposed to provide solutions to major societal challenges, shouldn’t we instead be training autonomous thinkers? Competent rebels, who are strong-willed, critical, creative, and resilient to the challenges of the present and the future? In sum, if we don’t want students to act like sheep, then perhaps we shouldn’t treat them that way, either.
Guided discovery
Excessive discipline also leads to exploitation. You must get your degree or else you will have sky-high student debt with no career prospects. We coerce students into putting their time and energy into their studies. But that time and energy come from somewhere. This leads to the exploitation of physical, mental, financial, and social health and hinders the development of their identity. Aren’t we creating more problems in the process than we are solving?
My alternative would be an academic playground with guided discovery. Not forcing the learning process, but facilitating it. How do we do that? It is important to understand that autonomy and structure are not mutually exclusive but support each other. Structure should be offered, but not enforced. We need not shy away from a little push here and there, but it should not be more. Instead of coercion, students should be guided in developing self-direction.
To provide a good education, motivation must play a central role. Motivation should be a collective responsibility rather than an individual one. Courses can also devote more attention to the emotional aspect of the learning process. It is also important to make a firm commitment to community, and we should explicitly allow room for experimentation.
Failure should once again be allowed. And less is more. By wanting to achieve less, we can actually get more out of education. Both students and teachers will then have time and space to fully immerse themselves in the material.
Democracy
The best way to translate these insights into the practice of academic education is to integrate democracy into teaching as well. Teachers and students should discuss and make joint decisions on the content, process, and context of education. A prerequisite for involvement is ownership, and that means that even as a freshman scientist you are allowed to participate and co-decide on your education.
Titus van der Valk is an undergraduate student of educational sciences and vice president of the Central Student Council. This is a slightly edited and abridged version of a talk he gave at the University Forum this week.
