Originally published as part of the review procedure on the Parliament website
The Independent Student Faction Lists of Austria (FLÖ) are a politically independent electoral group in the ÖH Federal Representation, with many years of experience in representation work. One of their core competencies has always been and remains student law at Austrian universities. Therefore, FLÖ submits this statement on the draft federal law amending the Universities Act 2002, the Higher Education Quality Assurance Act, and the Higher Education Act 2005. Members of FLÖ have also contributed to several statements at university and federal level that address many important points in greater detail. Particular reference is made to the statements of HTU Wien, HTU Graz, ÖH BOKU, ÖH PHOÖ, ÖH Med Wien, HVU VetMed, ÖH JKU, HV PHWien, and the Federal Representation, which we fully support.
The FLÖ advocate for free and open access to higher education and for publicly fully funded universities. Education must be a universally accessible good as a foundation for the further development of society and for improving our lives, especially for financially disadvantaged students, first-generation students, and third-country nationals. The university and higher education system also bears the important role of personal development and communal problem-solving competence. None of these points are addressed in the present amendment. On the contrary, under the guise of “efficiency and binding commitment,” an attempt is being made to tighten the screws on students and introduce restrictions that would mean exclusion from studies for many students.
In the following, individual important aspects of the present amendment are discussed in detail.
Gender equality and the Working Group for Equal Treatment (§§ 2, 3, 20b, 42, 99 UG; §§ 9, 21, 31a HG)
We welcome the planned change of wording from “equality of women and men” to “gender equality” as well as the anchoring of gender equality as one of the guiding principles. We support the continued explicit mention of the promotion of women in the UG, but we miss further legally anchored, concrete steps and goals to underscore the importance of this topic.
Furthermore, it is positive to highlight that the powers and scope of action for the Working Group for Equal Treatment are being expanded. However, in our view, an even more far-reaching expansion that does not only consider exhaustively enumerated forms of discrimination would be desirable.
ECTS workload (§ 14 (2a) UG, § 58 (12) UG; § 22 (2) HS-QSG; § 33 (2a) HG, § 42 (2) HG)
At many universities, there is an imbalance between the workload required for courses and the ECTS credits awarded for them. The goal of adjusting awarded ECTS credits to the workload of courses is therefore welcomed by FLÖ. However, we note that the changes proposed in the review draft are not yet comprehensive enough. The evaluation provided for in the new § 14 (2a) UG represents only the first step. It should be clearly stipulated that the Senate and its collegial bodies are in any case entitled to receive the results of these evaluations, since these bodies are then responsible for taking the evaluation results into account in curricula.
Furthermore, we would like to note that although § 58 (12) UG provides for a distribution of ECTS credits according to workload, it does not seem realistic that these changes can be implemented by the entry into force on 1 May 2021. Moreover, not only curricular changes to the allocation of ECTS credits are needed, but also the inclusion of a legal obligation for teaching staff to adjust the scope of the course based on the evaluation results and the ECTS volume specified in the curriculum. This could be stipulated in § 76 UG.
University Council (§ 21 UG)
A justification for the nomination to the University Council as required in paragraph 6 is a step towards greater transparency in the appointment of the university's governing body. Unfortunately, the restriction of political incompatibility to the federal and state level represents a step in the wrong direction and can quickly lead to conflicts of interest, especially with simultaneous membership in the University Council and city or municipal politics at the university location. We therefore advocate for retaining § 21(4) UG in its current form.
Expansion of powers of the Rectorate & disempowerment of the Senate (§§ 22, 23b, 25 UG)
We view with great concern the many agenda items that, according to the draft, are to move from the competence of the Senates to those of the Rectorates and University Councils.
An initiative right for changes to study plans and a curricular directive competence in the hands of the rectorates constitute a deep encroachment on the core competencies of the senates and thus on the decision-making authority of teachers and students. It should be emphasized here that structural guidelines always also constitute an intervention in content, because both aspects are constantly intertwined when creating curricula. We view the addition that these guidelines are to be issued “on the basis of the performance agreement” with particular criticism. We see this expansion of the ministry's ability to influence the university, especially teaching, as an intervention in the constitutional autonomy of universities and reject it outright.
Furthermore, the directive competence, in addition to its fundamental problematic nature, is extremely vaguely formulated. It is not clear which measures can be taken as a result and where the structural area of study design ends and the content-related one begins.
A disempowerment of the Senate and the associated de-democratization of universities upon the first re-election of the rectorates (§ 23b (1) UG) is also to be strictly rejected. A hearing of the Senate is not sufficient to give the body that can best assess the competence of the rectorates the right to choose that it is entitled to.
