Approved in a Board meeting on 28 August 2025. The statement follows the structure of the public consultation round.
Are the Goals of the Proposal Favourable?
The general goals of the proposal regarding the raising of the level of competence and the accessibility of higher education for more people are favourable. We are in favour of allocating more resources to study guidance and counselling and the seamless completion of studies, considering especially the transition phases in studies. These resources should, however, not be sought by limiting the right to study.
Is the Proposal Favourable?
As the student union of a multidisciplinary university, we have reservations regarding legislation that limits students’ opportunities to gain versatile and multidisciplinary competence in the form of degrees from several different fields. Students must be guaranteed an opportunity to the versatile improvement of their competences and the creation of different and individual degree studies structures.
The proposed single right to study provision places even more pressure on student admissions. The provision emphasises making the correct choices at an as-early-as-possible stage of the study path. The strength of Tampere University is that it combines top-level engineering, healthcare, and social sciences education. Strictly linear progression in education does not produce the multidisciplinary competence that is required of workers in the future working life.
Is the Impact Assessment of the Proposal Accurate?
The impact assessment lacks a mention of a truly significant impact on the resources that higher education would gain from this. The impact assessment does not take into account how broadly students divide into tens of different higher education institutions, hundreds of different faculties, thousands of different fields, and several different years of study. Although the number of students that are simultaneously completing several degrees is not entirely insignificant, on a practical level, the resources gained for “study opportunities and improving the quality of education“ or for individual laboratory courses that are full are very minor.
The impact assessment implies that a student that is completing another degree would lower the chances of a first-time applicant to receive a student place. This is not entirely true, as these applicants are not applying for the same student places in student admissions. Students also progress in their studies at different paces, and renouncing the old right to study does not directly create new student places or increase teaching resources for new students.
Is the Impact Assessment Lacking Something?
The impact assessment of the proposal does not comprehensively take into account recognising the competences that students have acquired earlier. In the proposal, it should be more accurately evaluated how it would be possible to transfer all credits of an earlier degree to a new degree. This would enable a smooth transfer in fields of study in a situation in which a student has already completed several years worth of studies in their earlier degree.
Without a comprehensive evaluation on the possible obstacles for changing fields of study and transferring the credits of an earlier degree, if it is approved, the proposal might prevent students from changing their field of study. At worst, limiting the right to study leads to students renouncing their rights to study, which is an extremely costly waste of resources for both universities and society.
At the very least, students should be guaranteed a transition period or an opportunity to complete their earlier degrees in a reasonable time frame. Alternatively, the other right to study could be passivated, in which case the student would not exhaust any resources reserved for teaching, but the student would have an opportunity to complete the other degree later by reactivating their passive right to study.
The interrelated effects of the amendments made to the Act on Financial Aid for Students and the proposed amendments to the Universities Act and the Universities of Applied Sciences Act should be examined in the impact assessment. A limited student financial aid system negatively affects the financial prerequisites for completing another higher education degree. Unstable income lengthens the time used to complete a degree, which has negative effects on students transitioning into the workforce, their position in the labour market, and the finances of higher education institutions.
Other Remarks on the Proposal
The proposal recognises well central “factors that affect the level of education as measured via the number of higher education graduates and the raising of said level, such as the resources of higher education institutions, support for studies and learning, and degree structures.” The proposal does not, however, include any measures that would truly affect these factors.
Tuition fees for another degree are not a solution for the challenges presented. Education that leads to completing a degree must continue to be tuition-free for all, regardless of whether it is the student’s first or later same-level degree. The lack of resources of higher education institutions is solved only through a permanent increase to funding. The proposed provision does not increase the resources available to higher education institutions for student support services or teaching.
Proposed Amendment
The following specification regarding the rights of study of students is added into the Subsection:
“A student who has forfeited one or more of their rights to study due to reasons dictated in Subsection 2 has the right to apply for the reinstatement of their right to study from their university, but the student may have only one valid right to study. The application may be submitted without participating in the student admissions referred to in Section 36.”
For more information:
Sanni Tyynismaa: Board member
sanni.tyynismaa@trey.fi, +358 44 729 3775
Ville Jäppinen: Specialist in Educational Affairs and International Affairs
ville.jappinen@trey.fi, +358 50 361 2849