The content on this page primarily concerns the 2021 UG Amendment. An update is in progress!
Here you will find more detailed information about the amendment to the Universities Act and its effects at TU Wien.
At the end of the page, you will also find further links on the topic.
Minimum achievement of 24 ECTS in two years, otherwise deregistration
[§ 59a, §59b (1), § 63 (7), § 68 (1)]
The ministry stipulates a mandatory study achievement of 24 ECTS within the first two years for newly admitted students; otherwise, deregistration follows. This makes passing the StEOP within the first year even more important than it was previously, as otherwise major problems may arise in achieving the required 24 ECTS later in the course of study. There are no exceptions for retake exams or late-entered certificates, as the deadline falls on October 31 of the respective year. Only leaves of absence can grant a “deferral.” If this situation is caused by the university—for example, if the certificate was not issued within the statutory assessment period of 4 weeks after the exam—it would be possible to file a legal remedy, but it would still be a very problematic situation.
Especially at TU Wien, where student representatives regularly have to fight for compliance with the statutory assessment period of 4 weeks, or where retake exams may be urgently necessary for passing courses, such a regulation would be fatal. Furthermore, due to the reduction to two exam dates per semester, it could also happen that no or far fewer exam dates are offered in September and October, in order to avoid potential conflicts with the deadline for the minimum study achievement on October 31. Until now, for example, exceeding the statutory four-week correction period was largely without consequences. If an exceedance in the future leads to students unjustly receiving their certificate only after October 31 and thus not achieving the minimum study achievement, the university is indeed responsible—but the legal enforcement of this responsibility is complicated and time-consuming. For exam dates that take place within four weeks before October 31, students have no legal certainty that they will receive their certificate in time and are dependent on the goodwill of the examiners. It is to be expected that many instructors will not want to engage in such discussions at all and will therefore restrict their exam offerings at the beginning of the winter semester.
Although the draft law assures us that the university must guarantee the assessment of fourth-semester achievements by the deadline, we expect that this regulation will only apply to courses assigned to the 4th semester in the curriculum. Furthermore, it is to be expected that enforcing this right will be just as difficult as ensuring compliance with the four-week correction period. The university’s legal responsibility is also questionable if, for example, too few exam places are offered and students are thus prevented from achieving the required minimum study achievement. . Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this topic is more relevant than ever, as unfortunately many courses are canceled or postponed at short notice, which affects the planability of studies.
In the worst case, the regulation on minimum study achievement therefore means expulsion from the degree program solely due to certificates not issued on time.
It becomes more difficult due to the minimum study achievement especially for those students who have to fulfill other obligations alongside their studies or who live with a health impairment. This includes, in addition to people who work in parallel to finance their studies, students with care obligations, such as caring for a child or caring for sick parents. The regulation thus reinforces the existing problem that successfully completing a degree is disproportionately more difficult for people who cannot or do not want to study full-time, by placing an additional hurdle in their way.
People who pursue multiple degree programs in parallel must achieve the minimum achievement of 24 ECTS in each of their programs individually. Students who want to educate themselves interdisciplinarily or deepen another of their interests are thus deprived of the opportunity to set individual priorities and design their studies, as they must (at least at the beginning) pursue all started programs with similar (high) intensity in order not to lose their admission.
The legislator provides only one exception to the minimum study achievement, namely for students with a disability of at least 50% with an expected duration of at least 3 years. People with a milder disability, shorter duration of impairment, or illnesses in which patients alternately experience better and worse phases are not considered here and must meet the standard requirements.
Cancellation of exam dates
[§ 76 (3)]
For exams that are conducted in the form of a single examination process (i.e., for VOs and some VUs), the amendment changes the legal text so that these are to be scheduled (instead of previously “in any case for the beginning, middle, and end of each semester”) only “at least 2 times per semester.” This means that instructors can still voluntarily hold more exam dates. From our years of experience in representation work at various faculties of our university, we know that in many cases it is already difficult to get instructors to comply with these existing rules and that there are very few instructors who offer additional dates.
In the current statutes of TU (here the Senate of a university establishes university-wide regulations), the regulation contained in the previous Universities Act (beginning, middle, and end of the semester) is repeated one-to-one. However, a statute is not set in stone—future rectorates or Senate majorities could weaken the current regulation, as the 3 dates will no longer be anchored in federal law in the future. However, these 3 dates per semester are of enormous importance for studyability, as due to the amount of material it is often not possible to take the exams of all attended lectures at the end of January or the end of June.