Definitions of terms in study law (§ 51 (2) Z13 UG; § 35 Z37 HG)
The definition of a degree program along the lines of core subjects, which are also inadequately defined, is not in the spirit of the Bologna Process. We recommend aligning this concept with the intended module structure. Furthermore, we refer in this regard particularly to the statement of the ÖH.
Rights and obligations of students (§ 59 UG; § 62 HG)
The proposed amendment to § 59 (2) UG and § 62 (1) HG respectively is intended to impose on students the normative obligation to structure their studies with a view to completing them quickly. This clearly contradicts the goal of „striving for education and autonomy of the individual through science“ in § 1 UG as well as the university principle of freedom of learning according to § 2 (4) UG and § 59 (1) UG and must therefore be deleted without replacement.
The possibility provided for in the amendment to § 59 (5) UG that a certain extent of “subject-specific knowledge” in the form of ECTS credits may be required for the participation of students in collegial bodies is strictly rejected by us. In particular, the term “subject-specific” is undefined in this regard and, based on experience at universities where such a regulation already exists, leads to massive problems of interpretation and implementation. In general, this amendment represents an unjustified unequal treatment of students in the affected bodies and thus also an encroachment on the circle of persons who can help shape democratic processes at universities. Moreover, the proposed regulation constitutes an interference with the autonomy of democratically elected university student representations, which is why it must be strictly rejected.
Minimum study performance (§ 59a UG; § 63a HG)
Taking into account the social situation of students as well as the objectives of both Austrian legislation and the Bologna Process, these paragraphs can only be rejected as completely inappropriate. In particular, the proposed regulation is seen as contradicting the following educational goals and regulations:
- No data whatsoever was provided to justify the measure. Neither the number of affected students nor an estimate of the hoped-for effect was quantified. A regulation with such far-reaching consequences for individuals must not under any circumstances be implemented without factual evidence. Such evidence is found neither in the regulatory impact assessment (WFA) nor in the explanatory notes.
- In the interest of the broad qualification of graduates, it is counterproductive to restrict them in the free acquisition of knowledge during their studies. A qualification profile with numerous extracurricular competencies gained through voluntary work or work experience is of enormous advantage in later professional life.
- This measure reinforces tendencies toward a school-like and selective system and thus prevents the teaching of the ability for self-organized learning. The university is thereby hindered in fulfilling its task of contributing to the personal development of students.
- It is the task of the legislator to enable students to complete their studies successfully according to their life circumstances. This regulation does not correspond to this goal in any way.
- The Bologna Process envisions lifelong learning as one of its central objectives. This regulation actively deprives people in later working life, particularly those with full-time jobs and families, of their right to education.
- The minimum study performance prevents the possibility of concentrating on a main degree program and completing supplementary courses through other degree programs. This is extremely detrimental to an interdisciplinary approach and acts like a restriction of multiple degree programs through the back door.
In terms of content, further reasons to reject this regulation are accumulating.
Students who cannot devote themselves to their studies to their full extent—whether due to caregiving obligations, health problems, mental health issues, or the necessity of pursuing primary gainful employment—are disregarded. In this context, a leave of absence usually proves to be an inadequate tool for accommodating the diverse life realities of these students, since no examination credits can be earned during the leave and studies thus come to a complete standstill. Students could here, upon the (usually unexpected) occurrence of grounds for leave, be confronted with the fait accompli that they can continue their studies in at least 10 (!) years at the end of the leave if they had not yet earned enough ECTS credits at its start.
If the actual goal is to make it easier for students to progress in their studies, further restrictions are clearly the wrong approach. Instead, measures to promote and support students should be implemented and the removal of structural barriers in studies should be advanced.
We fear a deterioration in the sociodemographic composition of the student body if the introduction of a minimum study performance requirement is actually enforced. This is particularly problematic in light of the fact that, even currently, the likelihood of beginning a university degree depends on the highest level of parental education, as shown by the Student Social Survey 2019.
Assessment of examinations (§ 59b (1) UA)
In principle, it is commendable that the university must organize examination operations so that students can actually deliver the performance required of them, but without legal consequences for instructors or the institution, it is unfortunately completely useless. Experience shows that the four-week deadline for issuing a certificate after the performance to be assessed has been delivered, already legally anchored in § 74 (4) UA, is frequently not met in many places without any consequences. The question arises as to what the renewed inclusion of a similarly designed provision is supposed to achieve when the existing one already often remains without effect.
Under the present draft, students are exmatriculated and barred from re-enrolling for ten years. However, they have no legal protection in the event of failure on the part of the institution or instructors. This is untenable.
Rather than introducing an additional provision without consequences, it would make more sense to use the date of performance delivery rather than the date of assessment, as this would make it clear that students cannot be excluded from their studies due to delayed grading times.
