For an open discussion on the Bursary Experiment

Bad idea, both at the national level, and at the local level.

Disagree with this project. A four year job without employee rights and social security is a bad deal. If I was offered such a contract I would say NO.

Ga maar stoppen deze dome experimenten. Ik kom uit China, ik ben in een "normale" PhD met arbeidsstatus maar meestal Chinese in Groningen zij al zo-gezegt promotiestudenten. Promotiestudenten hebben volgens RuG "hetzelfde werkstukken" maar minder geld voor en helemaal geen pensioen. Het is niet eerlijk. En als iemand die bursary van Chinese overheid kreeg, wordt de problem groter omdat zij moet terug naar China naar 4 jaar hoewel zij al een goede baan in Nederland heeft gehaald of haar PhD nog niet afgeronden is. Volgens mij is het experiment zo dom als de Yantai Project. In kort, kortzichtig. Als je alleen maar kosten wil verlagen betaal je in het long run veel meer. {Meer promotie = Meer geld uit de overheid}; {RuG wil meer geld en wil de kosten verlagen}; {PhDstudenten is goedkoper}... Maar hebben de besturen even gedacht aan de qualiteit van de studenten en jouw reputatie in de long-run? In UvA/VU/UU/... kunt een PhD studenten meer verdienen, een goede pensioen en sociale zeikerheids hebben. Dan wie wil kom naar onze Groningen?! Hetzelfde funding kan inderdaad meer positie financieren in een bursary systeem, maar zulk programma is veel minder aantrekkelijk voor goede mensen. 1.5 Idiots = 1.5 times geld van de overheid na promotie, wat een leuk business. Maar een normale mens is beter dan 1.5 idiots beter voor jouw reputatie!

As the University is pushing harder procedures and regulations for scientific integrity, it is shocking to see that the board is disregarding all standards, both social and scientific, in conducting this so-called "experiment".

I agree with Marijtje van Duijn; this is not a wise experiment

.

It is not wise to create a dichotomy between PhD students based on income and status. The scale of the 'experiment' is too large, and is not clear about how predicted and earlier experience adverse effects are going to be dealt with.

http://www.mareonline.nl/archive/2015/09/03/streep-door-promotiestudent

This is just an experiment for the university to save money, there are no benefits for the students. The freedom on the project that they express as part of the experiments depends on the supervisor, and not the contract conditions. The university needs more postdocs and permanent positions not more phds positions with bad social conditions. PhDs are humans not just cheap temporary workers

The goal of the plan is very short-sighted. Sure, more (and cheaper) PhD's means more money for the university. Yet, in the long run, it decreases the value of doing a PhD, since the university has no intention of investing the money in, for example, Postdocs or teachers. In addition, the quality of supervision will be put in danger: supervisors will have more PhD's to supervise, while the PhD's themselves won't be allowed to teach and thus won't be able to take over some tasks of their supervisors. Offering more PhD positions is not in the benefit of the PhD's themselves: academia does not need them, nor does the job market outside academia. The fact that bursaries won't be able to teach is ridiculous and will seriously harm them when applying for a job after it, within academia or outside of it.

Why degrade the rights of PhD students in order to provide for more positions, when academia as a whole does not need more PhD students? There are so many issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed, and very little consultation and discussion with current PhD students to see what we think. This is *our* future too, and we have a right to be involved.

My vote is against the bursary experiment. why shouldnt allow to decrease the conditions for phd students!

Slecht plan. Arbeidsvoorwaarden?! Pensioen? Gezondheidsverzekering?

I am strongly against the experiment and strongly against the bursary system. For starters: it is unclear what "the experiment" and the bursary system exactly will be like, so how can anyone, including the University Council, make a balanced decision? A decent, detailed, thorough plan of the experiment is prerequisite to make a decent decision. It's a crying shame that this vague experiment is even considered to be voted about. Secondly, one way or another PhD students will be stripped from the benefits they now have without a single decent morally and ethically valid argument that supports doing so. The "Other countries also have the bursary system, so why don't we?" argument doesn't fly. Other countries also have child marriages, corporal punishments or dictatorships, so the fact that other countries do something in a certain way doesn't mean we should do so as well. Third, taking away the rights that every employee should have and still require them to do the same amount and level of work is morally abject. In addition these type of constructions form a very slippery slope. What is next? Are we going to rip the social benefits of the postdocs? And after that, the professors as well? How about the dean then? Why do we actually pay people at all? I am also slightly offended by the general tone of the debate, in which other people seem to know best what we as PhD students need in terms of fringe benefits, while at the same time I heavily doubt whether they would give up their fringe benefits for the greater good. I like that I can save for my retirement, and I'd like to keep it that way for the next generation of PhD students, thank you very much. Fourth, investing in more PhD students will not increase their quality. Investing in good supervision (i.e. not too many PhD students per professor, enough postdocs to supervise them, etc) and providing PhD students with enough time to learn and grow (at least 4 years of PhD track) will work much better.

This feels like a bad idea. I would like more information as to why people think this is not the case.

I do not think that the proposed bursary system will aid the quality of research done. If you do not treat your PhDs as full employees, it cannot be expected of them to fulfill all the duties expected of respected full employees. It is a full-time job after all.

Maria, (from GRIN) Thank you for your clear comments. We are taking all of them into account for our letter regarding the upcoming decision about the bursary; we are also concern about the lack of information and definitive answers and hope that the decision is procrastinated until a better plan can be structured.

A lot of PhDs already do not have great job prospects after finishing as it is... the university can only employ a small percentage of them after they have obtained their PhD. Why would the university want even more PhDs? Neither the university, nor society at large has a demand for even more PhD graduates!

Kieu, Those are all very important concerns. There is much to loose if this project is not done right. Be assured that we will present the things you just mentioned to the authorities in charge of this and that we will do our best to avoid all those problems (from gringroningen.com).

Hello, You are right, teaching is fundamental for every PhD. One of the details we are struggling for is that if there are bursaries, teaching is included as their task. The problem the system has is that teaching is considered a job, and hence bursaries would face problems with the tax office. However, we (GRIN) are not satisfied with this answer and have pushed for a better scheme in which all PhDs have access to teaching related lectures and can practice teaching at the University level themselves.