{"id":174894,"date":"2025-01-16T11:42:07","date_gmt":"2025-01-16T10:42:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=174894"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:27:39","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:27:39","slug":"higher-education-gatekeeper-has-no-wish-to-be-vehicle-for-austerity-it-kept-me-up-at-night","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2025\/01\/16\/higher-education-gatekeeper-has-no-wish-to-be-vehicle-for-austerity-it-kept-me-up-at-night\/","title":{"rendered":"Higher education gatekeeper has no wish to be vehicle for austerity. ‘It kept me up at night’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Does degree programme X really need to be offered in English? Paul Rullmann, outgoing chair of the committee in charge of deciding this question, understands the rationale for introducing a language assessment. \u201cBut not\u201d, he says, \u201cin the context of a set of spending cuts\u201d.<\/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>

Last autumn, thousands of students, lecturers and researchers gathered on Malieveld in The Hague to protest budget cuts in education and research. Among the demonstrators was higher education \u2018gatekeeper\u2019 Paul Rullmann.<\/p>\n

Which is somewhat incongruous, given that it is Rullmann \u2013 or his successor \u2013 who will be tasked with implementing a controversial piece of government policy. Namely, the language assessment for bachelor\u2019s programmes. The current government wants a larger share of the country\u2019s higher education to be in Dutch again, especially at research universities.<\/p>\n

Still 168 million<\/h2>
\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

Paul Rullmann from the CDHO.<\/span><\/p><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>

By reducing the number of foreigners who come to study in the Netherlands, the measure would have yielded a savings of 293 million euros. A deal with several opposition parties brought this amount down to 168 million euros.<\/p>\n

A former executive board member of Delft University of Technology, Rullmann has been chair of the Higher Education Efficiency Committee (Commissie Doelmatigheid Hoger Onderwijs<\/em>, CDHO) for nine years. New degree programmes need CDHO approval to be eligible for funding (see box).<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t

What is the CDHO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The CDHO was established fifteen years ago to assess plans for new degree programmes, evaluating aspects such as relevancy, employability and overlap between institutional curricula. Roughly 70 percent of all applications are approved.<\/p>\n

The Committee was originally set up to curb the \u2018proliferation\u2019 of degree programmes. In the early 2000s, Dutch research universities and universities of applied sciences began introducing programmes in popular subjects to ramp up enrolments. \u201cThere\u2019s still a danger of this happening\u201d, explains chair Paul Rullmann, \u201cbecause institutions are funded on a per-student basis\u201d.<\/p>\n

The system also isn\u2019t foolproof, Rullmann adds. \u201cWith some programmes, you can\u2019t help but wonder: why should we want this? Some concept, say \u2018sustainability\u2019, gets hot and suddenly new programmes like \u2018sustainable gaming\u2019, or what have you, crop up. But eventually sustainability gets woven into all curricula and isn\u2019t special anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Committee does not consider programme size either. \u201cWhether they enrol ten or a hundred students, we don\u2019t look at that. We look at employment potential, societal relevance and differentiation from existing programmes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

Back when the teaching language criterion was in the works, former D66 party Education Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf asked Rullmann and his committee if they could assess it.<\/p>\n

The idea was that if bachelor\u2019s programmes were offered in languages other than Dutch \u2013 in practice, mostly English \u2013 they would have to provide their rationale for doing so. Failing this, they would have to switch to teaching in Dutch within a few years. The rule would extend to two-year associate degree programmes at universities of applied sciences as well. The new government adopted this proposal with only one notable difference: it tacked on cuts for international students, thus making it part of a raft of spending cuts in education and research originally amounting to two billion euros.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll those cuts would create a completely different climate\u201d, Rullmann says, \u201cand that\u2019s why I was protesting on Malieveld\u201d. Though softened now, they still add up to 1.25 billion euros, mainly hitting higher education and research.<\/p>\n