An intensification of the problem arises from the overlap of exams. If fewer exam dates are offered per semester, you have fewer alternatives if the dates of several exams you still need fall on the same (half-)day.
We expect a worsening of the situation in this regard, as exams no longer have to take place at the beginning, end, and middle of the semester as before, but the timing is absolutely freely selectable for instructors. Thus, it could be that the two dates take place directly one after the other, possibly even on the same day at different times. Dates exclusively during the lecture-free period would also suddenly be possible, which would cause problems especially for working students. Furthermore, it is no longer guaranteed that you can actually complete a lecture in the semester in which you attend it, as theoretically all exam dates can take place at the beginning of the semester.
In short, we cannot say with certainty whether the number of exam dates at TU Wien will actually decrease in the immediate future or not. What we know for certain, however, is that we as students lose the legal claim to the third date, as it will no longer be anchored in a federal law.
Abolition of the grace period
[§ 61, § 62 (1)]
In the future, it will no longer be possible for students to pay the ÖH contribution or tuition fees during the grace period, as this will no longer exist automatically but would have to be defined separately by the rectorate. The rectorate would have to determine its own, additional “grace period” in addition to the regular re-registration deadline (in the WS at most until October 31 instead of one month later as before). This means that if you miss the general admission deadline, you will automatically be deregistered from your studies for the following semester.
Until now, after the general admission deadline had passed, tuition fees for EU/EEA citizens only increased by 10%; deregistration was only threatened at the end of the grace period on November 30 or April 30. With the new regulation, students who already have to pay tuition fees and cannot raise them in September for various reasons will be deregistered from their studies. Since the next opportunity for re-registration only comes with the next semester, affected students could thus neither complete exercises nor take exams for several months, causing them to lose a semester or, in the worst case, a year.
People who want to register for a new degree program could previously enroll during the grace period with a valid reason. Now, registration for a degree program after the general admission deadline (which now ends at the latest on September 5) is only possible with very few exceptional reasons until October 31 at the latest.
This change particularly affects prospective students or students from third countries, as they have additional requirements for initial registration/re-registration, e.g., proof of language certificates or proof of special university qualification. The review of submitted documents and the making of a decision often takes several weeks or even months at the responsible offices of our university, which in the past has regularly led to admission being granted only during the grace period and affected third-country nationals only being able to register then. In the future, applicants in such cases will have to wait for the beginning of the next semester.
Furthermore, it is not specified anywhere whether you must already pay the fees for the new semester if you complete your studies during the above-mentioned “grace period” defined by the rectorate. The previous regulation that you can complete your studies by the end of the grace period (November 30 or April 30) without paying tuition fees is thus lost.
Deteriorations in direct master’s admission
[§ 61]
With the amendment to the Universities Act, the section that enables Senates to establish their own admission deadlines for “consecutive master’s programs” in their university’s statutes is deleted. A consecutive master’s program is one where the student has just completed a related bachelor’s program at the same university that qualifies them for enrollment in a specific master’s program (e.g., the master’s program in Civil Engineering after the bachelor’s program in Civil Engineering). Until now, this paragraph has made it possible to start a TU master’s program even in the middle of the semester after completing a TU bachelor’s degree.
In the future, although the rectorate can still establish a separate admission deadline for master’s programs (the legally prescribed deadline of September 5 or February 5 only applies to bachelor’s and diploma programs), the previous “special treatment” for TU bachelor graduates will be more difficult to implement: The rectorate would have to establish two different deadlines each semester for master’s programs (one for “internal” and one for “external” students), as the regulation could no longer be included in the statutes for longer-term validity. Unfortunately, we assume that our university management does not want to impose the resulting increased administrative burden on the deanships in order to save resources and costs. In the end, we therefore fear that the uncomplicated and unbureaucratic transition from bachelor’s to master’s program that we are used to will be practically abolished by the UG amendment.
At our university, this change will inevitably lead to delays in study time, as many students complete their bachelor’s degree in the middle of the semester.
