A Fee Too Far?
By Julia Spruijt | News| February 17, 2025
Cover Illustration: Binnenhof, 2024. Paul Einerhand / Unsplash.
With plans for the Dutch long-study penalty having just been scrapped, Reporter Julia Spruijt explains why the policy was just too controversial for so many.
On Wednesday, December 12, the coalition and opposition parties reached an agreement on the proposed budget cuts, including those targeting education.
After weeks of protests involving thousands of participants and pressure from opposition parties CDA, SGP, ChristenUnie, and JA21, the negotiations concluded with significant changes. Initially, the coalition had planned nearly €2 billion in cuts to education funding. Among the proposed cuts was the reintroduction of the controversial “langstudeerboete” (extended study penalty). However, in a concession to critics, the government abolished the plan and reduced education cuts by €748 million, securing the support needed to pass their budget plan through the First Chamber.
The langstudeerboete is not a new policy. Initially implemented in 2012, it was soon scrapped due to widespread criticism. In the summer of 2024, Cabinet Schoof announced plans to reintroduce the langstudeerboete as part of efforts to address labor shortages, reducing study delays, and combating research career saturation. Starting in the 2026-2027 academic year, students would have faced financial penalties under this plan, with those exceeding the standard study duration by more than a year required to pay €3,000 for each additional year of their bachelors or masters. However, the policy quickly became a flashpoint for controversy, reigniting debates about its fairness and effectiveness.
The announcement of the langstudeerboete was met with protest by students and staff alike. On Monday, November 25, thousands packed into crowded trains, heading to The Hague’s Malieveld. “Denkt u erom bij het uitstappen, de trein is druk… [Please keep in mind while disembarking, the train is crowded…],” echoed over the speakers, directing the packed intercity crowd. Armed with cardboard signs and chants, protesters made their voices heard, opposing budget cuts to higher education, including the extended study penalty. A planned protest on November 14 was canceled due to concerns that it might be co-opted by pro-Palestine demonstrators, according to Mayor Sharon Dijksma. This time, the event proceeded successfully, and within less than a month, the langstudeerboete was shelved.
Despite student concerns, Education Minister Eppo Bruins initially remained firm. While he acknowledged the challenges faced by those balancing studies with other responsibilities, he argued that exemptions would complicate the law and delay its implementation, as well as that they would ultimately cut into expected savings.
Critics of the langstudeerboete contended that the fine disproportionately impacted students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who couldn’t afford the risk of extending their studies. The potential to worsen educational inequality and discourage extracurricular involvement called for attention.
“Where is the right to make mistakes? Should a wrong choice immediately lead to financial punishment? Is this a fine for personal growth?”
To explore what the impact of the langstudeerboete on students could have been, we spoke with Jelmer Koper (22), a former journalism student at the University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht who was at the forefront of the protests against education budget cuts. Jelmer believes that study delays often aren’t voluntary. Being a first-generation student who juggles work and studies to cover his expenses, he has always been proactive in gaining practical experience as a journalist, both during and before his education. While currently working as a journalist and considering his options for further study, he has taken a year off to focus on working as a Journalist for Haarlems Dagblad and managing personal challenges—a choice born of necessity, he explains.
When asked about the rationale suggested by proponents of the langstudeerboete for the extended study penalty, Jelmer understands the broader concern about a labor shortage, such as for craftspeople. However, he sees the penalty as mere “symptom management.” “It’s better to address the root cause,” he says. For example, incentivizing vocational careers through better pay could make them more attractive, reducing the financial disparity that pushes many students toward university degrees.
Jelmer adds, “The state of mental health care is getting out of hand, and on top of that, they’re removing certainties that contribute to the students’ mental health issues.” Jelmer describes the policy as one rooted in distrust, where financial consequences further harm students in an attempt to enforce the desired behavior—namely, completing their bachelor’s degree as quickly as possible. “Where is the right to make mistakes? Should a wrong choice immediately lead to financial punishment? Is this a fine for personal growth?”
For Jelmer, growth—whether academic or personal—takes time, and delays can add value. He notes that broader skills and broad academic formation, like those gained in his journalism program, often require extra time but enrich both individuals and the workforce. Jelmer says that students facing personal or family challenges will also be disproportionately affected by this policy. He emphasizes that today’s students already face immense performance pressure.
Jelmer believes budget cuts to education are a political choice, not a financial necessity. “The Netherlands isn’t going bankrupt,” he argues. “It’s not necessary to take money away,” pointing to research suggesting that cuts to education could harm economic growth more than they save. His concerns echo those of academics like Ingrid Robeyns, a professor at Utrecht University, who fears that weakening education limits the capacity for critical thought and debate, which are not only valuable in themselves but are also crucial for maintaining a democratic system capable of resisting authoritarian threats.
This concern aligns with Eppo Bruins’ assertion that education is fundamental to sustaining democracy in the Netherlands. “Why would you restrict something as fundamental and peaceful as education?” Jelmer asks. “Education, culture, and social services have already faced enough cuts. Why target them again?” He underscores the importance of keeping education accessible, not just for students but for society as a whole. “Students are easy targets. They don’t have stable incomes or access to the legal resources that corporations or the wealthy do. Hard-working people are crucial for economic growth, but everything begins with education and culture,” he says.
The outcome of the coalition negotiations, resulting in the cancellation of the langstudeerboete, reflects a broader acknowledgment of the importance of education—an opinion shared by Minister Bruins.
However, alongside the relief over the moderation of certain measures, dissatisfaction remains regarding the €1.2 billion in cuts to education and innovation. While pleased with the scrapping of the langstudeerboete, the National Student Union (LSVb) and trade union FNV have signaled plans to take their actions further, aiming to achieve even greater victories.
Julia Spruijt is a university student in Amsterdam. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Amsterdammer.
