{"id":176661,"date":"2025-03-11T11:40:17","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T10:40:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=176661"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:27:43","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:27:43","slug":"minister-dijkgraaf-gave-a-poisoned-gift-to-the-universities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2025\/03\/11\/minister-dijkgraaf-gave-a-poisoned-gift-to-the-universities\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Minister Dijkgraaf gave a poisoned gift to the universities’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Poor ‘financial hygiene’ and imminent government cuts? These are certainly not the all-determining factors why many universities are in financial trouble. Barend van der Meulen, professor of Institutional Aspects of Higher Education at the University of Twente, thinks universities have more say in the situation than they are letting on.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>

Universities have been complaining for years that there is structural underfunding. You broke down that frame in an opinion piece on ScienceGuide<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018That sound was recently reiterated by UNL President Caspar van den Berg, fuelled by the 2021 PwC report<\/a>, among other things. For MBO and HBO, neat analyses were made at the time, for the universities it was only relied on what people had said. So if people say there is a one billion shortage, then there must be a billion shortage. I don\u2019t find that convincing. Universities\u2019 revenues grew from 4 billion to 6.85 billion between 2014 and 2023, thanks in large part to higher lump sum funding from the ministry. Is that underfunding? At the same time, universities are overflowing with ideas and good things. So you can always make the claim that universities never get enough money, but that\u2019s also not very convincing.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018The Internationalisation in Balance Act that universities now fear was lobbied for by some themselves\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

You point out two developments that played a decisive role in the current financial problems, starting with the influx of international students. Why exactly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018I refer to the call from the University of Amsterdam in 2018. From that year on, the growth in international students was no longer fully covered by rising income. The UvA started shouting that they were getting too big and couldn\u2019t do anything about it \u2013 and asked the minister for instruments. The Internationalisation in Balance Act, which universities now fear, was lobbied for by some universities. That\u2019s not an idea of the PVV or Pieter Omtzigt, it comes from universities themselves.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018It is completely unbelievable outside the universities that they cannot do anything themselves to curb that influx. If you start English-language programmes and there are too many international students as a result, you could just stop those English-language programmes? That is a logical conclusion for anyone outside this sector. There has never been a reason to start all international bachelor\u2019s programmes in Amsterdam, except for money. The big universities asked for a brake, which they are now going to get with that legislation. But all universities will suffer the consequences.\u2019<\/p>\n

The second development you mention is the increase in staff.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018That factor is often overlooked. In part, it is in line with the growth in international students \u2013 logically you need more staff in that case. Then there were also funds from the Wet Studievoorschot<\/em> (also known as the student loan system, ed.), which universities were obliged to spend on education \u2013 and therefore often on extra academic staff. But the previous minister, Robbert Dijkgraaf, is probably responsible for the biggest push<\/em>.\u2019<\/p>\n

How did that work exactly?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Dijkgraaf was allowed to spend roughly one billion extra per year. Once he had divided it, he came to the conclusion that he did not know why he had spent the money in that way. The universities received half of that billion, which they had to use for the sector plans, extra staff, and through the so-called rolling grants. So that is earmarked money. That was, as I write, a poisoned gift from Dijkgraaf to the universities.\u2019<\/p>\n

Because extra money is not always a blessing for the universities?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Certainly not. These sector plans and the extra staff that universities hired increased salary costs. In addition, operational costs rose due to inflation. The fact that these sector plan funds were earmarked in this way sometimes resulted in ridiculous situations. I am aware of a case where someone who had only been employed for a month was not allowed to count as a new investment. While that person could be perfectly linked to the sector plans, a new Assistant Professor still had to be appointed. In a broad sense, those sector plans were an investment that universities could not afford.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018In principle, the minister can decide tomorrow and say: we\u2019re stopping, this was a bad idea\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

You make a recommendation to give universities more responsibilities and leeway, so less earmarked money. Should that provide the necessary space for universities?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018It is striking that the universities wanted to maintain the sector plan funds when the cuts were announced. When they had financial problems, they asked the minister to maintain one of the causes of this. I watched that with astonishment. It is in the interest of both the minister and the universities if flexibility and responsibility are given and that considerations are made as locally as possible at a university. So get rid of the earmarked budgets.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018In principle, the minister can decide tomorrow and say: we\u2019ll quit, this was a bad idea. Universities will then receive the money for the sector plans and the rolling grants and the space to do more sensible things with them. That also saves bureaucracy. The cabinet can record this on Budget Day and set it as of January 1st. Of course, it is not going to solve all problems. The people who were hired on that money are permanent employees.\u2019<\/p>\n

What should the minister do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Offer perspective, because that is completely lacking at the moment. That is what employees at the university can expect, that they get a clear long-term perspective. Such a minister is not only responsible for, for example, the upcoming Internationalisation in Balance Act. He has a systemic responsibility for the future of the higher education system in the Netherlands. So if he cuts back \u2013 as he plans \u2013 he will also have to think about what that means for the development of the sector.\u2019<\/p>\n

And the university administrators? One sound proclaimed by UT President of the Executive Board Vinod Subramaniam, is that the Internationalisation Act in Balance is like \u2018shooting at a moving target\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018Of course, as a university, you can\u2019t do anything about inflation. But I do not agree with the suggestion that it is impossible to respond to the developments. The brake on international students was announced years ago. That the number of Dutch students would level off has also been visible for some time. At that time, the university was already struggling with increased salary costs and could already say: we are going to be in trouble. That still leaves the university\u2019s own implicit business operations out of the equation, that things could be more effective and efficient.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018It\u2019s up to university administrators to tell an honest story. The assumption that the effects of the Internationalisation in Balance Act will not be too bad and that the number of international students at the University of Twente doesn\u2019t have to be reduced is a nice scenario. But it is not a realistic scenario. One way or another, growth comes to an end and then stress arises within a university. You have to manage that stress. The minister has a number of rough parameters to distribute the money he has available. Executive boards have a duty to make their own choices about what you want to maintain and what you don\u2019t. You can\u2019t just look at where the costs are, you also have to think about your profile and your public responsibility. The UT has now taken the initiative with the Reinventing our UT document, but that still requires more elaboration and refinement.\u2019<\/p>\n

In the meantime, a relay strike has been announced. Does that have any chance of success?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018The people who ultimately suffer from this are the people who have chosen an academic career; those who have been told that there is nothing better than working at a university, and could become a professor if they did their best. You can\u2019t blame someone who took such a job under those promises. So I can well imagine the anger of the trade unions and representative organisations. But we must also admit that the room to stand up for those interests is minimal. In the longer term, structural problems arise if the growth in costs due to inflation is not covered by additional income. If the minister does not want to correct that, the drama will be much greater.\u2019<\/p>\n\t

\n\t\t

This article was previously published at U-Today<\/a>, the university news platform of the University of Twente. Barend van der Meulen is professor of Institutional Aspects of Higher Education at the UT since 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\t

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

Lees meer<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t