The Executive Board believes students should only be able to take 30-credit electives or a minor in the first semester of the third year. This is to make it easier for students to follow a minor at another faculty.
At present, students can obtain 15 elective credits in the fifth semester (first half of the third academic year) and 15 in the sixth semester. Under the new guideline, all those credits are to be concentrated in the fifth semester. Within the Faculty of Humanities, this is already the case for the Urban Studies and International Studies programmes. The Executive Board wants to apply this schedule to all programmes.
According to Board member Jeroen Touwen, this would benefit students, he told the Faculty Council. ‘It would be easier to obtain elective credits if you could devote an entire semester exclusively to your minor. That would make it easier to do a full-time internship, to go abroad for six months or to take a minor at another faculty.’
However, within the Faculty of Humanities, the plan was met with very little enthusiasm. Two weeks ago, Mare reported that the programme chairs of several language programmes were opposed, arguing that it harms the structure of the programme and impedes language acquisition.
The Faculty Council has also responded with strong criticism. Council member Jan Frans van Dijkhuizen pointed out to the Board that the new guideline will have ‘highly destructive consequences’ for language programmes. ‘It will make it impossible for students to prepare for their bachelor’s thesis in the fifth semester. They will no longer be taking any courses related to their bachelor’s programme, and therefore cannot lay a foundation for a thesis topic.’
Council member Adriaan Rademaker added that many of the programme chairs have just started implementing major programme changes based on the programme standards. This new plan means ‘they will have to go back to the drawing board to modify the programme again’.
Council member Rint Sybesma also had a long list of objections. ‘This plan is being presented as having great advantages for students, when in fact, it has great disadvantages.’
Firstly, he raised the issue of language continuity for the language programmes. ‘Students of French have to write their thesis in French. If they go a whole semester without taking any French courses, they’re bound to have more difficulties with that.’
He also mentioned that for ‘a lot of programmes’, the fourth semester is the semester many students spend studying abroad. ‘So if they’re also not there for the fifth semester, they will have spent a whole year away from their study programme and their fellow students.’
Moreover, Sybesma argues that it leads to extra work because lecturers have to teach a disproportionate number of courses in the first semester compared to the second. ‘Master’s programmes also usually have a high concentration of courses in the first semester.’
And then there is the quality of the minor itself to consider. ‘Currently, students are able to take Portuguese 1 in the first semester and Portuguese 2 in the second semester’, Sybesma said. ‘But under this guideline, that will no longer be possible. So they will go into much less depth than they do now.’
He was also unhappy with the Board’s plan to take a look at the situation on a per programme basis. ‘What this tells me is that the matter has already been decided. But it’s going to be a mess. Suppose there are three programmes for which it presents a problem, and these programmes won’t have to clear the schedule for the fifth semester. That can’t be right, can it? The guideline should either apply to all the programmes, or none of them. The Faculty Board should stand up and say: we’re not doing this.’
Council member Nicole van Os added that some minors also function as premasters. ‘Premaster students from outside the EU have to take their courses in the second semester. But if that’s not possible, you can no longer offer those students an adequate curriculum. Unless you introduce new courses for that group. That doesn’t seem desirable to me.’
LACK OF ENTHUSIASM
‘From what I understand, there is a lack of enthusiasm among the Council’, said Touwen, summarising the criticism. ‘The reason we say we’re looking at it on a per programme basis is because there are also programmes for which it does work, such as International Studies and Urban Studies. Besides, the plan is not as radical as it seems. For example, you can do an internship of one day a week, and take a few courses in addition to that. All the Board wants to do is enable interfaculty exchange of education.'
The Council was not convinced. Council chair Jan Sleutels: ‘On behalf of almost the entire Council, I strongly advise the Faculty Board to convince the Executive Board that this is not a good idea.’ Dean Mark Rutgers said ‘the Board is giving this very careful consideration’.
During the University Council meeting on Monday, Rector Hester Bijl said she was ‘surprised’ that discussions about harmonisation are only now starting to take place at Humanities. ‘The plan has been in the works for years.’ She also said that exceptions may be possible if harmonisation is truly unfeasible for certain programmes.