Want to read the full minutes? Here’s how to do that!
Our Research & Education Committee meeting on March 12th discussed some interesting topics. For a full report, check the minutes above. Below are some of the highlights.
Quality Agreements: The Good, the Bad, and the Questions
The committee reviewed progress reports related to the Quality Agreements, which are funds allocated to improve education quality (what’s in a name?).
Good news first: wait times for student psychologists have decreased. The committee acknowledged this very positive achievement but also discussed the need to understand how much is due to UM initiatives versus national trends. Questions were raised about the work pressure on psychologists (addressed partly by Quality Agreements and NPO funds for hiring, both of which are ending)
While the general outcomes were largely positive, several issues caught our attention:
- Many students simply don’t know about wellbeing initiatives. We suggested using the main UM social media accounts instead of just dedicated wellbeing channels that students may not follow.
- We spotted something odd with Study Smart, which appears to be sold by UM. Should Quality Agreements money be used for something that generates profit? We’ve asked for clarification.
- Edubadges raised a few eyebrows in the committee. Are these digital credentials really worth the time and money invested? The administration claims students want them, but not all committee members were fully convinced.
- Many extracurricular activities are offered in Dutch, potentially shutting out international students. Not exactly the international character we pride ourselves on, so this will be looked into.
We’ve asked for more data on several fronts: how effective are the wellbeing programs? Who’s tracking CPD activities? What are the current BKO/SKO figures?
Digital Strategy: Autonomy and Accessibility
When the Digitalisation Strategy was presented, the committee didn’t hold back:
- Why are we putting all our eggs in one basket with certain software providers? What happens when things go wrong?
- With the current political climate in the US, should we be so dependent on Microsoft and other American tech giants?
- The strategy talks about making online teaching as engaging as offline, but our educational vision prioritizes in-person learning. We asked some critical questions about this mixed messaging.
- Digital accessibility for people with disabilities wasn’t mentioned at all. This needs to be explicit, not buried in technical principles about “ease of use.” This would benefit the accessibility of these services for everyone.
- What about the human side? How will all this digitalization affect workloads and quality of life?
The presenters admitted the strategy isn’t meant to be “revolutionary,” but that left some wondering: is this really a transformation, or just business as usual with a few new tools?
We also learned that several operational integration projects have been pushed to 2026 due to “capacity constraints.” In other words: the current systems don’t talk to each other well, creating bottlenecks.
The committee urged greater engagement with staff and students on these issues. After all, technology decisions affect all of us, and what looks good on paper might create real headaches for the people actually using these systems day to day.
– Jeroen Moes