{"id":155357,"date":"2023-05-30T12:50:57","date_gmt":"2023-05-30T10:50:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=155357"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:26:48","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:26:48","slug":"lower-bsa-is-a-signal-against-performance-pressure-experts-warn-that-the-bar-should-not-be-set-too-low","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2023\/05\/30\/lower-bsa-is-a-signal-against-performance-pressure-experts-warn-that-the-bar-should-not-be-set-too-low\/","title":{"rendered":"Lower BSA is a \u2018signal against performance pressure\u2019, experts warn that the bar should not be set too low"},"content":{"rendered":"

The plan to lower the binding study advice is a \u2018dramatically bad proposal\u2019, says former rector Henk Schmidt. Minister of Education Robbert Dijkgraaf is keen to ensure that degree programmes can no longer expel first-year students who obtain more than thirty credits. Nevertheless, there are also positive reactions at Erasmus University: the proposal is an \u2018important system change to counter performance pressure\u2019.<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJosine Henneken<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Dijkgraaf recently announced his plans for the binding study advice (BSA). He would like degree programmes to soon apply a maximum of thirty credits as the threshold for being able to expel first-year students. After two years, students must have obtained at least sixty credits. This proposal will have a major impact on Erasmus University which, with its \u2018Nominal is Normal\u2019 programme and a binding study advice of sixty credits, has been the biggest advocate of a strict BSA for years.<\/p>\n

\u2018Dramatically bad proposal\u2019<\/h2>

Henk Schmidt, emeritus professor of Psychology, was at the cradle of the Nominal is Normal programme more than ten years ago. Schmidt was rector magnificus in Rotterdam at the time. He calls the minister\u2019s proposal a \u2018dramatically bad proposal\u2019. \u201cA binding study advice with thirty credits as the standard sends the wrong signal and is bad for students.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may be enlightening to remember why the binding study advice was introduced in the first place.\u201d Schmidt also points out that students spent an average of five years on a three-year bachelor\u2019s programme before that time. \u201cThis is the same as spending an average of ten years on the Atheneum (preparatory scientific education).\u201d In addition, diary research by Risbo on students in Rotterdam and Groningen showed that they only spent around three hours a day on their studies. \u201cStudying seemed like something you do on the side, like a part-time job.\u201d<\/p>\n

Consequences<\/h2>

The Rotterdam standard of sixty ECTS credits, with compensation options and a limited number of resits, led to far fewer first-year students experiencing study delays. At the same time, the dropout rate did not increase. Moreover, weaker students benefited the most.<\/p>\n

Schmidt believes that the minister\u2019s proposal will lead to far more students falling behind with their studies. \u201cThis is not without consequences. Each year of studying costs the actual student about 10,000 euros. In addition, falling behind is bad for a student\u2019s self-image. Not to mention the extra costs for universities caused by additional resits, space and study advice.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Schmidt, there is no evidence that the higher standard has led to more stress. \u201cPsychology students, for example, were more satisfied with their degree programme than before the introduction of Nominal is Normal.\u00a0And Rob Kickert showed for medical students that their confidence increased under the new exam rules.\u201d He states that the coronavirus period may have led to more feelings of stress or depression in students, for example, but that a lower standard does not resolve this issue. \u201cWhat is needed to combat this is better supervision, small-scale teaching, taking students out of their isolation, less distance learning and more joint learning.\u201d<\/p>\n

Performance pressure must be reduced<\/h2>

Minister Dijkgraaf\u2019s main argument is that performance pressure must be reduced. Eveline Crone, professor of Developmental Neuroscience in Society, can relate to the proposal. \u201cOver the past twenty years, young people have experienced more performance pressure. The pressure from parents, school and society has increased, with the best of intentions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In March, Crone and her colleagues from YoungXperts submitted a manifesto on performance pressure to the minister. \u201cThis increased pressure to perform gives us cause for concern, because young people need to be given the space to develop: to form their identity, to discover what suits them or which future prospects they can identify. Some students need more time for this than others. However, students who do not meet the binding study advice must also be given the opportunity to develop.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018The increased pressure to perform is cause for concern, because young people need space to develop\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

