At one juncture, a departmental meeting convened to discuss the possibility of advancing students in our undergraduate programs with minor grade adjustments from failing to passing. Even marginal failures were reconsidered, a practice aimed at bolstering student retention, meeting budgeted tuition revenues for the upcoming year, and appeasing university boards. Did these students truly merit such leniency? Personally, I harbored doubts, yet found myself a bystander to these decisions.
You might understandably react: “What a perverse incentive! Where does this person work?!”
This scenario unfolded during a dreary summer in the United Kingdom, where I completed my PhD and served as a senior lecturer for four years.
British Conditions
Additional examples from my UK tenure underscore the significance. I was mandated to attend a semi-compulsory seminar on “Tort and Contract Law” as part of communication training for open days. Here, I learned—or rather, was subtly nudged—to refer to ‘subjects’ instead of specific ‘courses’ when engaging with students and parents. This linguistic precaution shielded teaching staff: a verbal commitment to a course title, like “Introduction to Policing Studies and Criminology,” could not be altered without breaching a perceived contract.
Such precautions stemmed from British students, burdened with tuition loans averaging £10,000 annually, who scrutinized their educational investments like consumers. Failures were often attributed to lecturers, programs, or universities, never to the students themselves. The mantra prevailed: the student is the customer, and the customer is king.
In the UK, ‘Customer is King’
Cumulative student debts of £30,000, coupled with steep living costs, heightened awareness of consumer rights among British students. Programs failing to demonstrate utmost commitment to student welfare risked financial repercussions. Evidence, such as detailed email correspondence with students, became pivotal. Absent such proof, student loan providers might withhold funding from programs with perceived high dropout rates.
In response, institutions adjusted grades and intensified email follow-ups as evidence-gathering measures. Whether these efforts yielded tangible results remained unclear, but the atmosphere of fear persisted.
Manipulation
In an effort to improve National Student Survey (NSS) scores, particularly in feedback provision, programs adopted strategic language shifts. Instead of ‘lectures’ or ‘seminars,’ these sessions were termed ‘feedback sessions.’ This semantic manipulation aimed to enhance NSS responses, though the actual impact on student perceptions remained uncertain.
In essence, under perverse incentives and pervasive fear, the focus shifted from genuine teaching to managing accountability.
Forced Redundancies
My relief upon departing the UK in 2018, jestingly termed the ‘sinking island,’ was palpable. I returned to what I deemed a healthier academic environment in the Netherlands.
Here, the emphasis wasn’t on meeting arbitrary teaching-to-research ratios or imposing exorbitant tuition fees. Dutch universities prioritized critical, proactive students over consumerist dynamics. Gone were the perverse incentives and embittered colleagues prevalent in the UK—replaced by a generally more content academic community.
Regrettably, I maintain contact with former UK colleagues witnessing a continued academic decline exacerbated by Brexit. Prestigious institutions like Cambridge and Oxford grapple with systemic challenges, including widespread forced redundancies and eroding academic vibrancy.
An Emerging Dutch Paradox
Now, Dutch universities appear poised to replicate the UK’s academic pitfalls at an alarming pace. Proposed measures—such as extended study fines, de-internationalization efforts resembling an ‘academic Nexit,’ and severe budget cuts totaling €1 billion—threaten to undermine higher education quality irreparably.
Even partial implementation of these measures portends significant damage, echoing the erosion witnessed daily in UK academic life. While hope remains for university boards to resist, compliance often prevails under governmental pressures.
Call to Action
Amidst these challenges, a culture of resistance is essential. In the Netherlands, as elsewhere, academics must reclaim their role as guardians of intellectual integrity. Student protests and critical academic opposition offer vital avenues for safeguarding educational quality against bureaucratic encroachment and populist rhetoric.
Conclusion
As the future of higher education hangs in the balance, complacency is not an option. From university boards to junior lecturers, collective action is needed to preserve the essence of academia: free inquiry, critical thought, and intellectual independence.
Yarin Eski is Associate Professor of Public Administration at VU Amsterdam, reflecting on these issues in ScienceGuide. This commentary reflects his personal views and does not necessarily represent those of University World News.
