Speech by Marcello Seri, University Council member for the Science Faction

30 October 2025
University Council 337

The Smarter Academic Year, I quote from the University’s own project page, aims to reduce workload and improve education quality. Its success criteria are explicitly outlined: more peace and space for students and staff, a new academic year structure that reduces workload, the identification of best practices for education redesign, and a uniform academic year structure across the university. All without compromising the studyability of programs.

While the webpage provides contact people, context, and beautiful words about the initiative, the reality described by colleagues (across the university!) paints a very different picture. The initiative was supposed to be a bottom-up, democratic dialogue involving all stakeholders (programme directors, education directors, and program committee chairs). There is even an infographic illustrating this dialogue in motion. Instead, decisions have been made in isolation, with pilots still running while recommendations are already submitted to the board.

Until very recently, and seemingly after the fact, there has been next to no clear communication with the real stakeholders, those directly affected by these changes. This has left many of us in the dark about what to expect and how these changes will impact our work and our students not last the program and educational directors, which should submit this months the plans for their programs.

I’m not sure where things went wrong. But over these three years, there should have been a clear plan for the pilots, with explicit agreements on what and how outcomes would be monitored. There should have been open channels for evaluating what worked and what didn’t, and for discussing cross-faculty the generalizable lessons learned. This would have ensured the initiative truly reflected the needs and insights of those directly involved in education.

This initiative was supposed to be about collaboration and shared learning. Instead, we’re left with a rushed and opaque process, riddled of frustration and wasted resources. This does not help to build trust or ensure the success of these initiatives.

And if this isn’t enough, some faculties have unilaterally announced a move to 6-week blocks, leaving staff in literal panic as they scramble to rethink curricula and courses on the fly. There has even been confusion on legal aspects, with the legal offices claiming that councils have no say, only to find out later that faculty councils have in fact a right of consent.

This should and could have gone very differently. It worries me: if we cannot make a democratic decision-making work for these low-hanging fruits, how can we expect to make harmonization and governance plans work?

Before I finish, let me ask a final practical question: once the plan for the Smarter Academic Year becomes public, as far as I understand the regulations, the faculty councils will have to vote separately on consent. If this is not the case, for example if this is seen as a university-wide policy change, does it mean we would also have a right to consent? How will this work? Not sure if this a question for now or for the technical discussions next week.