BuFaK Council

Call for flexible exam registration and withdrawal procedures

• The BuFaK WiWi calls for a flexible approach to exam registration and withdrawal.
• Registration procedures are carried out individually by universities and serve purely logistical purposes. The procedures often differ even within a single university, with different Schools applying different registration and withdrawal procedures. These deadlines are at odds with flexibility and the feasibility of studying.
• At the University of Jena, for example, registration for examinations is only possible during the first ten weeks of the semester, whilst withdrawal from written exams is only permitted up to four weeks before the start of the three-week examination period.
• At Goethe University Frankfurt, students can only register for or withdraw from exams up to five weeks before the exam date. As a rule, it is not possible to withdraw from an exam.[1]
• At the Saarland University of Applied Sciences, all students are automatically registered for their examinations at all times and without exception. During the first two semesters, withdrawal from exams is generally not permitted. For exams in the third semester and subsequent semesters, students may withdraw without giving a reason by notifying the Examinations Office or via the online student service. Withdrawal automatically results in registration for the next available exam date.[2]
• In our view, there is no reason why students should have to withdraw from an examination registration, in some cases several months before the examination date. These are glaring restrictions on students’ flexibility compared with other universities and make studying unnecessarily difficult.
• As these deadlines are often justified on the grounds of room allocation and organisational issues, we would like to highlight some positive examples from other universities.
• At the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and the Technical University of Dortmund, amongst others, registration for written examinations is generally possible up to two weeks before the respective examinations.
• At the School of Economics at Dortmund Technical University, students may withdraw from a registered examination until 23:59 on the day before the examination without giving a reason. Withdrawal is carried out online.[3]
• At the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), it is even possible to withdraw from a written examination without giving a reason right up until just before the examination papers are handed out, by signing a form in the lecture theatre.[4]
• At the Berlin University of Applied Sciences, the withdrawal procedure is even more flexible. Failure to attend an exam at this university does not result in a failed attempt and is considered an automatic withdrawal from the exam.[5]
• We demand that an examination registration must be reversible, even at short notice before a written examination, without negative consequences for students. Registering for an examination several weeks in advance carries many risks, some of which are unknown. For various reasons, preparation for an examination may be disrupted. In such cases, being unable to withdraw from an examination is disastrous for students’ academic progress – particularly where the number of examination attempts is limited. Similarly, this system can lead to compulsory registration for the next available examination period, which poses a problem for students.
• Only a flexible registration system can do justice to the self-image of a progressive university. The BuFaK WiWi therefore considers it necessary to introduce such flexible registration systems at all universities and to allow for the possibility of withdrawing from an exam at short notice.
• In particular, compulsory registration without the option to withdraw must be rejected on principle.

Sources:

• [1]https://www.wiwi.uni-frankfurt.de/news-pa/einzelansicht/article/letzte-chance-fristende-pruefungsanmeldung-12062020-2359-uhr.html
• [2]https://www.htwsaar.de/studium-und-lehre/im-studium/gesetze-und-studentische-ordnungen/copy_of_AllgemeineStudienundPrfungsordnungASPO.pdf
• [3]https://www.wiwi.tu-dortmund.de/wiwi/de/studium/studiengaenge/wiwi-bachelor-2015/ba-wiwi-2015-po-aenderung-1.pdf
• [4]https://www.wiwi.kit.edu/lehrePruefungen.php#Abmeldung
• [5]https://www.htw-berlin.de/studium/management-of-studies/pruefungen-praktikum/pruefungsverhinderung/

ÄA1

Amendment proposal

   *significant restrictions on students’ flexibility compared with other universities, making their studies unnecessarily difficult. 

ÄA2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (Councillor): Presents PosiPa
• Tobi B (Council) Enquires about the current status at the listed universities
• Trevis (University of Frankfurt): One source is out of date
• Alexey (Council): KIT is still up to date
• Daniel (Dortmund Technical University): Still valid
• Fynn (Council) Proposal to adjourn
• No objections

Discussion to continue on 20 November 2022

• Amendment 3 is withdrawn
• Amendment 4 is presented

• Tobi B (Council): Presents PosiPa
• Tobi B (Council) Enquires about the current status at the listed universities
• Trevis (University of Frankfurt): One source is out of date
• Alexey (Council): KIT is still up to date
• Daniel (Dortmund Technical University): Still valid
• Fynn (Council) Proposal to adjourn
• No objections

Discussion to continue on 20 November 2022

• Amendment 3 is withdrawn
• Amendment 4 is presented

• BuFaK Council

Digital teaching as an integral part of university life

• Against the backdrop of the current pandemic, universities have been confronted more clearly than ever before with the challenge of designing and delivering digital teaching. We, the BuFaK WiWi, therefore set out below what we consider to be effective digital teaching and which aspects of it should be continued even after the pandemic.
• In this context, digital teaching should by no means be adopted as a comprehensive concept from the pandemic era; rather, the aim should be to work towards implementing individual aspects, so that digital teaching serves as a supplement to, rather than a complete and equivalent replacement for, face-to-face teaching.