Learning Agreements (§ 59b UA; § 63b HG)
This amendment leaves the impression that delayed completions in bachelor's and diploma programs are solely attributable to a lack of student motivation. Instead of improving study conditions, anchoring initiatives such as completion scholarships nationwide, and finally fully funding degree programs with capacity bottlenecks in courses, students are being pushed into a legally not fully clarified, possibly private-law contractual structure. It is not clear what consequences an institution is to expect if it fails to comply with the Learning Agreement. Likewise, apart from “no refund of the tuition fee,” no further consequences for students in the event of non-compliance are defined. A reference to the statutes of the individual institutions to specify these agreements is also missing from this draft.
Without a restriction of the possible consequences, this creates massive legal uncertainty, both on the part of students and on the part of institutions. The joint efforts of instructors and students under § 1 UA are not given due consideration when universities assume an immense position of power when concluding contracts.
The announced rewards tend to mask existing problems rather than create genuinely innovative incentives. Prioritization in courses ignores curricular provisions and points to the problem of inadequate funding when sufficient capacities for an orderly course of study are lacking. This must be addressed through additional resources and appropriate infrastructure, not through unfair advantages for students.
The entire provision on Learning Agreements must either be fundamentally reconceptualized or deleted.
Admission deadlines and notification of continuation (§§ 61, 62 UA; §§ 51, 55 HG)
In the proposed version, the grace period is drastically shortened or eliminated, and the grounds for admission during the grace period are severely reduced without substantive justification. We vehemently reject this amendment. The proposed shortening of the grace period significantly restricts flexibility and planning certainty, particularly for students from third countries, and creates unnecessary hurdles. It cannot be in the government's interest to make access to university education more difficult for purely bureaucratic reasons. This provision also constitutes a direct contradiction to the stated goal of “shortening the duration of bachelor's and diploma programs.” The shortening of the grace period artificially extends the duration of study in many programs, thereby harming not only students.
The possible elimination of admission to consecutive master's programs poses a risk of delayed study progress, as those affected would have to wait up to a semester for admission to the master's program. This likewise contradicts the ministry's defined goal of shortening study duration and increasing efficiency. We therefore strongly recommend reinstating the corresponding formulations.
Special university entrance qualification (§ 65 UA; § 52d HG)
We welcome the removal of paragraphs (2) and (3). Providing proof of admission to a degree program in the country where general university entrance qualification was obtained posed a massive hurdle for many students from third countries wishing to begin their studies in Austria.
Loss of admission due to negative examination attempts (§§ 66 (4), 77 UG)
One of the simplifications of the present amendment concerns the limitation period stipulating that academic degrees can no longer be revoked after 30 years. This could create the fatal impression that someone with repeated plagiarism during their studies permanently holds academic degrees, while honest students with “too many” negative examination attempts are permanently denied them. It would therefore be consistent to extend the cooling-off phase of one year of study interruption not only within the introductory orientation period (StEOP) but to all examinations.
Leave of absence (§ 67 UG, § 58 HG)
We welcome the increased flexibility in applying for leaves of absence, especially since this will now also be possible during the semester when an unexpected reason arises. On the other hand, however, the grounds for a leave of absence are being reduced by eliminating the possibility of additional grounds being defined in the university's statutes. We reject this restriction, as individual reasons address the specific circumstances at individual universities, and students would have fewer options for a leave of absence if these were removed. We appeal here for the autonomy of universities. The grounds for leave of absence must by no means be enshrined as a generalized dogma in the University Act and Higher Education Act! We appeal here for the autonomy of universities. The grounds for leave of absence must by no means be enshrined as a generalized dogma in the University Act and Higher Education Act!
Restricting leave of absence options in the first semester also contradicts the realities of many students who cannot attend the first semester due to compulsory military/civil service or other impediments; especially admission procedures offered only annually are not practical in this regard.
Examination dates (§§ 76 and 76a UG; §§ 42a and 42b HG)
FLÖ rejects a reduction in examination dates and the removal of the requirement for distribution across the semester, and sees this point as a complete contradiction to the goals of the amendment to increase study activity and studyability. This hinders students in their examination planning and shifts examinations more toward times when simultaneous preparation for several different courses is necessary. Maintaining the existing minimum of three examination dates per semester with a distribution across the beginning, middle, and end of the semester is more effective and is therefore vehemently demanded by us.
The inclusion of minimum requirements for digital examinations is welcome. Unfortunately, there is still no legal safeguard here enabling students to take electronic examinations without consenting to monitoring and recording. The past months have also shown that some financially weaker students are disadvantaged by high technical and spatial requirements or even excluded from the possibility of taking a digital examination. What is needed here are clear legal frameworks that enable participation for all.
