Translated by UiOGPT
In the perspective report from last year, the government called for more flexibility and diversity in the study portfolio of universities and colleges, particularly thinking about future competence needs in health sciences, digitalization, and areas important for the green transition. These signals were followed up with a new funding model for the higher education sector, aimed at both simplifying and strengthening incentives in light of the goals of the perspective report for higher education. At UiO, the rectorate followed up with strong encouragements to units to increase flexibility and dynamism in their study portfolios, especially integrating more interdisciplinarity and internationalization into the education we offer. They launched the "September Meeting" as the new starting point for the planning process, with an important ambition being that the University Board should be more involved in the planning of our study offerings.
After the meeting, we can state that it was somewhat less operational than we had expected, but it provided a fine and rare opportunity for deans, vice deans for studies, and faculty directors from all of UiO to get to know each other's challenges and opportunities better. Interestingly, the units at UiO are very different in their organizational form and governance structure, and there is also great variation in the challenges they face. This is an important backdrop to consider when the rectorate signals that they want more collaboration across faculty boundaries and that UiO needs to strengthen its international profile.
At our faculty, we have conducted a thorough review of the existing study program portfolio, gaining a good overview of what changes our study programs have undergone over time, the drivers for such changes, and our future change needs. In the meeting, it was nice to point out that five of our eleven BA programs are interdisciplinary with extensive cross-faculty collaboration, and that the faculty has five English-language MA programs. We also emphasized that so-called 40-groups and free electives in the discipline programs give our students good knowledge of other subject areas, a high degree of choice, and opportunities to tailor a personal profile within the framework of a disciplinary study program. We believe that interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary approaches do not require new dedicated study programs but can be maintained within the framework of discipline programs through conscious use of 40-groups and free electives. The list of 40-groups at UiO is long, but we hope it will become even longer as more faculties establish such subject groups.
Throughout the year, there has been great uncertainty about how UiO will allocate revenues after the funding model for the higher education sector has been changed. At the September meeting, University Director Arne Benjaminsen lifted the veil a bit and presented some overarching considerations that will likely underpin the formation of a new distribution model at UiO. The administration is aiming for a simplified model with fewer indicators, and there are no plans for dramatic reallocation of study places initially. UiO's new distribution model will probably be introduced on a budget-neutral basis, so we don't expect significant financial impacts in the short term. However, it seems likely that credit production will be a crucial result indicator for the units' future economy. UiO's new distribution model is to be adopted by the University Board in October, so we still have to wait a bit to see the final design.
What does this mean for the Faculty of Social Sciences? Initially, it means we can continue our work on developing our own study portfolio without too many external directives—which is good. In the somewhat longer term, we must expect that credit production will be a crucial factor in our future economy. We do not fully understand all, or the most important, reasons for low credit production, so effective measures to increase credit production remain a challenge that we will work on. With the thorough work we have done in joint meetings and internally at the units this spring, we have a good overview of our own portfolio and the improvement and development potential that exists. This is a very good starting point for ensuring continued sound management of our teaching resources, even within the framework of a new distribution model.