International Higher Education, Winter 2002

Reforms in Dutch Higher Education: The National Debate

Marijk van der Wende
Marijk van der Wende is professor and senior researcher at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. She was recently a visiting scholar at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. Address: CHEPS, University of Twente, POB 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands. E-mail: <M.C.vanderWende@cheps.utwente.nl>

Reform Initiatives
Two major reforms are planned for 2002 to position Dutch higher education better internationally: the implementation of a bachelor’s-master’s system and the establishment of a national accreditation system. The bachelor’s-master’s system applies to both sectors of Dutch higher education: universities and higher professional education institutions. The bachelor’s phase will take three years in universities and four in the professional sector. The length of the master’s phase depends on the field of study. In universities, the master’s phase will take one year for humanities, social sciences, and law; two years for science and engineering; and three years for some medical fields. These choices are based on the current length of curricula in both sectors. Master’s in the professional institutions are, in formal terms, a new feature and may last one to two years. There will be professional and traditional academic types of bachelor’s and master’s programs. The distinction between these types of programs will not be based on the type of institution offering them, but on their diverse content and orientation, which will be reflected in different accreditation criteria.

The universities become defensive during discussions about the master’s phase. First, they argued against allowing higher professional education institutions to be formally entitled to award master’s degrees, even of the academic or university type, provided they meet the accreditation criteria set for these programs. Master’s programs in this sector will, however, not be funded, which led to protests from the professional institutions demanding a level playing field. Second, the universities disputed the one-year duration of master’s level studies in the humanities, social sciences, and law and the fact that the extension of these programs to two years would have to be paid by the institutions themselves. Third, the universities formally disagreed with the minister’s proposal to develop internationally competitive “top master’s programs,” that would be allowed to select their students and raise tuition fees as much as fivefold. In addition, student organizations and parliament protested strongly against this new type of program, on the basis of arguments related to long-standing and culturally rooted principles of equal access to higher education. Despite all these protests, the plans did not change much, except that longer master’s programs in universities and certain master’s programs in the professional sector may be funded in case the need for that is convincingly demonstrated.

CHEPS Survey Results
A recent survey by CHEPS on the implementation of the bachelor’s-master’s system revealed a number of issues and problems. In general, the institutions respond very proactively. At the institutional level, however, most attention has been focused on the master’s level. An overwhelming number of proposals for master programs are being developed, more often based on research priorities than on any actual demand analysis. This holds the risk that, as in certain research universities in the United States, undergraduate teaching may suffer. Discussions on the new structure hardly take the links with prior (secondary education) and subsequent (doctorate) education into account. Universities are very resistant to the idea that students may leave the institution, at least temporarily, after having obtained a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, all efforts will be focused on motivating students to continue into their graduate studies without interruption.

The notion of a more diversified graduate population, including more adult students, largely still needs to be developed. The academic drift of the professional sector, in terms of developing academic, research-related programs seems to be quite limited so far. Moreover, in these ambitions the professional sector continues to lean quite heavily on cooperation with foreign universities. The professional drift of universities is indistinct. Ambitions to offer programs leading to professional degrees are mostly denied, although such programs are of course offered in the traditional professional areas (e.g., law) and quite many new ones have been developed over the last years in areas such as business studies. It is unclear to what extent this situation results from definition problems or from the defensive attitude toward the professional sector. Finally, the CHEPS survey showed that, despite their overt critiques, almost all universities intend to offer the so-called top master’s programs.

National Accreditation
The new accreditation system will accredit programs based on different sets of criteria for bachelor’s and master’s programs of professional and academic nature. Since these do not include the type of institutions offering the program, this may lead to a shift from institutional to program diversity. Responses to the blurring of institutional borders are twofold: on the one hand are universities that judge the discussion as mostly immaterial and who would consider mergers with an institution for higher professional education (which will be allowed under the new regulations). On the other hand are universities that hold strongly to their particular status and research profile. Programs will be reviewed every five years by independent review committees. Their report will be the basis on which the National Accreditation Agency will make the actual accreditation decision.

Although accreditation criteria should be based on international standards, programs offered by foreign providers will be included, and foreign accrediting organizations may provide their services in the new system. The new system is also being criticized for a lack of international orientation. This refers to the fact that it is a national system, whereas European-level accreditation initiatives are more desirable in the eyes of some critics. The Dutch strategy, however, is to use this national system as a basis to achieve bi- or even multilateral cooperation in a bottom-up manner. This is just as the Netherlands likes to see itself: as a pioneer country in European cooperation.