Other changes to examinations, particularly regarding the timely announcement of modalities, are generally welcome in the interest of legal certainty for students. A restriction of the specification to the stated minimum number of examination dates would be desirable, since in many degree programs additional examination dates can also be arranged during the semester, which is desirable when sufficient dates are available. Further proposed changes can be found in the statements referenced above.
Recognition of credits (§ 78 UG; § 56 HG)
As FLÖ, we would like to highlight the changes regarding recognition of credits positively. In particular, the implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention in the sense of a “reversal of the burden of proof” for the recognition of courses and other academic achievements we see as an important step and fundamentally welcome the proposed regulation.
Students who can demonstrate prior experience from vocational secondary schools or general secondary schools continue to have the option of having courses credited. Working students should also in the future have the opportunity to have extracurricular experiences credited. This is to be highlighted positively; however, it is not apparent why recognitions of prior qualifications can only be submitted in the 1st semester. On the contrary, problems arise here regarding ECTS credits earned in advance before the complete completion of the introductory and orientation phase (StEOP).
Easier recognition of prior qualifications can make an important contribution to permeability in the tertiary education sector. We would like to note here that the definition of the required validations (§ 51(2) Z 38 UG) leaves considerable leeway and thus differences between different universities may arise in the crediting process.
Statute of limitations for plagiarism (§ 89 UG)
From our perspective, it is absolutely incomprehensible why an unlawfully obtained academic degree should become lawful after 30 years. Scientific integrity should be honored for life.
(Abbreviated) appointment procedures (§§ 98, 99 and 99a UG)
We view the changes regarding the appointments of professors with concern, as they represent a continued restriction of students' co-determination rights and a stronger concentration on a directive-empowered rectorate. Already in recent years, under the guise of increasing efficiency, various abbreviated appointment procedures Opportunities have been created to employ professors indefinitely, bypassing student co-determination. This disrupts the university community, and strategic decisions on research and teaching are made with particular disregard for students. In this context, we also reject the planned amendments to § 99a, which likewise allow appointments without student co-determination. On the contrary, we consider an expansion of the legally anchored co-determination rights for student representatives in appointment procedures under § 99a and also under § 99 to be appropriate.
As regards the amendment to full professorships in § 98, it is not apparent to FLÖ what purpose appointment officers should serve when acting on a list defined by the Rectorate. On the contrary, we share the constitutional concerns raised by other institutions, particularly regarding the freedom from directives of collegial bodies, which we see as impaired by this unnecessary intertwining of the Senate and the Rectorate; in particular, a substitute appointment of the appointed person by the Rectorate in the event of a missed deadline is completely unacceptable. Any setting of deadlines must at least bear a reasonable relation to the normal duration of the procedure and take into account contingencies arising from teaching operations, vacation periods, or research stays.
Habilitation (§ 103 UG)
The habilitation or venia docendi by its very definition already constitutes the qualification to teach. In the context of this comprehensive amendment, it is not comprehensible to FLÖ that the award is granted upon proof of outstanding scientific abilities, but only repeated teaching activity is required. We therefore vehemently call for alignment toward outstanding teaching activity and for a university-autonomous design of corresponding examination procedures within the framework of the statutes.
Fixed-term employment relationships (§ 109 UG)
We would like to explicitly refer to the statement of the Association of Scientific and Artistic Staff of Austrian Universities (ULV) and fully support their demands with regard to § 109 UG.
Entry into force
The present amendment entails far-reaching changes in the most diverse areas at universities and universities of teacher education. We sharply criticize an entry into force of nearly all of these renewed provisions on May 1, 2021, and the complete absence of transitional provisions, particularly regarding regulations on curricular and study-law matters. We therefore demand an entry into force of the amendment no earlier than October 1, 2021, with appropriate transitional provisions, as detailed, for example, in the statement of the Austrian Students' Union.
Conclusion
In summary, it can be said that despite some commendable proposed changes, the negative impacts of the draft law on students clearly outweigh them. The planned obligation for rapid study progress and a minimum study performance under penalty of exmatriculation and a ten-year (!) ban clearly show that the life realities of students—see, for example, the Student Social Survey 2019—are completely disregarded in this amendment. Instead of actively promoting diversity (of student biographies and study paths) in the spirit of an enlightened, modern society, only the “linear study path”—school-leaving examination, one (!) degree completed in minimum time, entry into the workforce—is pursued.
Furthermore, the proposed legislation significantly restricts the co-determination rights of democratic bodies, particularly in matters of curriculum development, and thus violates the—constitutionally guaranteed—autonomy of universities.
For the reasons considered in this statement, the majority of changes, brought about by this amendment are to be, rejected.
in the interest of students, but also in the interest of an enlightened, broadly educated society. In any case, we urgently call on the legislator to take the comments from our statement into account in the further legislative process in the interest of all students, and we look forward to continuing to support and accompany that process.