UvA Kieswijzer

The UvA should prioritise offering permanent contracts to Junior Lecturers (D4s), even if this leaves less financial room for senior lecturer salary increases.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

The Activistenpartij stands in solidarity and fully supports the causes of CasualUvA. The UvA should offer permanent contracts and better working conditions for Junior Lecturers, thus ensuring stable living conditions.

INTER

Agree

Stable contracts improve educational quality and staff wellbeing, which directly benefits students.

Meteor

Disagree

Enabling competitive salaries for senior lecturers attracts talent among junior lecturers and is beneficial for students

Lampara

Fully agree

Job security for junior lecturers is essential for their wellbeing, and the university should treat the wellbeing of its labor force as a priority. Furthermore, beyond worker welfare, permanent contracts for junior lecturers would allow them to do a better job serving the university community as they would not have to deal with the stress of potentially having to be uprooted after their temporary contract ends, which is especially important for junior lectures, coming outside of Europe.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF believes that offering permanent contracts to Junior Lecturers will improve the quality of education. If these lecturers are not offered permanent positions, they only teach at the university for a few years before being replaced. Consequently, the UvA loses educators who have gained valuable experience, which negatively impacts educational standards. Furthermore, providing stability to junior lecturers is the only way to secure the senior faculty of the future. By offering young talent a stable foundation, we give them the opportunity to truly develop into the experienced professionals who will sustain our education in the long term.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

The university needs a certain flexible workforce in order to respond to fluctuating student numbers, temporary teaching demand, and changes within degree programmes. Moreover, the UvA already has relatively strong D4 policy, under which Junior Lecturers can, in our view, receive several years of job security. Any further expansion of permanent contracts should therefore be carefully weighed against financial feasibility and a fair distribution of resources within the teaching team

The UvA should completely exclude research collaboration and funding from the security and resilience sector.

Examples of the companies within this sector are the Ministry of Defence, the police, the NFI, the AIVD, RIVM and financial services.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS opposes the complete exclusion of cooperation with the security and resilience sector. Such partnerships can produce valuable social and scientific research, for example in the fields of security, forensic science, cybersecurity, or crisis management. However, academic independence, transparency, and clear ethical boundaries must always be safeguarded.

Lampara

Fully agree

We wanted cops off campus—Now why is defense knocking on our door? We stand against state-sanctioned violence and the appropriation of research, academic material, staff, and students by the military.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

Collaborations with the so called security and resilience sector actively contribute to the oppression of the working class. Security has been used in the past to justify major conflicts, such as the Iraq war and internally secures only capital not the people. Our university must not partake in the building of weapons or improving monitoring systems for the police. Collaborations with historical archives for degrees like Military History (Militaire Geschiedenis) are valid for science as a means and end. Careful consideration is necessary when lives are at stake.

LIEF

Disagree

Research collaborations with the security and resilience sector can be highly valuable for students aspiring to a career in this field. As an interdisciplinary party, we want to provide students with the freedom to develop themselves across as many disciplines as possible. Furthermore, we find this motion to be too restrictive. Because the security and resilience sector is so broad, a total exclusion would have significant consequences for research areas that are of great social importance even outside the context of defense

INTER

Agree

INTER supports ethical and transparent partnerships, but we should deeply avoiding collaborations linked to human rights violations or harmful agendas

Meteor

Agree

Science can be a powerful force in raising awareness for malicious practices of authorities and keeping them in check. Hence independence is crucial to ensure neutrality and the common good.

The UvA should expand research collaboration and funding partnerships with private sector companies.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Neutral

It is important that our University stays connected and able to produce the highest level of research. Expanding collaborations with actors such as those in the renewable energy sector are necessary to try to sustain our lives on this planet. When collaborating though, we must not be dependent and ensure that ethical guidelines for third party collaborations are followed, ensuring the integrity of our research. Furthermore, funding should be transparent like the UvA budget and involve the CSR and FSR to give their input on/possibly shut down dubious ties that are hard to break, but will be broken later.

LIEF

Neutral

LIEF does not want the university to become dependent on the private sector. However, we believe that research collaborations and funding partnerships with companies can have a positive impact on the quality of education.

INTER

Neutral

Partnerships can create opportunities, but they must remain ethical, transparent, and aligned with university values.

De Vrije Student

Fully agree

DVS supports more cooperation with the private sector, as this makes the UvA less vulnerable to dependence on government funding and possible budget cuts. Private partnerships can also create new opportunities for innovation, connect research more closely to practice, and provide students with more opportunities for internships, jobs, and entrepreneurship. However, scientific independence and transparency must always be protected.

Lampara

Neutral

We cannot avoid working with private sector companies, especially in terms of funding and providing research or internship opportunities. However, we believe that an ethical framework must be made to vet these companies into consideration of partnership to ensure that the university funnels graduates and researchers to companies that are as positive and constructive as institutions can be. It is in the interest of the university and all those in it that the university holds up their attitudes on their code of conduct, environmental agreements, and values on human rights in partnership agreements.