Learning Agreements
[§ 59 (4)]
There should be the possibility for students in the final section of their studies (upon reaching more than 100 ECTS of their program) to conclude a contract with the university regarding their studies without legal assistance. It is questionable whether the university will accommodate students or try to simply impose a “standard contract” on everyone. How much consideration will be given to individual circumstances of students is unclear. Although it should become possible to be exempted from tuition fees, the obligations demanded for this can very easily become overwhelming and completely destroy free study organization.
As a student, you have no right to such a contract; the dean of studies is free to approach students of their choice with an offer, as long as they meet the 100-ECTS condition. If TU concludes learning agreements with its students on a large scale in a field of study, this leads to the formation of a two-tier society among students. If, for example, in the third semester according to the semester recommendation there is a large VO exam that is postponed by almost all students, it is very likely that the learning agreement will assure students with more than 100 ECTS preferential treatment in the allocation of exam places in this subject so that they can finally complete their studies. For students who are trying to stick to the semester recommendation and may postpone one or another exercise for this purpose, it can thereby become nearly impossible to get a place in this exam.
Overall, we view the great legal uncertainty that prevails on the topic of learning agreements very critically, especially since the new UG imposes many obligations on students when entering into such a contract, while imposing relatively few on the university.
Rectorate’s guideline authority
[§ 22 (12a)]
The rectorate should be enabled to impose certain mandatory structural conditions on curricula, which should then be implemented by the study commission in the curricula. More precisely, the legal text speaks of the “issuance of guidelines for the structural design of curricula.” Since a more precise definition of what “structural design” is is missing, we fear that this opens the door to interference by rectorates in curricula, which is in direct contradiction to the freedom of teaching that applies in Austria.
This deprives the study commissions, in which one-third of the seats are occupied by student representatives, of parts of their current competencies. The ministry could exert pressure on the rectorate through appropriate conditions when allocating funds to universities and thus indirectly dictate the content of curricula. The student representatives you elected would thus be less involved in the process of curriculum creation and design. The Senate, in which students are represented, would only be allowed to submit a statement on this; whether this is taken into account is questionable (until now, the Senate, with the study commissions as its sub-committees, had all decision-making power over the content of curricula).
Leaves of absence
[§ 67 (1)]
With the new UG amendment, it will no longer be possible for the university to allow its own additional reasons for a leave of absence. TU Wien’s regulation that you can also take a leave of absence due to “another equivalent study-hindering reason” must then unfortunately be abolished. Students affected by problems that do not fall into one of the predefined categories will thus be left behind in the future.
Furthermore, from now on, a leave of absence within the first semester should no longer be possible unless there is a valid reason. Completion of military or civilian service or voluntary social year no longer counts as a reason for leave of absence in this case. Since the grace period is also to be abolished, you can then only take a leave of absence for the winter semester until October 31, and in the summer semester until March 31. A leave of absence at a later point in the semester is only possible due to illness, pregnancy, or care obligations, but not for other reasons for leave of absence.
With the elimination of the grace period, leaves of absence for activities such as extraordinary civilian service analogous to last summer semester are therefore only possible if they occur before the end of the general admission deadline on September 5 or February 5, i.e., before the start of the actual semester.
Recognition of credits
[§ 78]
For recognition of credits, a reversal of the burden of proof should occur, meaning that in the future you no longer have to prove that the courses in question are equivalent, but that the university (more precisely: the dean of studies), if it wants to reject the recognition, must prove that this is not the case.
However, recognition of study achievements from previous programs can now only take place within the first semester, which is why the timing of recognition will suddenly be very important in the future. In case of late submission, recognition can be rejected from the outset.
Evaluations
[UG § 14 (2a), UG § 58 (12), HS-QSG § 22 (2)]
A positive point of the new Universities Act is that the actual workload for ECTS credits should be more closely monitored through appropriate evaluation of curricula. Unfortunately, however, hardly any or no sanctions are provided for universities that do not comply with the requirements. Furthermore, it is still very unclear how this evaluation will actually be carried out and whether improvements will actually result from it. For these reasons, while we welcome the idea behind this change, we are still very skeptical about its implementation.
Have you already informed yourself? Then join our postcard campaign!
Link collection
Official legislative proposal: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/ME/ME_00079/index.shtml#tab-Uebersicht
Currently valid Universities Act: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20002128
Study law provisions of TU Wien: https://www.tuwien.at/index.php?eID=dms&s=4&path=Satzung/Studienrechtliche%20Bestimmungen.pdf