When I engage with research, content, and students, I am deeply passionate about my work. Handling necessary bureaucracy to support my organization’s operations is part of the job. However, when I’m forced to waste time on avoidable bureaucracy due to inefficient organizational structures, my enthusiasm wanes. It’s particularly frustrating when I see this bureaucracy undermining the work of colleagues who are widely recognized as excellent teachers and researchers. I am in academia because of my passion for research and education, building and creating, collaborating with others, and making decisions rooted in reason and critical thinking.
Unfortunately, I’ve observed a troubling shift in academia: the increasing prioritization of bureaucratic processes over academic substance. Bureaucracy should support primary functions, not disrupt them or become an end in itself. Currently, it wastes time, undermines quality, causes frustration and demotivation, and achieves little more than satisfying external bodies with superficial solutions. To illustrate, I’ll provide two examples, which I will later relate to Dutch law.
Graduation Committees
Let’s discuss exam boards and examiners. On several occasions, I or a colleague have carefully selected external members for a graduation committee based on their expertise and valuable input, only to have these individuals rejected as ‘unqualified examiners’. Often, these were full professors who had worked at UT for years, supervised numerous students, and gained international recognition in their fields and educational proficiency. Yet, the exam board had the authority to declare them unqualified to assess work within their own domain, simply because they were not on ‘the list’.
This is not just absurd but a reality: highly qualified individuals within our organization are excluded from evaluating students in their own areas of expertise, despite their tenure and extensive supervisory experience. Some may argue, ‘It’s not just about content; it’s about procedures’. While that’s true, do we really believe our professional colleagues, hired to solve complex scientific problems, cannot be briefed on the necessary procedures in a half-hour meeting? Is it not enough to explain the rules, coach them briefly, and trust them to apply this knowledge competently?
When I’ve raised these concerns, the typical response is: ‘It’s a legal requirement.’ Upon investigation, I found that no such mandate exists.
The responsibilities of examination boards within Dutch higher education are outlined in the Dutch Higher Education and Research Act (Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek, WHW), specifically in Articles 7.12 through 7.12c. The key points include:
• Article 7.12a-1: Ensuring the quality of exams and the assessment of students, including organizing the exams.
• Article 7.12b: Ensuring that established procedures for assessment and examination are followed.
There is nothing in the law preventing senior members with relevant expertise from participating in a graduation committee. This issue stems from internal procedures, not legal requirements.
These arbitrary rules undermine our colleagues, erode their enthusiasm, and hinder education. Sadly, this is not an isolated issue. Let’s turn to the University Teaching Qualification (UTQ).
The UTQ
I fully support maintaining high-quality education. My critique is not the existence of the UTQ itself, but how it’s implemented. I also acknowledge the efforts of some within management who are working hard to address the concerns I will now discuss.
Anyone passionate about education agrees it must be of high quality. However, opinions often differ on what constitutes good education. First, university education is fundamentally different from pre-university education – it must be content-driven. Applying a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is foolish. You teach mathematics as it should be taught, emphasizing its core principles. The same goes for physics or any other academic discipline. Yet, much power is placed in the hands of ‘educational scientists’ who may impose procedures incompatible with teaching at the academic level who have possibly never taught any of those subjects.
I’ve witnessed several instances where senior educators, recognized for their excellence in teaching and mentoring numerous students, were required to be ‘certified’ by individuals lacking both subject knowledge and comparable experience. This is the essence of the UTQ system now. As an academic who values critical thinking, I’ve consistently raised concerns about this bureaucratic, superficial, and non-content-driven process. The response? ‘It’s required by law.’ But when I examined the law, I found that the UTQ is not mandated by the WHW.
Instead, the UTQ is a standard developed and implemented by universities through agreements within what was formerly the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), now known as Universiteiten van Nederland (UNL). The law provides general guidelines regarding the qualifications of teaching staff and the responsibility of institutions to ensure quality education (Articles 1.3, 9.17, and 9.5), but it does not specifically mandate the UTQ.
Thus, we find ourselves enforcing rules that undervalue our own experts, waste their valuable time and has a negative influence in education: the current UTQ will in no way make good teachers from bad ones. Once again, a bureaucratic, box-ticking approach is frustrating passionate educators, globally recognized for their contributions—except by their own institution. This system may be beneficial for junior faculty[RK1] members, who can benefit from coaching, but it is inappropriate for senior educators who have successfully taught for many years. Even junior educators can much better benefit from proper qualified coaching of professionals rather than bureaucratic paper filling.
Is There a Better Alternative?
Absolutely. Why not establish evaluation committees composed of individuals who have earned authority through their achievements in education, rather than through arbitrary appointments? Decisions should be based on academic debate, grounded in facts. These committees could be supported administratively but would make content-driven decisions. They could also grant exemptions to educators who have already proven their proficiency. And yes, just tell the needed procedure and trust that scientists will follow them.
It’s time for our leaders to foster an organization driven by real values, one that recognizes and supports the achievements of its people, rather than creating superficial solutions to please external audiences. Our policies should aim to avoid negative influences on the ‘good 99%’ of people who can be trusted, rather than being designed to prevent the ‘bad 1%’ from doing something wrong.
This shift doesn’t require any financial investment and could potentially save money. It only needs willpower, trust, vision, and leadership.
