UM’s PR machine kicked into gear, and the story went national in the summer of 2006. Even international media picked it up. Each year, around 350 bachelor’s and master’s students would benefit from the scheme. Price tag: half a million euros. Where the money would come from was still unclear that summer, but by late October the Executive Board revealed its intention to draw on private funds, including profits from UM’s holding company – money that had originally been set aside for around forty master’s scholarships for non-EU students.
False pretences
The scheme was launched in September 2007. As for the rules, beneficiaries had to continue studying at UM the following year. After all, the point was to retain talented students in order to raise the overall level of education. In tutorial groups, the logic went, the strongest students would lift up the rest. The scheme was to be rolled out gradually: first for first-year students, then for second-year students, and so on.
Graduating master’s students, who usually leave UM, would receive a maximum of €1,500, even if their tuition was higher. This didn’t sit well with the University Council, which pointed out that a non-EU master’s student would get back only a fraction of their €11,500 tuition fee. “If you keep saying students can study for free, when that isn’t true for master’s students, you’re attracting students under false pretences.”
Rector Mols was willing to accommodate the University Council, though he warned this might have consequences for the number of students who would benefit from the scheme. Would the loudly announced 3 per cent rule still apply to the top 3 per cent of students? In the end, the university dug deeper into its pockets, and the 3 per cent rule remained intact.
In October 2008, 139 brand-new second-year students received their tuition back, along with a certificate. Most were German or Dutch. An Italian European Law student interviewed by Observant was pleasantly surprised – she hadn’t been aware of the scheme, but now planned to aim for the top 3 per cent again in the second and third years of her studies.
Criticism
But by then, criticism was mounting. At the Faculty of Law, members of the student representative party DOPE demanded to know how the top 3 per cent was determined. The process turned out to vary from one faculty to the next. Albert Scherpbier, director of the Institute for Education of the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, doubted whether the best students were truly identified. “They only look at grades, but I think motivation and extracurricular activities should count too.” At the Faculty of Psychology, people questioned the compatibility of the scheme with Problem-Based Learning: students chasing a top ranking might be tempted to keep their ideas to themselves rather than share knowledge in tutorials.
Too expensive
In 2011, the Executive Board announced it was scrapping the scheme, not because of the criticism but because of the cost. In 2010 alone, the university paid out €700,000 – money that was supposed to go to talented but financially disadvantaged students. With budget cuts looming, the university decided the money would be better spent there. On top of that, the scheme proved labour-intensive for faculties, which only added to the overall cost.