By Maike van de Pavoordt and Sophie Staal
What happens when your degree becomes a budget line? If you are studying in the Netherlands, it might be time to start thinking about that question. Recent shifts in government policy and funding are putting increasing pressure on the country’s higher education system. Non-Dutch speaking programs in particular appear to be right in the line of fire.
With the introduction of the Wet Internationalisering in Balans (WIB), in English the Balanced Internationalisation Bill, and the budget cuts in higher education, you might ask yourself: are the two coordinated, or just poorly timed? Institutions like AUC, and University Colleges more broadly, find themselves in a difficult position. But what could all of this actually mean for current or prospective AUC students? Will we all be alums from a ghost university?
Framed as necessary measures, the 2024/25 budget cuts in education, culture, and science are meant to reduce money spent on higher education and scientific research in the Netherlands by more than 1 billion euros. The now fallen Schoof cabinet introduced these plans on Prinsjesdag 2024, the Netherlands’ annual “Budget Day,” held each September.
Whether it’s through digital media or mass protests – like those on 25 November 2024 in The Hague, or the one organized by UvA on 17 March 2025 – students and staff have been actively voicing their concerns. “The government is jeopardising the ability of the Netherlands to make progress,” states one of the many informative pieces about the budget cuts on the UvA website.
In response to growing resistance, the coalition and part of the opposition reached an agreement on 12 December 2024, which slightly reduced the planned cuts of 1.1 billion euros in higher education. Some of the more drastic measures were softened, such as the timeline for implementation, but core elements — like major reductions in research funding — remained in place. As a result, the Tweede Kamer (House of Representatives) passed the revised budget, but the changes did little to ease criticism from students, staff, and institutions.
On 8 April 2025, the Eerste Kamer (Senate) approved the proposed budget, officially cementing the cuts into national policy. Additionally, the Voorjaarsnota — an updated version of the national budget allocation — was published on 17 April 2025. This budget introduced more cuts, including the scrapping of the Education Opportunities Regulation, a program that supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Critics argue that this disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable students.
Another relatively recent policy is the Balanced Internationalisation Bill (WIB), introduced in July 2023 by the former Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Robbert Dijkgraaf. The bill aims to give the government more control over the internationalisation of Dutch higher education, seeking a balance between the benefits of having international students and protecting the Dutch language and access to education for domestic students.
This proposal emphasises regulation of English-taught programmes, including stricter enrolment procedures and more focus on Dutch-taught programmes. One of the proposed but already abolished measures was the ‘Toets Anderstalig Onderwijs’ (TAO), or Foreign Language Education Test in English. According to this bill, at least two thirds of a Bachelor’s degree would have to be taught in Dutch.
Any Bachelor’s degree that breaks this rule, like Liberal Arts and Science at AUC, would have to pass the TAO, which included four accepted exceptions: (1) programmes in shrinking and border regions, (2) programmes for sectors with labour shortages (such as certain programmes in technology and STEM fields), (3) when a programme is offered in only one location, or (4) when the programme inherently has an international character.
While the WIB is supposedly meant to protect Dutch identity and ease pressure on housing and the job market, it could also make international students feel less welcome and reduce the quality of Dutch universities. That is why many institutions, including AUC, have been pushing back. The umbrella organization UNL (Universities of the Netherlands) proposed a joint plan to try to avoid the TOA in April of 2025. The proposal included more self-regulated and flexible solutions, rather than active state control, but was turned down at the time. However, on 27 May a comparable development took place, and the motion to abolish the TOA from the WIB was passed.
For now, things may be stable, but it’s unclear how these developments will shape the future of institutions like AUC. The WIB and the budget cuts may be two separate policies, but together they raise serious questions about the future of places like AUC.
The upheaval around the WIB and the associated further budget cuts have already resulted in a reduction of international students in the Netherlands. Compared to last year, the enrolment of international bachelor students across the country has dropped by six percent, with applications from the European Economic Area (excluding the Netherlands) even dropping by nine percent. At the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), the drop was the largest, with the university receiving 23.5 percent fewer foreign applications.
