We discussed different considerations for why PhD candidates may struggle to submit their PhD thesis in the allocated time frame. For example, we discussed on the importance of how early data can be gathered during the PhD and whether it has to be done by the PhD candidates themselves. We then briefly touched on whether such considerations should be considered for having different lengths of contracts, instead of having a standard 3-year contract. We also discussed the importance of planning and scoping, and having the support of the supervisors in doing so, especially in the earlier stages of the PhD. With regards to planning, there is a programme at the Faculty of Humanities, the completion grant (see more), through which PhD candidates which submit in time get an extra year for teaching and other type of work. This programme seems to have greately helped the Faculty of Humanities, as PhD projects have been much more reasonably scoped since then, leading to more PhD candidates completing on time. The administration feels very positive about it, but we pointed out that such a programme creates further inequality in the subsequent careers of PhD candiates that submit on time or not, as only those that submit on time get the opportunity to teach for example.
Another topic that came up was the need for tailored courses for PhD candidates, so that the candidates can use their mandatory credits fruitfully. For this, we made the claim that a national portal for PhD level courses could be helpful. The administration agreed and promised to bring this up again, as there was an initiative about this a few years ago.
We had prepared a presentation for this meeting, but we did not present it and instead used the full meeting (1 hour) on discussions, mainly initiated by the pro-rector. She took many notes and promised to bring the discussed issues both with the research deans at the University and at a European-level council she is part of.