Rector of the University of Twente on abolishing cum laude: 'Excellence is now too focused on the individual'

The University of Twente will abolish the "cum laude" designation for all doctoral degrees starting next year. The awarding of this distinction, intended for doctoral research of "exceptional scientific quality," is not transparent and also "systematically disadvantages" female PhD candidates, the university wrote Wednesday in a message on its website. The Enschede university is the first in the Netherlands to take such a measure.

Rector Magnificus Tom Veldkamp says the main reason for changing the rules is that the university wants an "open, transparent way of assessing" so that PhD candidates can also determine for themselves whether their research has progressed far enough and is good enough to defend to a committee.

The most striking measure is the abolition of the "cum laude" designation. Why did you have to take that?

"Because we've established that the criteria for determining a cum laude distinction are not objective. We've seen that the cum laudes awarded are not evenly distributed across disciplines, supervisors, or gender. And it wasn't necessarily the case that the best dissertations received the cum laude distinction.

"If you determine that cum laude awards aren't going to the top 5 percent as intended, then you either have to change the procedure or stop. Naturally, we've looked around for better and more objective alternatives. Our conclusion is that there's no good solution."

So you can conclude that the dissertations awarded cum laude are not always among the top 5 percent, but you cannot find an objective criterion to judge whether they actually belong to the top 5 percent?

"No, that's right. We do see patterns, the clustering around disciplines, individuals, and also the gender bias that indicate that not the top 5 percent actually receive a cum laude. This has a lot to do with the subjective nature of how cum laudes are ultimately awarded. The first filter is the supervisor, who has to nominate someone. Then there's the committee that determines whether someone belongs in the top 5 percent. And that's precisely the problem, because how do you measure that? How do you quantify it? What's the difference between purely disciplinary research, interdisciplinary research, or multidisciplinary research? How do you measure the contributions of someone who earns their PhD based on publications with multiple authors? These are very difficult, complex factors to weigh. Supervisors are often co-authors of publications. Then you can end up in a situation where the butcher is inspecting his own meat.

“What we have now done is to request a chapter in the dissertation explaining exactly what the PhD candidate's contribution is to the publication, if that publication has multiple authors.

We want a different kind of excellence. Currently, it's very focused on the individual. But science is done with a team. Instead of investing a lot of effort in finding a way to identify those top 5 percent of theses , I prefer to put my energy into appreciating people who also work together in teams.

The press release announcing the measures stated that research shows that men are twice as likely to receive a cum laude distinction as women. Is that also a reason to abolish the distinction?

"That's one of the arguments, but not really the main reason. We want everyone, regardless of gender or background, to receive an equal, transparent assessment."

The university will continue to award the designation in the bachelor's phase. Is it less problematic there?

"In the bachelor's phase, the assessment is based on a series of grades. There's a whole protocol for how someone gets an eight or a nine on an exam. That's quite different from defending your dissertation before a committee. There's an element of taste involved."

How have the students currently working on PhD research at the UT responded?

“They find it disappointing.”

And what about the scientists who have already earned their PhDs at the University of Twente? They're proud of their cum laude grading, and now their own university is saying: it was awarded based on a system so unfair that we must abolish it.

"I can imagine that doesn't sound pleasant. Look, as for those people who previously received a cum laude: they were always good promotions. The problem lies in that 5 percent. What we're really saying is: it's especially unfair to the people who wrongly didn't receive the designation."

The UT is the first and, for now, only university in the Netherlands to do this. Aren't you putting your PhD students at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment?

You might think so at first glance. But in practice, the supervisor's credentials are ultimately decisive for people who want to continue in academia. The playing field is international, and in many countries, cum laudes aren't awarded at all. In many bodies, such as European projects, this isn't considered. It really comes down to your actual achievements.

For professors with the 'ius promovendi', the right to assess doctoral research, it will take some getting used to all those transparent rules.

Some of them don't like this. But the reasoning behind reaching a decision is now made transparent. And therefore, at least, less subjective than it was.

I've served on doctoral committees myself. There have been times when we felt a lack of clear guidelines. In those cases, the committee's assessments were compared and adjusted. Last year at the University of Twente, we tightened our criteria somewhat. We no longer want the members of the doctoral committee to know each other's scores. We've introduced a secret ballot.

To counter peer pressure ?

"Yes."

You yourself have been promoted.

“Certainly, in agricultural and environmental sciences in Wageningen.”

Cum laude?

"No."