Partly due to this declining number of international students, the VU planned a budget cut of 60 million euros. The additional government cutbacks hit the VU especially hard. While the Earth Sciences department was still busy setting up their new labs, on 3 April 2025 the VU announced that the study would be canceled. According to the plans, the bachelor’s degree in Earth Sciences will be discontinued in September 2027, and the geology and geochemistry track will also be removed from the subsequent Master’s degree in Earth Sciences. This shut down will result in at least 40 people losing their jobs starting in August. On top of this, the VU has already announced that further measures will follow due to the budget cuts.
Similar developments can be seen at the UvA, where as of the 2027/28 academic year the English-language bachelor’s programme in psychology will be discontinued. The board of directors announced this measure out of fear of not passing the TAO, instead opting for “a self-regulation plan” to limit future damages. A loss in international students is also anticipated in the Faculty of Economics and Business. By means of an enrolment quota, the intake for the English-taught bachelor programmes in both Business Administration and Economics, and Business Economics will be limited to a maximum of 1200 students. According to the board of directors, these measures will mean a twenty percent decrease of the total international enrolment at the UvA.
Closer to home, university colleges are also facing serious consequences. Roosevelt University College (UCR) in Middelburg, which is associated with Utrecht University, announced mid-February that a quarter of its staff will be fired due to the budget cuts. Classes were cancelled and the academic building was closed for several days to give staff privacy after difficult talks. Some students pushed back, arguing the decision violates their right to education. Moreover, education at UCR is being completely restructured: courses and the bachelor’s thesis are cancelled, and the holiday is shortened in order to spread the classes over the academic year in a way that necessitates fewer staff.
These are just two examples of measures introduced because of the cuts. But all over the country small adjustments and acts of resistance have been taking place. Leiden University College now celebrates its 15th anniversary with the theme Global Challenges, Local Impact. Meanwhile Maastricht University is recruiting international students again, as they argue that the current Minister of Education is violating the previous administrative agreement by cutting funding for starter and incentive grants. Similarly, Leiden University also states that the current decision violates the Higher Education and Science Administrative Agreement, considering further legal action.
Providing some insight on what all of this can mean for AUC’s future, Marianne Riphagen, AUC’s Director of Education and current acting Dean, elaborates on the formation of the WIB. Over the last 10 to 20 years, the amount of international students attending Dutch higher education has vastly increased. This led to universities requiring more “legal tools,” in Riphagen’s terms, to regulate the inflow of international students. Think for example of permission to cap the amount of international students for certain programmes. What happened as a result, in Riphagen’s opinion, is that “rather than responding to the universities requests of what they needed, the Dutch government came up with a legislation that is going much much further,” namely what we see now in the WIB.
The TOA used to be a major part of the bill, and when we spoke with Riphagen, the TOA was still very much on the table. The TOA would have required all English-taught programmes to once again justify their use of English, a process they already underwent when the programmes were initially approved. Only this time, the criteria would be significantly stricter, with the not-so-subtle aim of decreasing the number of English-taught programmes in the Netherlands. As Riphagen puts it, it would force institutions like AUC to “jump through hoops,” shifting their attention toward short-term fixes rather than long-term educational quality. She does acknowledge the importance of acknowledging these obstacles, but emphasizes they are not the most pressing concern.
Now that the TOA has been removed from the bill, a major pressure point has been removed for institutions like AUC. And yet, the WIB is still very much alive and universities are required to implement something called “zelfregie.” This translates to self-management, and refers to universities having to come up with their own ways of cutting back the number of international students. The policy tug-of-war is far from over.
Besides the varying arguments on whether the program should or should not be taught in English, Riphagen emphasises the broader shift in perspective driven by societal concerns around international students. A more cosmopolitan view suggests that, even if international students do not remain in the Netherlands after graduation, becoming more educated individuals will ultimately benefit Dutch society.
