Feature article by DTU University Director and Executive Vice President Claus Nielsen. Published in Danish in Berlingske on 13.02.2023.
Will all students now have to apply for a three-year bachelor’s degree with a predetermined master’s degree, or perhaps a master’s degree programme that they can qualify for through credit points during the first three years, or do they have something entirely different in mind.
It is rather strange that they are unable to answer such a relatively simple question, not least in view of the fact that the government is proposing significant changes to the university programmes. And we’re not talking minor adjustments, but drastic changes. Every year, approximately 23,000 students graduate from the Danish universities, and by interpretation of the government’s line of thought, half of all two-year master’s programmes are to be converted into one-year programmes.
The big unknown factor in the equation is, of course, whether companies and the public sector will want to hire the gradutes form the four-year programmes—or rather, will there be jobs for them, and can they compete with graduates from the typical and well-known master’s programmes?
If you imagine a three-year bachelor’s programme with a subsequent master’s programme, graduates from the one-year master’s programmes will have less knowledge and fewer skills than graduates from the two-year programmes, and they will thus not have the same qualifications. A doctor with a year less of training will not be as capable as one with a full master’s degree, which also applies to physicists, linguists, engineers, economists, lawyers, theologians, etc.
If we follow the government’s proposal, the Danish universities will, for the first time in two centuries, be asked to educate less. Furthermore, if we reduce the 3+2 structure of university programmes, we are also removing ourselves from an international cooperation that Denmark has been a part of for decades, one that enables academic mobility through a mutual recognition of degrees and periods of study, also known as the Lisbon Convention of 1997 and the ongoing Bologna Process.
If we are to shorten university programmes, it is important that this is done carefully and thoughtfully to reduce any losses to society and the associated risks as much as possible. Losses and risks are inevitable when you reduce study programmes by years, and to claim otherwise is pure political spin.
There are four factors that I hope the government will take into account in their work to change study programmes:
1. New complementary programmes
Firstly, we must strive to establish new complementary programmes for the 3+2 programmes and, above all, it is crucial that the new programmes meet the needs of the labour market and thus are in demand.
For inspiration, we can look to the engineering area, where we have two research-based programmes. The MSc Eng and BEng programmes coexist in harmony, the students have access to and are taught in the same research environment by the same researchers, use the same laboratories and research infrastructures, and are part of the same study environment, but they are taught differently and the programmes are very different.
The BEng programme gives high priority to application and practice-oriented aspects of engineering, includes a six-months internship, and is completed in three and a half years, while the MSc Eng is a more traditional academic programme completed in a 3+2 model.
Thus, you get two vastly different programmes where the graduates have different qualifications, but—most importantly—they are complementary and in demand by the business community. The engineering programmes could be a source of inspiration for other areas of education.
2. Avoid creating a B team
Secondly, it is essential that we avoid creating A and B programmes in which students follow the same three-year bachelor’s programme and then, on the basis of credit points—in practice, their grades—qualify or disqualify for the two-year master’s programme.
All students enrolling in a university programme must overcome hurdles on a continuing basis, but if you manage, you will be a capable graduate by the time you get your degree. At DTU, we tell new students to be prepared to spend approx. 45 hours a week on their studies, and if they are willing and capable, they will be fine.
It would be very unfortunate to introduce a race for credits. It is unnecessary, and the students will not improve. If you choose to do it anyway, you should not be surprised about stress and unhealthy focus on grades among students—unless you want to cultivate the art of hypocrisy.
3. Give us time
Thirdly, in line with the above, I would like to encourage the government to give the universities time, opportunity, and resources for developing the new complementary programmes.
If you think that a three-year bachelor’s programme can be translated into two equal and equally useful programmes, you are sorely mistaken. If we are to meet the expectations for demand and raison d'être in the labour market, the two programmes must offer something different, and the labour market must be able to see the difference and want it.
For example, the new programmes could be more practice and application-oriented, or in some areas more specialized, or include company internships, etc. But this will require changes and the organization of completely different courses of study that are thought through from day one and throughout the entire four-year programme.
For example, if you want to create a four-year legal programme, you will need to rethink the entire course of study—not just the fourth year. Can you remove, e.g., some of the subjects that are currently a prerequisite for obtaining a licence to practice as a lawyer? On the other hand, we could focus on increasing specialization within selected areas, where the emphasis is on administration and case decisions in both private and public companies.
And I think those are factors that should be considered in virtually all areas of education, and once again, I think there is good inspiration to be found in the engineering programmes.
4. Involve employers
Finally, if the adjustment of study programmes is to succeed, it is crucial that employers are on board and take part in shaping the programmes and graduates they want to hire afterwards.
The latter also important because insignificant differences in an A and B team model will obviously result in companies choosing from the top shelf, given that the salary differences will likely be insignificant. This will result in what is, in my opinion, the worst possible outcome, where no one—students, companies, or universities—will benefit, and where the dream of an increased supply of labour can easily crumble.
Personally, I do not believe that the way forward for Denmark is to produce fewer academics, but if it has to be done, it is both reasonable and desirable to do it primarily within fields with little demand for graduates.
Whereas some study programmes could benefit from adjustments, I believe that the massive scale that the government envisions will throw Denmark into a hugely risky project, where the losses could be much greater than the gains. We should therefore allow allow time and space for contemplation and involving businesses and universities in the design of new study programmes. Otherwise we may quickly be faced with some very hard-earned experience.