Tremendous uncertainty<\/h2>

\u201cThese cuts are making it incredibly difficult for institutions to go on offering programmes in other languages\u201d, Rullmann says. \u201cMany are large programmes that are central to the faculty. They are all gathering arguments now in hopes that, when the time comes, we\u2019ll say: sounds logical, you tick the boxes. But it\u2019s a waiting game. This situation is creating tremendous uncertainty and will have huge knock-on effects.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some effects are evident already, he says. \u201cInternational students who are here now are wondering if they\u2019ll be able to stay and are telling friends not to come to the Netherlands. This harms your reputation as a knowledge economy. I\u2019m extremely worried about these sorts of things. The Committee is supposed to carry out the policy as set, but, if you ask me, this isn\u2019t the way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\tStep down or not?\r\n\u201cIt was all still uncertain\u201d\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

The CDHO is in danger of changing from a neutral arbiter into a vanguard of austerity. And this will stir considerable resentment, Rullmann predicts, not least because the language assessment only piles on more costs for institutions. \u201cThey will have to work out if their English-taught courses are relevant to the labour market, for example. That means hiring a pricey agency to make a solid case, even though they\u2019re already facing cuts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shouldn\u2019t the Committee have turned down this task? Rullmann: \u201cThen-Minister Dijkgraaf came to us asking if such an assessment was possible. We had constructive discussions about it. We genuinely got the impression that careful, nuanced thought was going into the question of how to better balance the internationalisation of higher education. In the end, our answer was: yes, we could do this language assessment, provided the criteria are sufficiently clear-cut. If they were too ambiguous, every negative decision would wind up being appealed, and you don\u2019t want that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Step down?<\/h2>

However, the current government is actually tightening<\/a> the criteria and already banking on the cuts. Rullmann is particularly critical about the latter: \u201cWhile economising could be an effect of such an assessment, it must never be the goal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rullmann considered stepping down, but says he won\u2019t. \u201cIt kept me up at night, but it was all still uncertain. We were waiting for a deal with the opposition and didn\u2019t know yet what it would be. Now we have an exemption for particular regions, but still don\u2019t know what it will entail. It\u2019s musical chairs, and in two months my term is up. Slamming doors on my way won\u2019t do any good. Creating a fuss doesn\u2019t help.\u201d<\/p>\n

The regional exemptions are only one sticking point. \u201cSay ten universities offer more or less the same programme in English, and all ten give the same solid justification for teaching it in that language. Does this mean all ten should get the green light? Or should two teach it in Dutch \u2013 or eight? And then, which ones? Our role is purely to give advice; it\u2019s the minister\u2019s job to decide in such cases.\u201d<\/p>\n

This decision is less complicated where new programmes are concerned. Rullmann: \u201cThere are no students and staff yet, so no stakeholders. There\u2019s only a plan, which we can assess in advance. But with existing programmes, it\u2019s different.\u201d<\/p>\n

As clear as possible<\/h2>

Degree programmes which do have to switch to Dutch will be given several years for this. Years in which anything can happen. A new government could take office, for instance, and change course.<\/p>\n

According to Rullmann, the only thing the CDHO can do is be as clear as possible about the expectations and considerations. \u201cEarly on, the CDHO was something of an ivory tower. You dropped an envelope in the mailbox describing your plans for a new programme and eventually got a go or no-go. Things are different now. For example, we have weekly office hours for people to ask questions. We regularly consult with higher education institutions before they submit applications. We never say: write such and such and we\u2019ll approve it. What we do say is: look, here are points you need to consider. It will be the same for programmes taught in other languages. We want to be an open body.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u201cThe cuts \r\nare overkill\u201d\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Rullmann is well aware of grumbling<\/a> about the CDHO. \u201cSome say it\u2019s all bureaucratic and administrative nonsense. That they can work a lot of it out for themselves. But, in the end, institutions do see the usefulness of this mechanism for market division. In a football match, you can insult the referee, but everyone understands that he\u2019s necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n

His fear is that the language assessment for existing degree programmes will change this. The Committee was never meant to make cuts, but now, effectively, it will. Rullmann: \u201cI think the whole package of education and research cuts, of which the foreign language restriction is a part, is overkill. It has adverse effects that we\u2019re already seeing now and that will only get worse.\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