Blog: Student in – degree out
The university funding model encourages students to leave the university as quickly as possible, regardless of how this outcome is achieved. It is naive to think that increasing class sizes and the number of study places would have no impact on the quality of higher education or student learning.
It is highly commendable that the current funding model for higher education institutions includes so-called qualitative indicators such as student feedback and career tracking which aim to measure student satisfaction rather than the profits of the education itself.
It is highly commendable that the current funding model for higher education institutions includes so-called qualitative indicators such as student feedback and career tracking which aim to measure student satisfaction rather than the profits of the education itself. The weight of these indicators within the funding model should also be increased, so that higher education institutions invest more than they currently do in high-quality education and student satisfaction.
However, there is room for debate regarding the quality aspect of these indicators. Most universities have succeeded in developing a model that captures student feedback from nearly every individual graduating with a bachelor’s degree. Although those universities that have failed to achieve a response rate high enough to cover basically all bachelor’s graduates, in practice, utilize the bachelor’s feedback survey as a quantitative indicator. For universities with high response rates, the only way to increase funding under this category is to improve the quality of education via the student feedback values.
Furthermore, the current career tracking survey does not help higher education institutions develop their degree programs in a sufficient time. Conducted five years after the completion of a master’s-level degree and three years after the completion of a doctorate, the survey no longer provides relevant information regarding the structures of the education system; by that time, the content and implementation of the degree programs have likely already changed potentially several times over. Consequently, universities do not receive timely input from these career tracking efforts that would help in developing the content and structure of their educational programs.
The current funding model cycle for higher education institutions changes every four years. This means that the funding model may be altered before universities receive any usable feedback regarding their higher-level degree programs. Consequently, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the duration of the current funding model. At present, universities lack information regarding the competencies with which students enter the working life upon graduation, as well as areas for improvement within Master’s and Licentiate degree programs. Incorporating a new, qualitative indicator into the higher education funding model is a premise for ensuring high-quality higher education in the future. A solution to this would be to collect feedback from students who are about to graduate from Master’s and Licentiate programs. This would provide universities with up-to-date data on both stages of higher education, along with feedback from alumni regarding their experiences in the working life.
The state budget proposal for 2027 would allocate 22 million euros toward new study places at higher education institutions. This is a step in the right direction. However, the majority of parliamentary parties have committed to a ”debt brake” which translates to estimated savings of 8–11 billion euros for the next government term. These cuts, combined with a funding model based on the number of degrees awarded, will continue to pressure higher education institutions to prioritize factors other than the quality of education. It would be irresponsible to direct major cuts on higher education funding at this point, effectively to pull the rug out from under the goal of raising the educational attainment of the population.
This blog text is written by Elli Myllymäki, the OYY board member responsible of Academic Affairs, and Mikko Hakoniemi, OYY’s Specialist of Academic Affairs