Meteor

Disagree

Only if scholars agree on the beneficial nature of these collaborations, and the funding does not undermine research independence and they serve the common good is this permissible.

The university should significantly expand student services like student advisors and psychologists, even if this requires reducing spending on education and teaching.

INTER

Disagree

INTER strongly supports better mental health support, but not at the cost of educational quality. The university should prioritise both.

LIEF

Agree

Psychologists and academic advisors at the UvA are experiencing a high workload. Expanding student services will ensure that students can access the right person or resources more quickly, enabling them to better manage study-related challenges. LIEF is convinced that reducing study pressure and addressing mental health issues directly improves academic performance. This investment in student well-being translates directly into higher educational quality. Therefore, the benefits of these services outweigh the additional costs. A healthy student population is an essential prerequisite for high-quality education.

Meteor

Disagree

Good education and teaching is what a university is supposed to provide. If it does so effectively, student welfare increases too. The existing services are deemed sufficient by Meteoor.

Lampara

Fully agree

Why are disability, mental health, and access seen as expenditures and a threat to education? Shouldn’t the quality of education match the needs of students being served? Student services that provide more access to education should not be seen as something in competition to education and teaching: it is a necessary part of education to ensure all students are fully taking advantage of the privilege of going to university, studying with dignity, and feeling secure in their choice of program and institution.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Agree

Student services are lacking - study advisors are often not helpful, and it is unclear what they do; student psychologists are not enough, the meetings with them are short and infrequent. Especially for working-class and first-generation students, those services can prove crucial. We believe this type of infrastructure should be the foundation of a properly working institution, and it is of paramount importance to fund them properly.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS recognises that study advisers, psychologists, and other student services are important for student wellbeing and academic success. At the same time, education remains the university’s core task, and a major expansion of services should not come at the expense of teaching quality. The UvA can support and refer students, but structural mental healthcare primarily belongs with professional healthcare institutions and the government.

Admission to programmes with limited capacity should be based on random lotteries rather than selection procedures.

LIEF

Agree

Research shows that selection procedures are inherently unequal. Participants from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to perform better in these processes because they have access to better resources for preparation. However, we recognize that a pure lottery system can sometimes prevent highly qualified students from pursuing the degree that best suits them. Therefore, we advocate for a middle ground: 25% of students are admitted through a selection procedure, while the remaining 75% of places are allocated via a lottery. This solution ensures that exceptional talents are still admitted while maintaining equal opportunities for the rest of the intake.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student strongly opposes admission based on lottery instead of selection procedures. In programmes with limited capacity, motivation, suitability, and demonstrable abilities should be taken into account, so that available places go to students who are a good fit for the programme. The problems in dentistry show that lottery systems can lead to poor outcomes in practice, with many students failing to pass the first year. This is not only inefficient for the programme, but also unfair to students who work hard, are well prepared, and are demonstrably motivated to complete the programme successfully.

Meteor

Disagree

only if selection procedures are automatized and not personal.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

The Activist Party is in full support of limiting the growth of the UvA through a lottery system, the only truly egalitarian selection procedure. Selection committees tend to have biases and grades don't represent a person. Research has shown that a lottery system is the least biased way of limiting student capacity.

INTER

Agree

INTER values equal opportunities and reducing unfair advantages in selective admission procedures.

Lampara

Neutral

We do not stand for a gender-blind, race-blind, class-blind, and/or disability-blind lottery system. A blind lottery assumes every candidate is of equal standing and has equal stakes of going to university, when this is untrue. While we understand the intention of random lotteries to create equal access, certain demographics of people have historically been underrepresented in higher education institutions, which leads to the lack of diversity of institutions/industries down the line and handicapping certain demographics by forcing them out of specific occupations from the beginning of their careers. Nor do we stand for the extremely unbiased fully “meritocratic” system where underprivileged students fall between the cracks. We need to think of better, more inclusive compromises.

The university should actively prioritise diversity targets in hiring, even when this means deviating from purely merit-based selection.

LIEF

Agree

LIEF believes that diversity directly improves the quality of education. Therefore, a well-considered balance must be maintained during the candidate selection process.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

Activistenpartij fully supports the prioritisation of diversity targets, as we should follow the equity principle in terms of diversity. We strongly believe this approach doesn't hinder merit-based selection, as its purpose is to reverse centuries-old discrimination which precludes actual merit-based selection by excluding anyone and everyone who isn't a white man. Because of this history, those of minority backgrounds systematically encounter more barriers that heavily affect their life chances. UvA should counter this via affirmative action.

INTER

Agree

Diversity improves education and representation, and universities should actively work toward inclusive hiring.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

DVS stands for equal opportunities, but believes that quality, experience, and suitability should remain the basis for staff selection. Diversity can be valuable, but it should not mean moving away from selection based on merit. The university should remove barriers and encourage broad recruitment, without placing candidates’ identity above quality.

Lampara

Fully agree

Why does this question pose diversity as costing the quality and merit of applicants? This is an empirically unfounded claim: a variety of studies of workforce management and organizational psychology have shown that thoughtfully implemented diversity policies in no way sacrifice qualitative standards. Lampara stands for a diversity-oriented hiring policy.