The BuFaK WiWi considers the following to be productive for digital teaching

• • Online courses offering opportunities for interaction between students and lecturers
  • Making full use of digital opportunities, both within and outside of courses (for example, survey tools, group work in breakout sessions, the use of interactive whiteboards, etc.)
  • Standardisation of the range of tools available
  • The option to view the lecturer via camera, particularly when slides are being commented on in a recorded session
  • Easy and consistent access to lecturers and technical support throughout the semester
  • Accessible availability of all materials (e.g. e-books and network drives) from home and throughout the entire semester (without time restrictions)
  • Clear communication of a cross-disciplinary teaching concept and the requirements of a course at the start of the term. In addition, consideration should be given to students who have never experienced the university’s normal face-to-face teaching.
• The uploading of videos and the provision of links to materials, accompanied by clear commentary and the opportunity for communication or to ask questions during live sessions, rather than simply delivering a lecture or providing an audio track for slides.

Basic requirements for successful digital teaching

• • Establishment of robust, university-wide infrastructure (online tools, meeting rooms, lecture tools, general technical equipment)
  • Barrier-free access to all tools, licences, workspaces and learning materials, which are available to students even outside the course times set by lecturers
  • As part of this, every higher education institution should also provide the opportunity to use digital devices (e.g. tablets, laptops, cameras, microphones, etc.) to participate in digital teaching.
  • Adherence to the lecture times communicated in advance. This applies in particular to the punctual provision of materials to accompany lectures.
  • Comparability of requirements – particularly with regard to workload and examination performance – between digital and non-digital teaching.
  • Looking ahead, we, the BuFaK WiWi, advocate the continuation of hybrid teaching to drive forward globalisation within degree programmes. This includes, in particular, the provision and continuous improvement of technical infrastructure. Accordingly, digital media should also be integrated into everyday university life beyond the confines of lectures.
• Digital teaching offers a great opportunity; we therefore call for a continued open-minded approach to new and innovative solutions in the field of digital teaching.

ÄA1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Amendment 5

Amendment

Amendment 6

Amendment

Amendment 7

Amendment

Amendment 8

Amendment

Amendment 9

Amendment

Amendment 10

Amendment

Amendment 13

Amendment

Amendment 14

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (University of Hohenheim) presents PosiPa
• Christophe (Council) submits a proposal to adjourn
• Accepted without objection

Discussion to continue on 20 November 2022

• Amendments 4 and 5 are editorial changes
• Christophe (Council) presents Amendment 10
• Sebastian (University of Bayreuth) proposes including students
• Christophe (Council): Amendment 10 is withdrawn
• Remus (Halle) presents Amendment 2
• Remus (Halle) presents Amendment 3
• Leif (University of Münster) presents ÄA7
• Jan (University of Halle) presents ÄA 6
• Christophe (Rat) presents ÄA8
• Christophe (Council) presents ÄA9
• Thiemo (University of Göttingen) presents ÄA13

Vote: The proposal was carried with 48 in favour, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Rejection of a fixed gender quota in university bodies

• The BuFaK WiWi rejects a universally applicable gender quota.
• A mandatory gender quota in the university’s governing bodies is only appropriate in justified (exceptional) cases. Furthermore, it must demonstrably contribute to improving equal opportunities and Gender equality at the university. Motivation and qualifications are the decisive factors in the selection of committee members. These characteristics are independent of gender.
• The outcomes of gender quotas should be empirically examined through monitoring and, where appropriate, undergo trial phases. In particular, the achievement of pre-set targets, the additional workload involved, and any adverse effects on individuals newly appointed under the quota should be assessed. Such a quota must not discriminate against either gender.
• Furthermore, an overly rigid gender quota does not necessarily reflect the very different gender distributions within German degree programmes.[1] Depending on the gender distribution within the respective degree programme, this could potentially disadvantage one gender. The choice of their representatives should lie solely with the students and should not be compromised by an unfounded gender quota.

Sources:

• [1] https://www-genesis.destatis.de/ Table 21311-0012

Amendment 1

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (University of Hohenheim) presents PosiPa
• Maurice (University of Dresden): phrased very negatively; perhaps a Barcamp?
• Anni-Jasmin (Lübeck) submits a proposal to adjourn
• Remus (University of Halle) objects, calling for further discussion to provide ideas for the Barcamp
• The proposal is withdrawn by Anni-Jasmin (Lübeck)
• Sebastian (Bayreuth): Adjusting the wording so that it suits everyone is not the point of a position paper
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim) Agrees with the previous speaker. It should not be watered down, as this contradicts the fundamental thrust of the position paper.
• Remus (University of Halle) Agrees with Dresden. He actually thinks the headline is fine, but he doesn’t agree with the statement that the wording doesn’t have to suit everyone; everyone in the Faculty of Social Sciences should be able to identify with it
• Lena (University of Bayreuth) The Bavarian Higher Education Act sets out the cascade model; to what extent could this be an idea worth adopting? The cascade model is explained
• Evangelos (University of Bielefeld) asks for constructive suggestions for amendments
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim) concurs with the previous speaker. He thinks it would be useful if specific amendments were formulated:
• Ken (Council) – Proposal to close the list of speakers
• Adopted without objection
• Anselm (Alumni): Position papers should be clear, but they are only a starting point for subsequent discussion with politicians; therefore, care should be taken to use diplomatic language
• Tim (University of Stuttgart): Would like to emphasise that we should all stand behind the positions 100 per cent. Disagrees with this position and believes that the aim is for the majority to support it. Sees the cascade model as discriminatory, as it is based solely on percentages rather than on merit.
• Leif (University of Münster): Input on the content for the Barcamp
• Maurice (Dresden University of Technology) agrees with Anselm
• Robert (LMU) makes a proposal to adjourn the meeting and asks what the need is for such a vague position.
• Objection on procedural grounds
• Vote on the adjournment of the position paper A3 ‘Rejection of a fixed gender quota in university bodies’: The proposal was carried with 41 in favour, 15 against and 8 abstentions

