In recent days, higher education and its governance have been extensively discussed both through debate articles and on social media. This is something we students welcome as it gives hope for change in a largely problematic situation. A situation that affects both today's and tomorrow's students. We at SFS think that the outside world should listen more to the largest group within the university - namely the students. For us and future students, this is a question that goes beyond theory. Our reality is at stake.
Student demand is not the problem, which is a statement that is often raised in the media. That the range we have of higher education, to a large extent takes into account what students actually want to study, is rather a strength. It is confirmed not least in Lars Haikola's report “Higher education for 20 years” (SOU 2015: 70) that student demand is largely a good way to control the dimensioning of the education supply. We train for a varied working life and the focus is not on working in a direct match to what is on the diploma throughout life. According to the Higher Education Act (1992: 1434), higher education must provide readiness to meet changes in working life. If you train as a journalist or engineer, the training must of course be useful in relation to these professions (not least through the learning objectives it is designed for the student to achieve). On the other hand, we cannot limit ourselves to seeing only the value and purpose of higher education so narrowly. In a time where we are increasingly moving between different occupations during life, the need for a broader view of the purpose of education becomes greater.
In an article on SvD Debatt (22 / 1-18), Sharon Rider writes that "Universities suffer from competitive mania". She describes how even the resources for higher education today take place on business terms. It is an interesting aspect that in many ways highlights how the market adaptation of higher education and the skewed picture of its purpose creates far-reaching problems. A development that ultimately makes students the biggest losers. How far should we strive for "matching" and "ordering" students before we stop calling it higher education? This reduces students to products in the state apparatus, rather than co-creators in a positive societal development. Not only that - it also risks leading to a complete erosion of both resources and content!
The requirements and mechanisms that exist to increase the efficiency of higher education have both us and others on several occasions pointed out to be destructive and limit the quality of education. It is simply not possible to streamline education in the same way that production can be streamlined when the business community introduces new technical solutions. The consequences go beyond the time students spend with their teachers. The teachers must also have time for the same preparatory and subsequent work as twenty years ago. But with less time and larger student groups. Poorer conditions for the teacher's work also affect the students' learning. The equating of needs and development in learning processes as those in production quickly falls flat.
SFS agrees with Sharon Rider that the state inquiry into governance and resources (STRUT) gives hope for positive change. The challenge is to get everyone involved to see the importance of that change actually taking place and that it means a positive shift towards the system we have today. Then shadow investigations and downpipes that only look after their own interests and risk counteracting the change that is so desperately needed will hardly help. We see it as everyone's obligation to spend time on constructive input and reactions as well as for the work ahead as well as an understanding of the importance of change. An obligation both for today's students and for the future.
Charlotta Tjärdahl, President of the Swedish National Union of Students