In contrast, more populist and nationalist movements are critical, claiming that Dutch tax money invested in education is wasted on international students who leave after completing their studies. While universities cannot determine where students go post-graduation, Riphagen stresses that AUC students are already making valuable contributions, as they “are doing an immense amount of extracurriculars, often investing in local society.”
So, what could AUC do in response to the TAO and WIB? Although AUC is constantly balancing between taking action and awaiting further information, it is already doing quite a bit. Through revisions of the intended learning outcomes, outlined in the annual report on standards and procedures, the international character of AUC will be made more explicit. The current formulation emphasises “engagement at local and global levels, and social responsibility,” but it still lacks a clear expression of the programme’s international essence.
Furthermore, AUC could reintroduce the language requirement for non-Dutch students, aligning with the former graduation requirement for all students to complete two consecutive language courses. Riphagen does however express her personal preference against doing this, since the requirement was only abolished a couple years ago. At the same time, AUC is working to increase “diversity.” Although “diversity” and “internationalization” may seem synonymous, in this context, diversity refers to increasing the proportion of Dutch students, which has been declining for the past five years. Together with tutors and student ambassadors, AUC has attempted to improve communication with Dutch high schools, but the results have been limited.
To better understand how AUC might be affected by the national budget cuts and the wider policy shifts discussed earlier, The Herring also sat down with Ingrid van Loon, AUC’s Head of Finance and Operations. “Currently, AUC is not facing direct budget cuts,” she explains, providing us with a rare bit of good news amidst the chaos in higher education. In fact, according to the most recent Kaderbrief issued by the UvA Executive Board, AUC’s internal budget is predicted to increase from 13.5 million euro in 2025 to 14.7 million euro in 2026. Even though these numbers are not final, they seem to suggest a stability in AUC’s financial model.
This financial model, van Loon explains, can be categorized into two main groups: internal and external funding. Internal funding comes mostly from the Dutch government and covers students who fall under the Wettelijk CollegeGeld (WCG; in English: statutory fee). This refers to students from the European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland, or Suriname who pay the lower statutory tuition fees. Van Loon reveals how internal funding is expected to be 9.9 million euro from the government and 3.6 million euro from statutory tuition fees in 2025. AUC receives this money via the UvA, but unlike other faculties, it gets passed on in full and directly.
Van Loon explains how this makes AUC’s internal funding relatively predictable, since it’s based mainly on how many WCG students enroll and graduate within the standard three-year period. In contrast, UvA faculties receive their teaching budgets through a more complex system. Their funding depends not just on the number of diplomas, but also on how many study credits (ECTS) their students earn throughout the year, making their situation a bit less stable.
While no immediate cuts are expected, van Loon notes that there could still be indirect effects. One concern is that the government may not fully compensate universities for inflation, what’s referred to as “price-wage compensation.” This could have some long-term effects, but for now this is still uncertain.
In the meantime, AUC has already taken steps to improve its long-term financial position. In Autumn 2023 a finance project promoting a “structurally positive financial outlook,” as van Loon states, was initiated in reaction to multiple years of negative results. The main steps taken included reducing tutor hour allocations, replacing external security with in-house staff, and introducing a residential campus fee. Additionally, non-statutory tuition fees for non-EEA students were raised. These changes helped AUC balance its budget through 2028, with a financial surplus expected starting next year.
Still, van Loon stresses how the future remains uncertain. While the recent vote to scrap the TAO removed one major threat to AUC’s English-taught programme, the broader internationalization bill is still in motion. It may lead to further regulation of international student enrollment and tighter government oversight.
In the end, AUC’s financial stability depends on several factors beyond its control: maintaining the current student population of around 880 students, consistent government funding, predictable operational costs, and no additional cuts from UvA. While things appear stable for now, the political and financial climate surrounding Dutch higher education remains unpredictable and AUC, like many institutions, will need to stay flexible.
Editor’s note: The abbreviation WCG was previously wrongly stated to stand for Wet op Centraal Geldbeheer. It has been corrected to Wettelijk CollegeGeld.
The Herring 