UvA Kieswijzer

More investment is needed in interdisciplinary education (providing students with more than just one perspective on a particular subject, such as honours, PPLE or IIS programs)

UvASociaal

Neutral

This should only be done if it is in line with benefits it provides to the study programs and students’ career opportunities in the industry, not as a marketing tactic.

020

Fully agree

An interdisciplinary perspective will improve the quality of education by exposure to a variety of perspectives and methods. Further, this will enhance students’ overall chances for developing a successful and fruitful career.

EnCore

Agree

More investment into interdisciplinary education is desirable, as it would result in an increase in the number of students admitted into such programs, as well as an increase in the academic options of students throughout their studies. Furthermore, it would improve the quality of interdisciplinary options themselves, for example by giving honors students more freedom to choose which courses and how many courses they want to take. However, the UvA must make sure that throughout the process of investing in interdisciplinary education, students enrolled in standard programs are not overlooked, and that the quality of all other academic options is not negatively impacted.

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

Interdisciplinary education has great academic value, but as far as we're concerned, it won't get a penny more until it's accessible to everyone, not just for those who can afford it. This education should not be a revenue model for the university, but should serve to expand academic knowledge across society as a whole.

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

De Vrije Student

Agree

For DVS, quality of education is a priority. Interdisciplinary education can enhance problem-solving skills and creativity. In addition, many professions nowadays require an interdisciplinary approach. Developing interdisciplinary skills during the course can prepare students for the job market. Where possible, we want to make education more interdisciplinary and practice-oriented.

INTER

Agree

Interdisciplinarity is a valuable asset in today's increasingly complex world. More interdisciplinary education, therefore, would generally serve to benefit the UvA student body. That being said, there remains a need for specialised education within certain fields. This should not be overlooked, and deserves it's fair share of investment.

Kies ACTA

No opinion

As a way to curb the growth of the university, Dutch language courses should be a mandatory part of all programs

EnCore

Fully disagree

UvA should celebrate its international student body, and students should have the freedom to decide over their studies. If UvA has problems with the growth of the university, it should make strategic investments in housing rather than blaming and burdening students for their own logistical miscalculations. While free Dutch classes should be available, they should not be mandatory.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

The quality of education is our top priority. English when necessary, Dutch when possible. Such measures should not be used solely for the purpose of slowing down the growth of the university.

Kies ACTA

No opinion

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully disagree

Making Dutch courses compulsory in all programs is nonsense. Combating the growth of the university must go hand in hand with strong criticism of its profit model and the societal status quo, not forcing everyone to take courses in Dutch. However, all programs - including those taught in English - must provide the opportunity to conduct papers, presentations and other assessment moments in Dutch. The university must also offer free Dutch language lessons to all students of all levels, so that both Dutch and English-speaking students have the opportunity to learn Dutch or improve their language skills.

INTER

Disagree

INTER agrees with more accessible and free Dutch courses. However, we strongly disagree with making them mandatory. We also take issue with the way this statement is formulated, and believe that the responsibility for curbing university growth should be placed on the institution itself and the Dutch government, rather than serve as a burden for students.

UvASociaal

Disagree

While we believe that more needs to be done to curb the growth at the University, we do not believe that Dutch classes should be mandatory as this is not in line with academic freedom. Students should be able to make their own decisions regarding their education.

020

Disagree

While 020 agrees that, due to the current UvA capacity limits, growth of the university should be curbed, we do not agree that making students take mandatory Dutch language courses is the best method to do so. Forcing students to take extra courses can potentially interfere with one’s main studies, as well as take a toll on student mental health and free time.

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

We believe that mandatory Dutch language courses are not the way to curb student growth as learning a new language has nothing to do with one's academic skills in a specific field (except linguistics) and therefore makes no sense.We see that learning a new language has clear benefits and we encourage the adoption of free Dutch classes for all UvA students. In order to curb student growth the University should focus on better handling student housing, infrastructure and its advertisement strategy.

It is the government’s responsibility to provide mental health support for students. Therefore, the university should not spend extra resources on this

De Vrije Student

Disagree

Although the government is primarily responsible for the mental health of students, the university can contribute to promoting student well-being by creating a safe environment in which students can openly discuss their mental health. Additionally, the university has the responsibility to refer students to the appropriate mental health services.

UvASociaal

Fully disagree

The University is the first point of contact for students as they are often on campus and can easily access resources through the University rather than other more complicated means. Hence, more should be done by the UvA to provide mental health resources rather than just depending on government support for ease of access of students to the help they require. This is in line with UvAsociaal's pillars of accessibility and quality of education.

Kies ACTA

No opinion

INTER

Fully disagree

While we agree that mental health support should be on the government’s agenda, it absolutely does not absolve the university of responsibility for their students and their well-being. Students spend the majority of their time at the university or with university-connected activities, many live here purely for their studies. The university should not only care for their students well-being, but is in our eyes directly responsible for providing support to any student who needs it and should therefore allocate resources to providing students in need with mental health support.

Sefa Student Party

Fully disagree

This question is misleading. You can favor against and in favor of it, as you want to see it. The fact of the matter is that the Dutch government does not provide sufficient mental health support for students and it is not as accessible as it is at a University. So it becomes the responsibility of the University to provide mental health support. Demand is clearly there since the waiting times at the UvA student psychologists are approximately 4 weeks, which we deem unacceptable. Therefore we advocate for more investment in terms of Mental Health.

020

Fully disagree

Student mental health should not be considered the responsibility of the government. Instead, our students should have appropriate resources readily made available to them by the University when in need of mental health aid. The current resources are not sufficient for the University’s growing student body, leaving many students without guidance or support. The University should therefore invest more in its mental health resources and services.

