Education Blog Archaeology: Alex Geurds on navigating change together
In this new series the Vice-Dean and portfolio holder of education in the board of the Faculty of Archaeology will reflect on the state of education. Posts can range from shedding light on current national shifts in the university landscape to arguments as to why it’s important to be timely with designing your classes. Some blogs will be aspirational, others will be more informative, or indeed also inviting. The opinions found here are personal but will also not be disconnected from Faculty Board policymaking.
Navigating change together: On current shifts in the Dutch university system
'Over the past months, I have reflected more often—and more deeply—on the direction of higher education in the Netherlands. As many of you will be aware, our university system is undergoing a period of significant change. Some of these shifts are structural, instigated by (still emergent) government policy; others are cultural, resulting from evolving societal expectations around the fundamental question what universities are actually for. It’s also very much a discussion at universities across Europe and beyond. This blog is a way to pause for a moment on such key matters, to update you, and to invite conversations as well. It is also a response of sorts to calls for more communication about our teaching within the Faculty. With our collective archaeological expertise as a starting point, we provide an impressive set of courses across three degrees, and we’re able to do so thanks to the efforts of the Education Office and the wider support networks that make it so that we can enter a lecture room on a given Tuesday at 11am and find the right group of students facing us.
We are facing a growing tension between funding models and educational quality, and this is perhaps one of the most pressing issues in highe education. For decades now already, Dutch universities are evaluated through metrics that prioritize student throughput, employability, and measurable “impact.” Of course, accountability and societal relevance will always be key drivers for universities, the way these metrics are applied can also feel at odds with the nuanced, critical, and exploratory nature of our discipline. Archaeology is not easily reduced to key performance indicators—and that is only right.
At the same time, we are seeing a national push toward more centralized control of student enrolment, including discussions around limiting international student numbers and implementing stricter capacity management. All of this is disconcerting to witness. These are complex issues, entangled with worries over housing, accessibility of higher education, and questions of national identity. While some of these measures address real concerns—housing being one of them—and may indeed ease pressure on some university resources, they also raise serious questions about diversity, inclusion, and our ability & desire to attract talented students from around the world. Archaeology, like many other disciplines, thrives on international exchange—not just of students, but of ideas, methods, and perspectives. And let’s not forget that students from beyond the national boundaries have defined Leiden University from its earliest times. I know many of you share my unease about what the long-term implications of these policies might mean for our Faculty.
Another area of growing concern is the increase in administrative and teaching tasks that is perceived by many members of staff. The increases in student cohort sizes over the last ten years or so is not an insurmountable problem, but it is one which shines a light on our current choices of how and what we teach. In other words, in my view, it is not only about group size but about choices in what we teach as well. We are a heterogenous group with a wide range of priorities—though well-intentioned—this runs the risk of a fragmented teaching experience for the student. The priorities we set across our undergraduate and postgraduate courses are fuelled by a range of strongly felt decisions on knowledge-transfer about methodology, material and regional knowledge and disciplinary techniques. I think this is indicative of the intrinsic motivation that we all have for our respective expertise. I see the time and energy many of you pour into your teaching, and I want to acknowledge that this work is not invisible, even when it may sometimes feel that way. It is precisely this resilience and commitment that will carry us through the current period of change.
I also want to be clear that while we may not be able to control all the structural shifts happening at the national level, we can shape how we respond to them as a Faculty. We have a strong foundation here at Leiden—built on decades of research excellence and a shared commitment to critical inquiry. My role is to advocate for you in the rooms where decisions on our teaching programmes are being made, and to ensure that our unique needs as a Faculty are not lost in broader policy conversations.
To get this done, we are working at the level of the Board to push back against unrealistic expectations, to streamline processes where possible, and to ensure that any innovations in teaching policy are introduced with adequate support and space for reflection. To feed this process, I welcome your input and experiences, and I encourage open dialogue—not just in formal meetings, but also by knocking on my (open) door and striking up one of those informal conversations that so often spark real insight.
Let’s continue to support one another, to speak up when something isn’t working, and to celebrate the many things we are doing well, even in difficult times.'
Alex
Vice-Dean and portfolio holder for Education
Exchange ideas with Alex Geurds
Would you like to exchange ideas with Alex Geurds? Please send him an email or walk by his office (A2.07).