The government has just announced a reform of the university degree programmes, and several more reforms in the field of higher education are in the pipeline.

This zeal for reform is not new. The area of education has long been characterised by a great deal of volatility, with many changes of minister and a plethora of reforms.

The short and medium-cycle degree programmes have now been collected in the business academies and university colleges. The university colleges have received a research obligation. The university degree programmes have been given a greater focus on the private sector. Bachelor and PhD degree programmes have been introduced. Student intake has been dimensioned according to graduate employment figures. The educational economy has become taximeter-driven. Ongoing efficiency contributions have sharpened the focus on profitability and economies of scale.

Individually, these initiatives have had an effect on specific sub-goals. University graduates are now for example more likely to be employed in the private sector, and the concentration of programmes at the business academies and university colleges has provided stronger academic environments and better educational finances, while maintaining the geographical spread. The taximeter system has also produced an increased focus on reducing dropout rates.

But the reforms have been conceived individually, without taking account of how they function together. Often, the reforms have come first, while the necessary consultation takes place afterwards.

There has rarely been time to await the effects, which only show up in the long term. Long-term and wider perspectives across the board have simply been lacking, and as a result, the reforms have often proved to have unintended effects – particularly across programmes, institutions and sectors.

Radical change is a long-term project

Now that university graduates tend to a greater extent to go to the better paid private labour market, this puts pressure on the university colleges’ programmes for the public sector.

When economic incentives reward the retention of all students, it reduces focus on whether the individual has landed on the right shelf, or whether a change of programme could benefit both the individual and society.

We need to formulate education policy in a different way. If we are to arrive at the best solutions, we need to look at the big picture. The best result in the long term does not necessarily give the fastest results.

The announced radical reorganisation of the educational system is a long-term project. We owe it to both current and future generations to do this wisely, which will require great care and broad involvement.

In this area, the new forum for the higher education programmes of the future will be central. It is therefore also important that it is wisely assembled. In order to find the right balance between the public sector and the private labour market, between rural and urban areas, and between the interests of the individual and the needs of society, we need many different perspectives and disciplines.

Start the meaningful discussions

We need the knowledge that the upper secondary schools possess about the transition to higher education, and that future students have about what motivates them in their choice of study programme. We need the knowledge that exists at the institutions, their students and their teaching staff about where the difficulties arise.

We need the knowledge that can be found among employers and graduates about how education and working life interact, how the transition can be strengthened, and where the interaction can be improved.

We need the knowledge that researchers, experts and think tanks possess in relation to developments and connections in study programmes across and over time, both nationally and internationally.

With the aid of such knowledge, we can really discuss how best to reform the education system. We can discuss what it demands of our educational system and our teaching staff when our students have with a broader range of prerequisites and interests.

We can also discuss whether it is sensible to spread our limited resources, or whether we can find new ways to increase the contact interfaces – between institutions across geography and sectors, between study programmes across institutions, and between teaching staff, students and the business community.

Finally, we can discuss whether it is sensible to erase the differences between the universities and the university colleges by shortening the universities’ Master’s degree programmes, or whether it is better to make it clearer which institutions possess which core competencies.

On this basis, we can decide which degree programmes need what, and which institutions can offer this – preferably in collaboration with each other.

If we are to ensure that in the future we will have a coherent educational system that can support our social and business development and give future generations the best possible conditions for their adult and working lives, then we need to put all our knowledge into action.

We need to apply this knowledge before the reforms are made. And we must work with the patience that long-term reforms require. Only with this care and insight, and only by working across institutions, sectors and geography, can we really think wisely and in the long term.

This post was written by:

• Anne-Mette Hvas, Professor and Dean at the Faculty of Health and Medical sciences, Aarhus University
• Hanne Andersen, Professor of History of Science and Theory of Science, University of Copenhagen
• Philip Binning, Dean for the Master’s and PhD programmes and internationalisation at DTU
• Mette Birkedal Bruun, Professor and Centre Director at the Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen
• Frans Gregersen, Emeritus Professor and former member of the National Committee for the Humanities Programmes
• Gitte Sommer Harrits, Pro-rector, VIA University College
• Marianne Holmer, Professor and Dean at the Faculty of Science, University of Southern Denmark
• Brian Arly Jacobsen, Associate Professor and Chair of DM’s University Sector
• Annegrete Juul, Dean of the Faculty of Education and Social Sciences, University College Copenhagen
• Jan Alexis Nielsen, Professor and Head of the Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen
• Marie-Louise Nosch, Professor, University of Copenhagen
• Birgitte Beck Pristed, Associate Professor at the School of Culture and Society, Aarhus University
• Esben Bjørn Salmonsen, Chair of the National Union of Students in Denmark
• Peter Sestoft, Head of the Department of Computer Science, IT University of Copenhagen
• Christian Tangkjær, partner in Mobilize Strategy Consulting and external lecturer, Copenhagen Business School
• Lars Ulriksen, Professor at the University of Copenhagen and chair of DUN, the Danish Network for Educational Development in Higher Education
• Birgitte Vedersø, Rector of Gefion Upper Secondary School and board member at the University of Copenhagen
• Mikael Vetner, Head of the Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University

Published in Altinget, 6 March 2023.