\u2018Signal from the top\u2019<\/h2>

The universities disagree with the minister and are defending the binding study advice, partly with the argument that students tend to experience it more often as positive than negative. \u201cThat\u2019s true\u201d, says Crone, \u201cbut 12 percent of students experience the binding study advice as negative, for example because of the stress it causes. That\u2019s an awful lot of students.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough the problem of performance pressure is recognised, the solutions are often put in the hands of young people themselves\u201d, says Crone. \u201cBut students experience pressure as a result of what is happening in society, so it makes sense to tackle the causes there.\u201d She thinks that the lowering of the binding study advice is an important systemic change. \u201cIt\u2019s a signal from the top of the education sector that young people must be given more scope to grow and develop.\u201d<\/p>\n

Study progress<\/h2>

Rob Kickert also thinks that a lower binding study advice reduces the pressure. He was a study adviser when Nominal is Normal was introduced and obtained his doctorate in 2020 for his research into the system. \u201cWith the goal that the minister has in mind, namely reducing the performance pressure, I think this is an understandable measure. But it will have a negative effect on the study progress.\u201d Is that a bad thing? \u201cA strict binding study advice has positive effects on the study progress, without increasing the dropout rates. But is that the aim of studying?\u201d<\/p>\n

Nominal is Normal was introduced back when the universities reached \u2018performance agreements\u2019 with the then State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra. One of these agreements was about the return on investment. At the time, students spent an average of five years on a three-year bachelor\u2019s degree. \u201cIf you hold the universities accountable, you will get these kinds of measures.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018As a degree programme, I would seriously ask myself whether you want to work with a 30 credit bsa\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Fear of tests<\/h2>

According to Kickert, a negative side effect of Nominal is Normal is that the importance of examinations has increased. Students focus strongly on what they have to know for the exam. \u201cThat\u2019s very logical behaviour. The greater the importance, the higher the pressure to focus purely on the tests.\u201d Among other things, his research shows that students feel more anxious about tests when the requirements are higher.<\/p>\n

Kickert\u2019s objection to Nominal is Normal stems from this test-related pressure. \u201cAs a result, we have started to do fewer things that are relatively difficult to test. Critical thinking and creativity are very hard to measure, for example, and judgements about this are also subjective. Asking about knowledge is \u2018more objective\u2019. But this provides a very narrow view of education.\u201d Kickert therefore feels that although a lower binding study advice would reduce the pressure, better tests would do the same.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, he wonders whether a binding study advice of thirty credits is a good idea. \u201cAs a degree programme, I would seriously ask myself whether you want to work with a system like that.\u201d For some students, research shows that a lower binding study advice has a demotivating effect. Students study towards the norm imposed on them, explains Kickert. So if the pass point is thirty credits, some of the students will start to take it easy once this level is reached. \u201cThe risk is that you give the message that thirty credits is enough.\u201d<\/p>\n

More stress<\/h2>

Medical students experienced more stress when the binding study advice was increased, says Andrea Woltman, director of the Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam and programme director of the Bachelor\u2019s programme in Medicine. In 2014, when Nominal is Normal was introduced in Medicine, she started researching cortisol in the hair and the level of stress experienced by first-year students before and after the introduction of the binding study advice of sixty credits. In the case of the students who fell under Nominal is Normal, the level of stress experienced was significantly higher (cortisol levels remained the same).<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t know whether this is also the case with other degree programmes\u201d, says Woltman. \u201cMy hypothesis is that the stress associated with the binding study advice is greater for medical students. If you want to become a doctor, only one route is available to you: studying medicine. With other studies, you often have a less fixed profession in mind or could end up in the same profession via a different course of study.\u201d<\/p>\n

Medicine reduced the binding study advice to 45 credits three years after the introduction of Nominal is Normal. \u201cStudents made extensive use of the 1 February scheme<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a> if they did not pass their first exams. This allowed them to avoid a potentially negative binding study advice and start again a year later\u201d, explains Woltman. This led to logistical problems, however, because instead of 410 first-year students there were suddenly 485 a year later. Nominal is Normal was intended to get students in the right place as quickly as possible, but that\u2019s not how it worked out in Medicine. \u201cWe can also see, although this has not yet been published, that the stress experienced by students with a binding study advice of 45 credits is lower.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t