Meteor

Neutral

The tradeoff has to be balanced

Every bachelor programme should be offered in both Dutch and English.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Agree

Ideally, programs should be made accessible in both Dutch and English. In some cases this isn’t practical. For instance, PPLE would not make sense in Dutch due to its international aspect. The same goes for some other programmes and masters, such as Public International Law. Therefore programs should retain autonomy over the language in which they teach, with decisions coming from thoughtful conversations between students and staff in each department. As such, we believe this decision should not be enforced on a central level.

Lampara

Agree

This is relevant for both Dutch and non-Dutch students. People should be able to study in whatever language they are comfortable with, and this university claims to be a bilingual one. For some students, that means preferring one language because it’ll be the lingua franca of their industry. For others, it is what they're most comfortable learning and talking theory with. There are many reasons as to why a bilingual system in program education is relevant.

LIEF

Disagree

LIEF believes it is important for degree programmes to be able to decide for themselves in which language they offer their courses. After all, they are best placed to assess the extent to which they have an international audience and whether the subject area requires it. We believe it would be unwise for every degree programme to be offered in two languages, as this is certainly impractical for smaller programmes.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student believes that bachelor’s education should, in principle, be available in Dutch wherever possible, especially to safeguard accessibility for Dutch students. At the same time, English-taught education can be valuable or necessary for international programmes, labour market needs, or scientific contexts. Offering every bachelor’s programme in both languages as standard is not always financially or practically feasible. Therefore, the principle should be: Dutch where possible, English where necessary.

INTER

Agree

We are a party that values both dutch and international students, as such, we believe everyone deserves the access to learning in their language of choice, be it english or dutch.

Meteor

Disagree

We are in The Netherlands.

The UvA should strongly oppose any government attempt to reduce the number of international students.

Meteor

Agree

More international students makes the university a place where on is prepared for a fully globalized future.

De Vrije Student

Disagree

De Vrije Student does not believe that the UvA should oppose national plans to regulate the intake of international students on principle. International students are welcome and enrich the academic environment, but unfocused growth can put pressure on housing, education, and accessibility.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully agree

The government’s plans as they stand would be catastrophic to the university, effectively destroying many of the study programs currently being offered. We believe that the UvA leadership should stand behind their stated commitment to the international character of our university. On the other hand we believe the UvA should take housing availability into account in admitting international students, as to avoid the risk of students ending up homeless.

INTER

Fully agree

INTER values diversity, inclusivity, and international perspectives as essential parts of university education and general life.

LIEF

Neutral

The university is, by its very nature, a place that benefits from international collaboration. Teaching international students is part of this. These students enrich our community.

Lampara

Fully agree

The university benefits from internationals as much as internationals benefit from it. Not only do we help fund it— especially non-EU students with our institutional fees—but we are able to bring in our perspectives, our knowledge. our labor, and our community efforts to the academic and social weaves of this institution. University is already a privilege to those in the Netherlands, why make it more gatekept to those beyond borders, especially those who want to have the best education they can get and give back to their academic communities?

Students wishing to follow honours programmes should be admitted based on academic performance, not motivation alone.

De Vrije Student

Agree

Grades are an objective measure of academic performance and provide a reliable indication of someone’s ability to handle complex academic tasks. DVS believes that the honours track should not only be a reward for motivation, but also a recognition of academic achievement. If the honours track were based solely on motivation, this could undermine its academic integrity and reduce its value. Moreover, ignoring grades could create the risk that students are admitted who may not have the required academic skills to complete the track successfully.

INTER

Agree

Academic performance should remain an important factor, though motivation should also be considered.

ActivistenPartij UvA

Fully disagree

On principle, we believe that every student should be given the greatest ability to pursue whatever courses match their interests. We also question whether a simple GPA is an appropriate measure to assess their suitability for a given course.

Meteor

Agree

Ensures quality of program.

Lampara

Fully disagree

Education is already a privilege, why gatekeep a certain number of opportunities to those who have a stellar first or second year of university? Currently, admissions to an Honors program is laid on the assumption that a student’s performance in the earlier years of education is an indicator of their passion and drive to learn. This is not fully true. Students who—for whatever reason—have difficulty getting a stellar GPA in their first year should not be barred from opportunities to grow, discover their passions, and maximize the privilege of going to university in an Honors program. As it is, the Honors program is meant to show grit, growth mindset, and a commitment to academic education. That is not something that can only be indicated in the first year assumes students that begin the year with a lower GPA cannot exhibit these traits, when Lampara believes that that is not the case at all.

LIEF

Fully disagree

LIEF believes that everyone should have the opportunity to develop themselves beyond the standard curriculum, whether by specialising further or broadening their horizons. The honours programme can form part of this. Whether you ultimately receive the ‘honours’ designation depends on your performance throughout this programme. We therefore see no reason to create barriers for students from the outset. Give everyone the chance to prove themselves.

The university should ensure a larger part of the curriculum (of all study programs) is focused on career preparation, even if this takes away from time spent on academic subjects.