Lower House passes bill: Universities may again draw lots
The House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing universities and colleges of higher education to draw lots again for admission to popular programs. The proposal must still pass through the Senate.
The addition of the lottery option creates a system with three selection methods: based on qualitative selection criteria, an unweighted lottery (where everyone has an equal chance), and a combination of selection and lottery. The latter version could be a weighted lottery or a model in which some of the students are admitted based on selection criteria and the rest are drawn by lot. Higher education institutions are also allowed to reject the “weakest prospective students” prior to the draw, thanks to an amendment by VVD, CDA and ChristenUnie, among others.
Universities previously stated that they would opt for a combination between a draw and selection. The bill passed with 141 votes in favor. Only FVD and the Van Haga Group voted against; BIJ1 did not participate in the vote.
Banned from drawing lots
Universities and colleges have not been allowed to draw lots since 2017. Then-minister Jet Bussemaker abolished that system so that educational institutions could institute selection procedures and create “a better substantive match” between student and program. Criticism of the new system was that it would promote inequality of opportunity, as students from some groups would have fewer chances in selection procedures or be discouraged from participating at all. A recent report by the Education Inspectorate also found that higher education institutions sometimes provided poor justification for their selection methods.
Universities previously argued that they opt for a combination between draw and selection. For example, they advocated the so-called Klaas Visser model (named after the psychologist who devised it) stipulating that they could select the best candidates, reject the weakest, and draw lots in the middle group. The Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg also supported this proposal, albeit reluctantly: “The Klaas Visser model will not solve equity of opportunity, but it is better than the other options. Education Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf also found it troublesome. According to him, “there was no middle group at all”...”you can select the top, but there is no clear bottom.” He also thought it was wrong to reject candidates with the right diploma. In principle, all are admissible, he argued.
The National Union of Students (LSVb) was also critical. “We do not believe in good or bad candidates, and it is unfair to think in that way. Talent is subjective. A high school diploma should be sufficient for admission.” The LSVb considers the bill that allows for drawing lots again to be a step in the right direction. Van Velzen says: “But at first, there is the capacity problem. We have to solve that so that everyone can pursue the education of their choice. If there is not enough capacity, an unweighted drawing of lots is the way to go. Then everyone has the same chance.”
Psychologist Klaas Visser himself revealed in the newspaper NRC that the Lower House misunderstood his model. He believes that you should expect prospective students to make a certain effort, such as showing up at an information day or an interview. If they do not, as far as he is concerned, they should not be eligible. That is not the same as rejecting candidates based on their talents.
Effectiveness
Dijkgraaf claimed to have taken another good look at the amendment and concluded that it says nothing about rejection criteria for certain candidates. In addition, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, programs must substantiate how effective their selection procedure is and how equality of opportunity remains guaranteed. “So I want to view the amendment in that light,” he stated. Universities and teaching hospitals have also indicated that they will interpret the amendment as Klaas Visser intended. Dijkgraaf could live with that, so he stood by his bill.
He did, however, express one reservation: “If your House adopts the bill, I want to enter into discussions with institutions at the same time as the Senate debate on exactly how they intend to deal with the statutory scope.” If necessary, he wants to “clarify this point through additional legislation.”
