Policy experiments with student selection and higher tuition fee (‘Make way for talent’) and its impact on added value of programmes.
Netherlands , 2003 to 2008
Compendium: Higher Education
Background
A project was setup to investigate the impact of the introduction of student selection and higher tuition fees on ‘added value’ of programmes was carried out. A special law makes experimenting, under certain conditions, with these instruments possible. Fifteen programmes started experimenting with student selection and/or higher tuition fees. The impact of student selection and higher tuition fees on ‘added value’ was being monitored by a committee (Korthals Committee). The final report of the Korthals Committee was published in December 2007. The results formed the basis for political debate on more freedom for the institutions to select students and set their own tuition fee in 2008.This policy is interesting to other countries where the introduction of student selection and higher tuition fee, are also an issue of debate.
The increasing international competition for highly talented students and the ambition that the Netherlands should belong to the top of the European knowledge economy have fuelled the debate about student selection and higher tuition fees. Selection and higher tuition fees are seen as a possible means to achieve excellence in higher education, and attract top students. (Possible) introduction of these instruments have however long been a taboo. The Dutch system of a draw procedure for studies with a limited participation capacity, is an example of the taboo on selection. Selection for special studies like the performing arts being the exception to the rule.
Aims and targets
The aim was to find out the added value of student selection and higher tuition fees (demonstrability, quality of education, success rates, types of added value, difference between the bachelor phase and the master phase) and the effect on access to higher education (in particular participation of students from low-income families). Another aim was to develop selection instruments.
Strategy and actions
Institutions submitted, on voluntary basis, proposals for experiments with student selection and/or tuition fees. A committee assessed the proposals on (intended or existing) added value of the programme and the relation with student selection and/or tuition fees, and monitors the outcomes of the experiments.
To implement the policy the following actions have been undertaken:
To implement the policy the following actions have been undertaken:
- Creating legal possibilities for student selection and higher tuition fee were created;
- Institutions were invited to submit proposals for experiments, to be prepared in 2004 and to start in 2005;
- A committee was established to assess and select proposals and monitor experiments;
- In 2005 fifteen experiments were authorised by the minister and, but for an exception, received financial support;
- Institutions were invited to submit proposals for honours programmes, to start in 2006. The best proposals (fourteen) received financial support and are also monitored by the committee.
Monitoring and evaluation
The experiments are being monitored and evaluated by the Korthals Committee.Funding/Cost effectiveness
Sustainability/Transferability
Outcomes/impacts
Achievements
Access: better understanding of the effects of student selection.Other achievements: differentiation: a better match between student and study characteristics, through student selection.
Success factors
The creation of legal possibilities for student selection and higher tuition fees and the possibility for financial support. Especially the possibility for student selection showed to be very attractive for liberal arts colleges.Unintended impacts
An unintended effect was the effect on the debate about quality of education in general and on differentiation. The Korthals Committee reports that the ambition of the proposals was rather low. The described added value was often not distinguishable from what was supposed to be the quality of regular programmes. Outcomes show that selection is used for matching students and specific studies and not to achieve excellence. This shifts the debate to matching students in a differentiated higher education (raising the quality of education in general) instead of selecting the best students. Second round proposals were focused on honours programmes. Honours programmes are special tracks for motivated and talented students, sometimes organised as a track within the regular curriculum, sometimes organised as a interdisciplinary track which students can follow in addition to the regular curriculum. As honours programmes do no apply entrance selection or higher tuition fees, honours programmes were included to function as ‘control experiments’ to the experiments with selection (would honours programmes be equally successful?). An unintended effect was the enormous stimulus the second round had on initiatives for honours programmes.Strengths and weaknesses
A weakness is that policy experiments are no laboratory experiments: there are too few experiments (in particular the number of experiments with tuition fee is low, too low to draw conclusions; new experiments will be planned), there are no real control experiments possible, the duration of the experiments is short (existing experiments are allowed to continue) etc.
A strength is that it is leading to new forms of differentiation like honours programmes and selective liberal arts colleges.
Curricular reform
- Access and progression
Funding reform
- Sources of funding (public, enterprises, tuitions, philanthropic etc)
Print this page