Guided by propositions almost identical to those proposed on June 7 during the English-language dialogue session, those present were required to establish their position - quite literally - in the debate, which was led by Rozemarijn Schalkx.
The five propositions discussed were contributed by the chairpersons of the five study groups that will apply themselves in the coming months to considering the strategy TU/e should follow in the years leading up to 2030. For the first, EE Dean Bart Smolders stated that every Bachelor's student should be required to take a course in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Chemistry, Built Environment, and Mechanical Engineering. The vast majority proved to be in agreement. One of the few students present thought it important that students learn early on to move outside their comfort zone and to look across the boundaries to other studies. Another student agreed with this, but found the compulsory element of the proposition problematical: the opportunity to explore a subject in depth would inevitably be compromised, he thought. Opponents did not believe that the average student would be motivated to take introductions in courses from other programs, without depth. Knowledge that isn't applied soon after it is learned is quickly forgotten, was his thinking.

Hands-on

The second proposition was offered by Lex Lemmens, and explained by the Dean of the Bachelor College himself. We need to move towards 80 percent hands-on education, in his opinion. His argument was evidently persuasive, drawing only a handful of opponents. Rector Magnificus Frank Baaijens was the first to test the boundaries of the format by standing midway across the hall, because he felt an aim of 50 percent hands-on education to be more realistic. Opponent Jan van Hest – leader of the study group charged with establishing which scientific targets TU/e should pursue – was firmly of the opinion that all that project work must not reduce the personal contact between lecturer and student, to his mind essential to knowledge transfer. That the ranks of the lecturers would need to be expanded to achieve 80 percent hands-on education, and that it is doubtful whether the 80 percent goal would be feasible without severely curtailing the influx of students, everyone could agreed on, supporters and opponents alike.

Institutes

The proposition by professor of Bio-organic Chemistry Jan van Hest, who joined TU/e from Nijmegen last summer, postulated that research should no longer be organized within the departments but, by contrast, should take place within multidisciplinary research institutes. This proposition lead to a lot of to-ing and fro-ing during the discussion: whereas it seemed initially that a large group of people were in favor, after an exchange of arguments, several participants revised their view. The institutes would help give the university a public face, in Van Hest's opinion, while the departments would simply continue to deliver education. But the institute managers will gain too much power, said opponents; multidisciplinary cooperation is better arranged on a temporary basis, and from within the departments.

Consideration

The fourth proposition, by professor of Human-Technology Interaction Wijnand IJsselsteijn, had been slightly revised since the English-language session, when the overriding majority thought that engineers were not responsible for any ultimately negative impact of their inventions. Now that it was stated only that this was something to take into consideration, the opposite proved the case and almost everyone was in agreement with the proposition. So go ahead and think about it then, implored Executive Board President Jan Mengelers, and not only if it will earn you credits.

Industry

The last proposition, that the university must cooperate more with industry, divided the group in two. Opponents were keen to stress that companies these days work with very short-term horizons. For the long term, for fundamental research, and for out-of-the-box thinking, universities are therefore essential. Companies are also happy to see universities take on things that they cannot address themselves, Baaijens emphasized. A student appealed for an intensification of cooperation with companies, especially at the student level,  so that more often they have the opportunity to work on projects that actually deliver something concrete, which he regarded as an important motivator.

At the end of the event, Executive Board President Jan Mengelers warmly thanked those present for their willingness to come indoors and discuss the university's future on such a lovely evening. He urged them to continue the debate among wider circles, beyond the dialogue sessions.