The new parliament must open its eyes: Finland needs to attract professionals from abroad if it as a nation wants to remain at the top of education and know-how even as its population ages and the dependency ratio weakens. Many European countries have a separate programme in place for attracting top professionals and committing them to the country, with particular effort placed on the foreign nationals studying in higher education institutes.[1] In Finland, there is still much to be done: the waiting periods and renewal processes for residence permits are lengthy and costly, and finding work in one’s own field is often difficult due to lacking social networks and the workplaces’ requirements of Finnish language skills.

“We will not gain international professionals if there are bureaucratic obstacles in the way. It is utterly crazy for us to throw away the available skills potential,” states the Chair of the Board of Aalto University Student Union Tapio Hautamäki.

Foreign students should automatically be offered a permanent residence permit in connection with graduation from a Finnish higher education institute. At the moment, a student with a foreign nationality who graduates with a Finnish degree practically ends up directly at the Finnish Immigration Service’s offices, where Finland has a one-off residence permit for job searching to offer that is valid for only one year. Even graduates who are already in employment are not granted a permanent residence permit at this moment.

It is evident from the data of Statistics Finland[2] that 1600–1800 professionals with a higher education degree emigrate from Finland each year, and even though a part of them also return to Finland, there is an annual emigration loss of 500–800 persons with higher education. This makes it even more important to put effort into Finland’s attractiveness[3] and, in particular, the dismantling of the inflexible residence permit processes of foreign nationals who graduate from Finnish higher education.

“It is beneficial for both Finland and the students graduating here for Finland to be international and a good place to live and work in,” emphasises Hautamäki.

AYY proposes the following measures:

• A permanent or at least a long-term residence permit must be established and offered automatically to students with a foreign nationality who graduate from a Finnish higher education institute.
• Granting residence permits to employees recruited from abroad must be simplified and sped up.

More information is available from:

Tapio Hautamäki, Chair of the Board, 040 757 9629

Rosa Väisänen, Advocacy Specialist, 050 527 2401

[1]Several countries, such as Canada (3 years), Germany (18 months) and Ireland (2 years), offer longer residence permits for job searching alone.

[2] Statistics Finland: Immigration and emigration by country of dep./arrival, level of education and age group, 2005–2017

[3] More than half of the foreign degree students studying in Finland plan to stay in Finland after graduation, and the students of technology and business, in particular, are more interested than average of long-term employment in Finland. In addition to these results, however, the International Student Barometer survey conducted in 2017 also reveals that students with a foreign nationality face the most challenges and dissatisfaction specifically in matters related to finding employment, such as networking opportunities and working life connections during their studies.

The national funding model for universities is rapidly being reformed as part of the implementation of the Vision for Higher Education and Research in 2030. We see potential pitfalls in the model under preparation, particularly in relation to funding allocated based on education. Furthermore, the changes now planned for the funding model do not offer solutions to the fundamental problems of the universities’ steering and financing system.

What kind of changes are planned to the funding model in terms of education?

In the current funding model, universities have been rewarded for their performance in education based especially on how many degrees have been completed (19%) and how many students have completed 55 credits in a year (10%). The changes being planned now would remove the 55-credit indicator completely and allocate as much as 30% of all funding allocated through the entire funding model to universities based on completed degrees. The new indicator based on degree numbers has a specific problem, however: it is planned to include various factors. Through the normative duration factor, universities would receive the most funding for degrees completed within the normative duration of studies. The second degree factor, on the other hand, would decrease the amount of funding allocated for degrees completed by students who have previously completed a degree at the same level.

…and why do we not support these changes?

Used as an indicator in the universities’ funding model, the number of degrees completed within the normative duration of studies would cause significant risks for the quality of education, its societal impact and students’ opportunities to build personal degrees that best support their own vision for the future.

