Last week, the UT suddenly made headlines in all the national newspapers. Did the Doctorate Board anticipate the attention and commotion?
‘We made a well-considered decision after weighing all aspects and interests. From that perspective, the amount of attention was somewhat unexpected. Moreover, in an international context, what we did isn’t all that unusual. At the same time, it fits the current era, in which opponents of such decisions make their voices heard loudly – especially since the media discussion focused primarily on gender bias. That might be a lesson for us as well. Suddenly, you find yourself in the spotlight. At the same time, we also received a lot of support, though often expressed in less forceful terms – and therefore less visible.’
Perhaps it bears repeating, but could you (once again) explain the decision to abolish cum laude PhD distinctions?
‘In short: the system is not fair, so you have to stop using it. Let me be clear: I am absolutely in favour of recognising academic excellence. In recent years, we’ve tried to objectify that recognition with additional measures during PhD defences, for instance by adjusting the composition of committees. But that hasn’t been enough to eliminate the systemic inequality and subjectivity from the system.
The person most directly involved – the supervisor – largely determines the assessment of their PhD candidate’s work; work to which the supervisor often contributed as a co-author. We tried to make the system fair and objective, but there’s a structural flaw we currently cannot work around. Abolishing it is the only option.’
Some individuals and groups, such as university professors and PE-NUT, claim they were not sufficiently involved in the process. Should the Doctorate Board have sought more input?
‘All letters, including the one from Detlef Lohse and others, will be discussed and answered soon. That opportunity hasn’t arisen yet. As the Doctorate Board, we are an independent governing body, and there is no formal participation involved. We thought it through carefully, took responsibility, and made our decision. I do agree that we could have involved people earlier in communicating about the decision-making process. However, formal participation is not appropriate here. Examination boards of study programmes are also independent and operate without participation.’
Opponents have been particularly vocal. Are their arguments reason enough to reconsider the decision?
‘I’m not closing the door on all options. We are an academic community. If there are good arguments to change policy, we should always be open to them. But I don’t currently see a simple solution to this issue. We understand the discussion, but we also see that the values underlying this decision – fairness and transparency – are not being questioned. Let’s look together at how we want to shape recognition and rewards. That discussion has been stagnating for some time. Hopefully, this decision will provide an impetus to move more quickly towards new ways of recognising and rewarding.’
That’s a question we must continuously ask ourselves: how do we assess people and their work? In the revised regulations, PhD candidates must describe their own contribution to the dissertation. That’s one step towards better highlighting the originality and impact of someone’s work. Major organisations like NWO are already transitioning to evaluation frameworks that focus on the quality and impact of research, rather than formal distinctions or grades.’
A concrete concern is that UT PhD candidates will be at a disadvantage compared to those from other Dutch universities. That they’ll be 1–0 behind…
‘What determines the quality and impact of our PhD research? First and foremost, the scientific merit of the work itself, the reputation of the supervisors and research groups, and the international visibility of our publications and collaborations. Those factors remain unchanged. Our PhD candidates are still assessed based on the quality of their dissertations, peer-reviewed publications, and research outcomes. Those are the internationally recognised standards of excellence.’
As a supervisor, you have every opportunity to write a reference. We at UT are also willing to provide a statement about our PhD regulations. For someone’s career, the supervisor’s judgement is more important than that of the university itself. I’ve done this myself. When I believed someone was among the top ten percent of my PhD candidates, I would mention that when appropriate. A good reference letter can work wonders. Let me put it this way: a strong recommendation is better than a quasi-objective label.’
What’s next? Are you hoping other Dutch universities will follow suit?
‘I do hope so. The world is changing, and the way we value academic excellence is changing with it. Yes, we are the first university in the Netherlands to make this choice. People who earned a cum laude distinction in the past absolutely deserved it, I don’t doubt that. But it’s equally true that people who didn’t receive it may well have deserved it. Women, in particular, have been disproportionately disadvantaged.
I’ve already visited two faculties to discuss the topic, and the other three will follow soon. As the Doctorate Board, we are open to feedback, but I do want to ensure that the loudest voices don’t drown out the silent majority. A polarised debate, without room for mutual understanding, benefits no one.’
