Statement of the Student Union of the University of Turku on the draft Government Bill to amend Section 43 of the Universities Act and Section 32 of the Universities of Applied Sciences Act (the single study right provision)
The Student Union of the University of Turku thanks for the opportunity to submit a statement on the draft Government Bill. The structure of this statement follows the headings provided in the Lausuntopalvelu service.
Are the objectives of the proposal commendable?
The objectives of raising the level of education and developing study guidance are commendable. However, cuts to higher education core funding in the coming years threaten to reduce the resources available for organizing teaching, and thereby either decrease the number of student intake places or weaken the quality of education. The Trade Union of Education in Finland (OAJ) has estimated that the planned funding cuts correspond to the resources for approximately 6,250 study places at universities and 3,800 degrees at universities of applied sciences.
The goal of raising the education level will not be achieved without substantial investment in the core funding of higher education institutions. Cutting funding also risks undermining the potential impact of the additional study places introduced by the current proposal on students’ chances of securing a place in higher education. The proposal itself notes that, in addition to the measures presented, reaching the education-level target would require an annual increase of around 8,300 intake places during 2025–2028. Temporary or field-specific funding does not give higher education institutions the opportunity for systematic and long-term development of teaching and research. Maintaining the quality of education at a high level is also essential from the perspective of working life after graduation.
Is the proposal supportable? Please justify your positive or negative view.
From the Student Union’s perspective, the proposal is not supportable. The proposed change requires significant additional resources for study guidance in order to provide students with more individualized advice concerning the different fields of study. The network of agreements on cross-institutional studies between higher education institutions must be as comprehensive as possible, and the processes for credit transfer and the recognition and validation of prior learning must be clear and transparent across all institutions. Getting acquainted with different fields could also be facilitated by making the practices around minor subject studies more flexible.
The termination of study rights requires administrative work. As the number of such decisions would increase considerably, the related processes must be in order before the proposed provision could be applied in practice.
Are the impact assessments of the proposal accurate? Is something missing?
The proposed model could work at the point of student admission, i.e. twice a year, if, for example, a student hesitates to accept a new study right due to losing their previous one, or if a place in the full admission quota becomes available when a student relinquishes earlier study rights. At other times, for example in the current transfer application system, the loss of a previous study right does not in practice free up resources for planning teaching or create a study place for another student. In addition, a situation where a degree remains unfinished, for instance because only the thesis is missing, is impractical from the perspective of study progress. In such cases, the possibility of studying towards two different degrees simultaneously could actually benefit progression. Nor do the resources of an unfinished degree become available for use by another student.
The proposal also leaves unclear to what extent applications by those already holding a study right affect the number of places in the quota for first-time applicants, since they and first-timers are, in principle, applying in different quotas. The proportion of first-timers among admitted students is already relatively high. First-time applicant quotas themselves have proven problematic, for example in that they may prevent a student from accepting the first study right offered. These quotas have a clear impact of increasing application-related stress.
Other remarks on the proposal
The proposal emphasizes the role of open university education and specialization training as opportunities to get acquainted with different fields. However, these options are subject to fees for students, and they should not be highlighted in degree education as an alternative to free education. Raising the price cap of credits in open university education directs higher education funding to be drawn from students’ wallets. As the proposal itself notes, the principle of free education is one of the “cornerstones” of the Finnish education system. This principle must not be weakened by restricting students’ opportunities for free education.
Turku, 20 August 2025
Josefina Tuomala
Chair of the Board
Student Union of the University of Turku
Janika Takatalo
Secretary General
Student Union of the University of Turku