Particularly in generalist fields, it is important for students to acquire job experience from their own field, even before graduation, in order to get employed. If universities would have financial incentives to urge students to graduate as quickly as possible, students’ possibilities of accepting interesting job offers during studies will decrease. This would result in a situation where recent university graduates would no longer be as prepared for working life as they currently are.

The new funding model indicator would decrease the societal impact of education for another reason, as well: it practically prevents the creation of surprising study modules and competences. If students are forced to study as if through a production line, with no time for experimenting with interesting minor subjects, new ideas stemming from crossdisciplinarity would also be left unborn. As national innovations are needed, students should continue to have the opportunity to study as much as they consider necessary to achieve their desired competences.

The funding model’s indicator on degrees completed within the normative duration of studies would also decrease students’ internationalisation opportunities. It is often challenging to get studies completed during exchange accepted as part of the basic modules in degrees. If universities have a financial incentive to ensure that students graduate in time, they will also easily be tempted to prevent students from participating in study opportunities that delay studies. Unfortunately, the likelihood of exchange studies becoming a financial risk to universities is also boosted by the removal of a separate indicator that encourages studies abroad from the funding model.

The second degree factor is aimed at the same goal as the quota for first-time applicants and the student admissions reform – the goal of all of us only having one chance to choose the right field for ourselves. However, as many of us do not know what we want to do with our life yet at the secondary level, there should always be opportunities for changing one’s field and for lifelong learning. Current working life, too, requires individuals to be able to change.

How should we reward universities for education then?

Steering the universities’ profitability restricts their autonomy, which means that particular attention must be paid to the kind of incentives the chosen indicators create – what effects they have on the focus areas of universities’ operations, what kind of goals they help achieve and whether the incentives lead to the kind of universities we want there to be in Finland.

We want Finnish universities to be places where people accumulate as much and as diverse competences as possible. As universities will increasingly act as platforms for lifelong learning in the future, it is sensible to reward them based on the number of completed credits instead of completed degrees. Moving the focus of higher education funding models towards the production of credits has been suggested by the National Union of University Students in Finland, Finnish Business School Graduates and Social Science Professionals in their proposal for a platform model for higher education institutions.* The model aims at encouraging higher education institutions to open up their courses to other people than their own degree students, too. In this model, universities would be rewarded for all credits – for funding purposes, it would not matter whether credits were completed by the institution’s own degree students, degree students from another higher education institution or lifelong learners completing parts of degrees.

Overall, universities need as simple, predictable and transparent a funding model as possible. Research and education activities are a long-term operation where easy wins are not available. Let us give universities the opportunity to work in peace and grow into the best possible versions of themselves, on their own terms.

Noora Vänttinen,
Chair of the Board, Aalto University Student Union

Lauri Linna,
Chair of the Board, Student Union of University of Helsinki

Aapeli Tourunen,
Chair of the Board, Student Union of University of Jyväskylä

Sanni Lehtinen,
Chair of the Board, Student Union of University of Tampere

Inari Harjuniemi,
Chair of the Board, Student Union of University Turku

Ina Laakso,
Chair of the Board, Student Union of Åbo Akademi University

More information: Lauri Linna, +358 50 543 9610, lauri.linna@hyy.fi

* The platform model for higher education institutions by the National Union of University Students in Finland, Finnish Business School Graduates and Social Science Professionals (in Finnish): https://syl.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Ehdotus-korkeakouluvision-tiekartaksi-1.pdf

Statement
17.7.2018

What would a day as a student feel like? The Student Union of the University of Helsinki (HYY) and the Aalto University Student Union (AYY) have codeveloped a game to illustrate actual problems with students’ subsistence and student aid. A lot is expected from students regarding subsistence during their studies: they should study full time, get work experience and supplement their income with earned income. This equation does not work.

The game illustrates how complex and inflexible students’ subsistence is: the current system is not able to take into account students’ different situations in life and diverse living arrangements. If Finland’s next government starts the comprehensive reform of social security, students must be included in the reform. AYY and HYY support a move to a gratuitous, personal basic income.

