Frank Somhorst, PhD candidate at the Adaptive Quantum Optics group, Faculty of S&T:
‘I don’t dispute the issues of objectivity and gender bias, but I get the strong impression that UT isn’t truly willing to invest in solving the underlying problems. A logical next step would be to tackle these issues directly. Unlike in bachelor’s or master’s programmes, grades don’t factor into the assessment, making the judgement far more subjective. I can imagine it would be a concrete action point to establish objective criteria, just as is common in undergraduate and graduate programmes. Systematic gender bias – unfortunately extending beyond the cum laude distinction – can also be addressed. The solution chosen now feels like a superficial fix that only works on paper.’
'The impact of your work is the true reward – not the distinction' - Professor Geke Ludden
Geke Ludden, professor of Interaction Design at the Faculty of EEMCS:
‘I noticed that opponents of the decision have a loud voice, but I see things differently. Change is always complicated, often painful, but saying something shouldn’t change ‘because that’s how we’ve always done it’ is a fallacy. There are plenty of reasons to support this measure. Research has shown that it’s twice as hard for women to earn a cum laude distinction. The differences in approach and assessment between men and women in academia stem from a persistent systemic issue. Correcting those effects is no easy task – certainly not within the next ten years. If you’ve never experienced it yourself, it’s hard to imagine. That alone is a valid reason.
I also believe this measure aligns well with the Recognition & Rewards movement. We’re seeing that NWO and other research funders now treat CVs differently, with personal narratives gaining importance – so that the quality and impact of your research speak for themselves, rather than the labels attached to it. I assume every PhD candidate comes here to do meaningful research and push boundaries. The impact of your work is the true reward – not the distinction.’
PE-NUT board, the UT PhD and EngD network:
‘We understand the reasoning of the Doctorate Board, but we’re concerned that these decisions were made without consultation. While PE-NUT was asked to provide input on the new intended learning outcomes and ius promovendi, this did not apply to the cum laude decision. The decision-making process was also rather opaque, which feels unfair to the PhD community. We expressed these concerns in a letter to the Doctorate Board last month, co-signed by the Young Academy Twente and the Postdoc Network.
This topic is currently the talk of the day at every coffee machine. Many agree that cum laude is not awarded objectively – we’re all familiar with the research on this. But there’s also speculation about the possibility of developing an objective assessment matrix to identify the top five percent. On the other hand, many PhD candidates feel that earning a doctorate is already a major achievement and a collective effort. There’s no such thing as a mediocre PhD, and good work is recognised in other, tangible ways – through grants and citations, for example.’
Ellen Giebels, professor of Psychology of Conflict and Safety, Faculty of BMS:
‘I see and acknowledge the problem, and I agree that simply formulating ‘clear criteria’ – as some suggest – is not enough. But I do wonder whether this is the right solution, and whether we’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At UT, we already require gender-balanced PhD committees and have broadened doctoral rights. What I especially miss is the narrative behind this measure: a clear vision, perhaps even a mission. Without that, it feels like a local measure from a small university, which could lead to negative perceptions – after all, we’re no longer pursuing excellence – and potentially harm the careers of our PhD candidates. Major funders like NWO still use cum laude as a selection criterion.’
'Someone who graduates with a 9 has also shown more than someone with a 6' - Mark Oude Alink
Mark Oude Alink, associate professor at the Integrated Circuit Design group, Faculty of EEMCS:
‘I’m strongly opposed. The cum laude distinction reflects excellence, both in PhD defences and graduations. Someone who graduates with a 9 has also shown more than someone with a 6. I can imagine there’s bias that disfavours female PhD candidates, and that’s certainly a problem we need to address. But you don’t solve that by abolishing the distinction altogether. As Stefano Stramigioli aptly put it in his opinion piece, it’s like stopping all trains because a few people ride without tickets.
I understand it’s difficult to formulate a UT-wide objective regulation. Total objectivity is a utopia. But having some form of distinction isn’t a bad thing. For a vacancy in our group, we receive two hundred applications and invite maybe ten candidates. Some graduate or earn their PhD by the skin of their teeth, others excel. Like it or not, the latter have an edge.’
Talal Ashraf, earned his PhD in March at the Photocatalytic Synthesis group, Faculty of S&T:
‘The title of doctor is already prestigious; it doesn’t need any extra prefix or suffix to enhance its value. Every PhD candidate who reaches the defence stage has already demonstrated exceptional dedication and scientific ability. Moreover, the outcome of a PhD isn’t solely determined by talent or effort, but also by numerous external factors – such as the quality of supervision, access to research facilities, and institutional support.
Some PhD candidates work on projects that naturally allow more room for innovation, while others join projects with a predetermined direction. Similarly, some enter their PhD with strong skills already developed, while others have to build those skills from scratch. Because these circumstances aren’t equal for everyone, distinctions like cum laude can unintentionally favour some over others.’
'It’s good that Twente is pioneering here – let’s hope other universities follow suit' - PNN chair Martijn van der Meer
Martijn van der Meer, chair of the PhD Network Netherlands (PNN):
‘Honestly, I’m surprised by the emotional reactions and media attention. From PNN’s perspective, we support the decision. It’s good that UT is reflecting on the content and assessment of PhDs. We also see disparities – beyond gender bias: some PhD candidates have more teaching duties, others don’t even have an employment contract. Some receive more support than others, and such differences are amplified by distinctions in assessment.
We do believe it’s important that PhD candidates in Twente are involved in this decision-making. The lack of involvement was a missed opportunity. Ultimately, we hope UT’s decision sparks a broader discussion. It’s good that Twente is pioneering here – let’s hope other universities follow suit.’