EnCore

Fully disagree

It is the government's responsibility to provide mental health support for students, but it is also the UvA’s responsibility to take care of its student body whenever possible. The UvA has the ability to provide mental health solutions specifically catered towards students, and it should carry additional responsibility when mental health problems are caused by the university itself. Therefore, the UvA should still invest in mental health support for students in cases where the government fails or cannot provide the level of support students need.

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

These are two different questions, namely: (1) should the government invest in mental health support for students, and (2) should the university invest in mental health support for students? Our answer to both of these questions is a resounding 'yes'. Mental health is crucial and it is up to the university to offer support to students as long as the government doesn't have its affairs in order.

The Binding Study Advice (BSA) should be abolished

EnCore

Disagree

While it may be argued that Binding Study Advice (BSA) may hinder access to education, eliminating BSA would mean that the UvA would need stricter admissions criteria to control the size of the student body, and various students would have even less access to education than they do currently. Rather than not being admitted, under BSA students have the opportunity to attend university and work towards earning the right to continue studying at the UvA. Overall, eliminating BSA would worsen the problem it is trying to solve, and is not a realistic solution given the UvA’s facilities and resources.

020

Neutral

020 believes that the BSA is a necessary part to gain the University’s permanence. However, there should also be more flexibility with the Study Advice as different students have different needs and lives which might directly affect their personal Advice.

Kies ACTA

No opinion

INTER

Disagree

At INTER we are of the opinion that the current BSA is too high and that the regulations surrounding it are too inflexible to allow students freedom in their study and personal development. We believe the BSA needs to be lowered and the regulations deciding about exemptions and providing support need to become more flexible and personalisable. However, completely abolishing the BSA is not the answer as it would either further drive UvA’s growth into unsustainable heights or necessitate stricter admission criteria, which would defeat the UvA’s value of giving students fair chances.

UvASociaal

Fully agree

The Binding Study Advice goes against the UvAsociaal pillars of diversity, accessibility and quality of education. Firstly, the BSA can have very drastic effects on international students as their ability to reside in the country depends greatly on their academic performance, hence placing them under immense pressure, after they have had to move from another country and are trying to acquaint themselves with their new surroundings. Secondly, the BSA is also detrimental to the accessibility of students to university courses, as they can no longer study the same subject for the next 3 years. Thirdly, the quality of education of students goes down when they are under a lot of stress due to the BSA, which can further have a detrimental effect on their performance.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS advocates for a revision of the binding study advice (BSA), or for a more flexible approach that takes individual circumstances into account and provides guidance and support to students who are struggling.

Sefa Student Party

Disagree

We believe that the BSA is a good way to measure one's adaptation to University life and the rhythm of the program. This being said we acknowledge that the BSA is too high and reducing it could help mitigate mental health concerns. In addition, the procedure for dispensation due to personal circumstances must be more flexible and organized.

Activistenpartij UvA

Fully agree

The BSA is obsolete and should be abolished. The UvA should lead the charge in the national debate surrounding it by setting the BSA to 0 EC, thereby abolishing it in practice. However, students should get the guidance they need. The Activist Party is a proponent of an unbinding study advice.

There should be no mandatory attendance for seminars/ tutorials

EnCore

Fully agree

It is not the UvA’s job to dictate to students how they should learn the course content. Instead, UvA should strive to have as many options as possible available to students, but should ultimately allow students to choose their own learning process and manage their own time. In addition, we recognize that students may have sleeping disorders, student jobs, or other personal circumstances that may make it difficult to attend lectures at certain times (9 AM classes). These students should not be punished based on these circumstances, especially because they are unrelated to learning outcomes.

UvASociaal

Fully agree

We believe that students should be able to make their own decisions regarding their education as this would be in line with accessibility and quality of education. Nothing should be mandatory for students and they should have autonomy over their work.

020

Agree

While it is important for our students to attend as many seminars and tutorials as possible for them to keep up with the course material and the important topics discussed in class, making it mandatory takes away the possibility of our students to reallocate their study time according to their needs. Furthermore, the current lack of flexibility in regard to absences puts the students' education at risk of delay, under circumstances that are out of their control such as illness or disability.

De Vrije Student

Agree

We are against mandatory attendance at lectures and tutorials. This aligns with our idea of flexible studying. We understand that students have other commitments outside of their studies. Most students have a job or want to gain practical experience through an internship alongside their studies. Additionally, we see that mandatory attendance does not necessarily mean that students actively participate or that their presence improves the quality of the tutorial.

INTER

Disagree

We do think it is important for students to attend tutorials and engage in discussions with each other about the subjects they are studying. However, similarly as with the BSA, current exemption regulations for the attendance are too inflexible and inconsiderate of students’ physical and mental health, as well as their financial means as many need to work or travel far. We advocate for a more flexible, student-focused attendance policy that is adapted to students’ needs and allows more exemptions.

Sefa Student Party

Fully agree

Kies ACTA

No opinion

Activistenpartij UvA

Disagree

The Activist Party is in favor of a decentralized system, in which program committees can decide for themselves whether it is to their advantage to use mandatory attendance, based on the interests of students and teachers. We are therefore not against compulsory attendance in principle, as this can benefit the educational quality and (social) development of students. However, the obligation to attend can also be annoying for lecturers, who - with insecure and 0,7ft contracts - often find little time to go through a bureaucratic and administrative hassle. Furthermore, we believe that the current attendance obligation should be handled more flexibly. For example, students who have to work to make ends meet should be able to join other work groups with greater ease if necessary.

The number of international students in a council should be representative of the number of international students within a faculty, or the University (same for Dutch students).