‘On basic income, students could focus on advancing their studies, and getting work experience during studies would not be a problem. Students could count on their subsistence in varying situations in life’, Chair of HYY’s Board Lauri Linna states.

Students’ subsistence consists of the study grant, student loan and general housing allowance. The level of the study grant is low, and the share of the student loan in student aid has been raised. As a result, students are getting into debt at record rate. The number of months of student aid has repeatedly been cut, study progress and students’ own income are monitored closely, and there is next to no flexibility. In worst cases, this causes the recovery of student aid with considerable interest, students falling onto social assistance and delays with studies.

As a whole, moving students to general housing allowance has been a good reform. However, general housing allowance is household-based, which means that the incomes of the people you live with affect the allowance. As a result, many students have lost their housing benefits or have had it decreased. The household-based nature of the allowance has also resulted in situations in which roommates are expected to provide for each other even though even cohabiting partners are not liable to provide maintenance for one another.

Working alongside studies is not easy, as students must be able to simultaneously study full time in order to retain their study grant, monitor the low income limits and graduate within the limited time allocated to completing their degrees.

It would be useful for students to work in their own field, establish start-up companies and acquire societal skills through volunteer work during their studies. The system makes this difficult.

‘The months of student aid may be enough for those who manage to stick to target time. Even one life change complicates things, however. This could mean getting sick, starting a family or a couple of failed courses. Students’ social security should not be modelled on those who fare the best’, Chair of AYY’s Board Noora Vänttinen states.

You can try out the student simulator here. You can also meet HYY’s and AYY’s representatives at SuomiAreena this week. Come and play a game and discuss students’ subsistence with us!

Lauri Linna
Chair of the board
Student Union of the University of Helsinki
lauri.linna@hyy.fi
050 543 9610

Noora Vänttinen
Chair of the board
Aalto University Student Union
noora.vanttinen@ayy.fi
040 731 6120

Statement
18.5.2018

UniSport has created a new website, which both appearance- and contentwise differs from the old one. The new website can be accessed at uusi.UniSport.fi

The new website currently completely lacks Swedish content.

The old website (UniSport.fi) is translated to Swedish, even though the translated version is inadequate in function and most of the links on the Swedish pages lead back to the Finnish site. The Swedish website has now and then had straight up false information regarding schedules. The poorly functioning Swedish website has led to Swedish-speaking customers being less inclined to use it, which explains the low rate of usage. Swedish information as physical guideposts are as good as non-existent in UniSport’s facilities, so there will be no Swedish information on UniSport at all without a translated website.

The decision-making process that led to the exclusion of a Swedish website was unclear. The operative leaders made the decision and it was discussed in UniSport’s board, but the board did not make the decision. The possibility of having the issue discussed by the University of Helsinki’s Board for the Development of Swedish Affairs and Teaching was proposed, but it never happened. The Hanken School of Economics has recently become one of UniSport’s owners and was consulted regarding the matter, but the student unions have not been heard. This is regrettable, since students are UniSport’s largest group of customers.

The exclusion of a Swedish website for a company that is owned by three universities with Swedish as an official language is unacceptable.

The University of Helsinki, Aalto University and Hanken School of Economics have a total of 5000 Swedish-speaking students. Many of these students do not speak or use the Finnish language. The exclusion of a Swedish website leaves Swedish-speaking customers in a weaker position than others, as they are unable to get information on UniSport’s services in their mother tongue. The decision also gives the impression that Swedish-speaking customers are not equal to other customer groups.

It is of the uttermost importance that UniSport decides to maintain a functioning Swedish version of the new website, and we demand UniSport’s leaders to cover this issue.

Noora Vänttinen, Chairperson of AYY’s board
Lauri Linna, Chairperson of HYY’s board
Henna Konsti, Chairperson of SHS’s board