A Response to CEU2025
By Elina Silver
INTRODUCTION
After a turbulent move from Budapest, CEU settled nicely into the rhythms of Viennese life. Some professors still reminisce about the good-old-Budapest-days, but very few students have any memory or claim on the university pre-move, nor any sense of the vision behind the strategic plan called CEU 2025. Back when the university was preparing to move at the end of 2019, this plan was the talk of the town. It promised big changes, yet many of its ideas never materialised, for better and for worse.
Student opinion on the plan was collected in 2020 by Freya Cumberlidge and published in The Stand, expressing caution regarding the new financial model of the university: having BA programmes as a revenue stream and the introduction of professional MAs. Our MA respondent in this article explained how the negative outlook by Cumberlidge is vastly different from their positive experience of the programme today. On the BA side, Cumberlidge’s concerns remain, with students fighting to be heard by the administration. Regarding the PhD programmes, Cumberlidge offered a hopeful assessment, suggesting that the proposed reforms might lead to improved funding stability and completion rates. However, the current situation for PhDs rather reflects an, at times, hopeless fight for fair stipends.
Last year, instead of celebrating reaching the goals of the old CEU 2025 plan - which was partly abolished - the Interim Rector released a new strategic plan, carrying forward some of the CEU 2025 ideas and simultaneously attempting to tackle today’s issues.
At the heart of the new Interim Plan is a renewed urgency to diversify income streams, especially given the uncertainty surrounding the Open Society Foundation. While figuring out how the university will survive financially, the new plan also describes how the university aims to remain accessible to students from different economic backgrounds. Latest news: needs-based financial aid is being piloted in one of the MA Departments, potentially leading to diversified future cohorts, although legal aspects remain a major concern for the administration. Letting go of the Budapest campus may have eased some financial pressure, but the new plan focuses on strengthening ‘synergies’ between the Vienna and Budapest campuses instead. How this is done is expressed in terms such as “streamlining”, “encouraging”, and “clarifying”, which do not appear particularly substantial. The commitment to expanding the BA and MA programmes, which will raise the student-to-faculty ratio, remains from the CEU 2025 Plan, although whether this is to “reach a more sustainable faculty/student ratio”, as expressed in the new Interim Plan, or simply another attempt to finance the university, is debatable.
Six years on, it is worth asking not only what became of the students' concerns raised in 2020 but also whether the university's new Interim Plan has actually learned from them, particularly when it comes to accessibility, academic integrity, and transparency.
THE BA PROGRAMME
In 2020, the main concern about the upcoming BA programme was that it would function more as a financial asset than as an academic project. Those concerns have not disappeared. With tuition fees higher than many other European social science universities, and limited (merit-based) financial aid, the BA cohorts are often perceived as consisting mainly of students from more privileged socio-economic backgrounds. Whether or not that perception tells the whole story, high tuition fees usually lead to one of two outcomes: either a less diverse student body, or students carrying significant financial stress due to large loans. As Cumberlidge warned in 2020, this has had an impact on the atmosphere in classrooms and corridors alike.
BA students benefit from being part of a small programme within a large research institution, as Cumberlidge had hoped would be the case. The professors are respected academics, and there is a great deal of research taking place across departments. However, this research culture does not always reach the BA level. There are very few courses in research methods, and even fewer that teach students how to apply those methods in practice. This is still being raised in Town Halls, six years after the program started. The repetition of introductory material and the lack of advanced methodological training remains an ongoing concern in meetings with the Dean. In the PPE programme, for instance, students take one common Research Methods course in the spring semester of their first year. After that, many feel left to figure out, on their own, what research actually means when they begin writing their thesis.
The last Town Hall left us hopeful that the administration recognises these issues and is working on solutions. Still, we would like to express our need for transparency, which Cumberlidge already urged for in 2020. If students are not genuinely involved in shaping reforms, consultation is merely symbolic. Clear communication about what is being changed, and how student feedback is being used, would help build trust. More practical transparency on BA-related issues would show that these concerns are being taken seriously.
If the Interim Rector follows through on commitments to financial accessibility and stronger research-based training, the BA programme could still fulfil the academic excellence promised by the administration at its introduction.
MA PROGRAMME - collected by Teodora Risteska Daskalovski
Regarding the Master programmes, the CEU 2025 article projects a vastly different outlook from what our MA respondent has experienced. The critique presumes that the change from more disciplinary to more professional MAs, which would cost between €12-18,000 a year, will turn it from a “lighthouse for scholarship within the region” to a “boutique American university”. However, our MA respondent, whom we will call X, states the exact opposite. X not only values the institution for its accessibility due to its financial aid, but also goes further to emphasize that “the majority of students I know are studying with scholarships, which has made me see CEU as one of the more accessible universities of its rank”. The paper moves on to comment on the expected shift in student body makeup with more professional programmes being introduced. In X’s experience, the groups are often “composed of a mix of students who move directly from a BA into an MA and those who come with several years of professional experience”. While this may create certain imbalances in classroom dynamics, X views it as one of the institution's greatest strengths, as it creates a heterogeneous environment of intellectual diversity. Overall, while the CEU 2025 article raises some considerable concerns, the experience of our MA respondent differs from what had been anticipated. This may not be the case for everyone.
PHD PROGRAMME - By Anonymous
The point referred to about the funding alteration to now include a four-year funding package for PhD students has been put into place for a couple of years now. A lot of departments now emphasize a finishing period of four years with a one year extension possible for departments where extensive fieldwork is to be done. On the other hand, the rest of the optimism of the respondent seems like a far-fetched dream. Given the fact that PhD stipends are taxable, are not being adjusted for inflation every year and that CEU PhDs make less than any other in Austria, contributes to a highly precarious position in Vienna. This is exacerbated by the fact that PhDs continue to be self-employed, thereby limiting any long-term benefits that could be sought if employed properly. Furthermore, third-country nationals face additional MA35 and residency related costs on a yearly basis with no support from university for expenditure outside the normal course. While TA-ship opportunities have on the whole increased, the process still operates on a very departmental level and with very limited opportunities for the PhD to teach their own courses. Perhaps the greatest loss for the PhDs is also the shutting down of the Global Teaching Fellowship Program (GTFP), which was perhaps one of the strongest structures CEU had in place. The shutdown of the GTFP has meant that graduates (or advanced PhDs) have not been able to make a smooth transition post the PhD and are often having to scramble to start looking for opportunities early, in an increasingly competitive atmosphere. The GTFP offered the perfect transition and the loss of that has been severely detrimental to the long-term planning of PhDs.
THE INTERIM PLAN OF TODAY
The Interim Plan proposes many promising changes, but we have yet to see these reflected clearly in practice. Once again, we want to stress the importance of transparency. Recent incidents involving the removal of pro-Palestinian materials from campus, reportedly with police involvement, have led some students to question how the institution understands its stated commitment to “tolerance and fairness in the discussion of controversial topics.” The credibility of the Interim Plan depends on whether the values it outlines are visible in everyday campus life.
Students are committed to the university and willing to support the administration with feedback and proposals. However, when there is little follow-up or communication about how this input is being considered, it can feel as though student engagement is not taken seriously. As CEU celebrates its 35th anniversary, we are glad to see that the ideas of the Interim Plan reflect those it has stood for since its founding. It has the potential to continue as a space of academic excellence, innovative research, and the promotion of open societies. For that to remain true, the freedoms it defends must also be practiced within itself.
As we look forward to updates on the Interim Plan, we hope the administration will involve students more directly in shaping what comes next. If CEU wishes to remain a forum for open societies, it must practice openness internally, not only in principle, but in procedure.