Discussion to continue on 20 November 2022

• Amendments are presented
• Anselm (Alumni): a gender quota forces people to identify with a particular gender
• Timo (Leipzig University of Applied Sciences) – in the position paper, we are discussing bodies, not degree programmes
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): We’re talking about gender quotas, so why use the term ‘proportion of women’?
• Anne (Alumni) recommends withdrawing Amendment 1
• Thiemo (University of Göttingen): Proposal to close the debate
• Adopted without objection
• Simon (University of Cologne) speaks out against the position paper
• Maurice (Dresden University of Technology) would like to draft a new position paper in time for the LeiFaK and reject this one for now
• Anne (Alumni): if it is rejected, we would have nothing on the subject until LeiFaK, and then perhaps nothing will happen and we will have lost our position entirely

Vote: The proposal was not adopted, with 32 in favour, 10 against and 17 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Allocation of module places

• There are various allocation systems for modules at universities. It is possible that students do not actually have a choice, but are instead allocated modules based on a method chosen by the university. Alternatively, the principle of ‘first come, first served’ may apply. This can give rise to a variety of problems. It is common for Master’s programmes to require credits (CP) in a specific subject area. If modules are allocated rather than chosen, it is therefore possible that these credits cannot be earned during the Bachelor’s degree.
• Consequently, in some cases, students who have successfully completed a Bachelor’s degree are unable to enrol on a Master’s programme in a related subject at their own university. Furthermore, such allocation contravenes the principle of freedom of choice of profession, as it can act as a barrier to a student’s future choice of Master’s programme or career. For applicants in particular, the allocation process is not transparent, meaning that upon enrolment they assume they have a free choice between modules.
• Allocation systems must be completely transparent and comprehensible, including for applicants. The aim of universities must be to provide adequate and sufficient places on courses to accommodate students’ choices and to simplify the registration process as much as possible. To achieve this, staff numbers may need to be increased and types of examination adapted. In particular, when a written exam is chosen as the type of examination, the capacity limit is often unclear.
• Where specialisations, concentration areas or modules are offered within a degree programme, these should, as a matter of principle, be accessible to every student.
• Allocation systems that discriminate against students who exceed the standard period of study should not be permitted. Students should have the freedom to study what they choose, rather than what an algorithm assigns to them.
• Furthermore, it should not be permissible for compulsory-elective modules to be withdrawn due to low demand, thereby denying access to students who are interested in these modules.

Amendment 1

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (Council) presents PosiPa
• Alexey (Council) presents Amendment 1

Vote: The proposal was passed with 60 in favour, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

• Enshrining parity in committees within the Higher Education Act
• The fundamental principle of democracy should also be clearly defined and put into practice within higher education bodies.
• For this reason, we call for student representation on all teaching-related higher education bodies. In view of the political realignment taking place in many state parliaments, we consider this demand to be necessary.
• It is good academic practice to engage in reasoned debate about what is right and sensible. Experience shows, for example, that in degree programmes which were planned from the outset with student involvement, coercive measures such as compulsory attendance are not necessary.
• Decisions based purely on majority votes circumvent the need to reach a consensus or to deal productively with irreconcilable differences. The BuFaK WiWi opposes one-quarter parity. One-quarter parity is not a suitable means of giving student concerns greater weight and a wider voice.

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Amendment 5

Amendment

Amendment 6

Amendment

Amendment 7

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (Council) presents PosiPa
• Dennis (Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences) explains the difference between gender parity and parity
• Julius (Alumni) says that the creation of the PosiPa was really about parity
• Chiara (University of Münster) notes that parity is closely linked to gender parity
• Frank (University of Kassel) wishes to point out that the Hessian Higher Education Act contains provisions for codifying electoral lists. Such requirements are not possible without breaching the law.
• Tobi (Council) clarifies that the aim is to ensure equal representation of students on committees
• Robert (University of Cottbus): Clarify ‘quarter parity’ to make it clear that this is definitely not a gender quota 2
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal University of Applied Sciences): If we reject quarter parity, what do we want then?
• Ken (Council) notes that we were unable to agree on a suitable form of parity at the time
• Gerrit (Münster) asks again what we want, as we do not want a quarter-parity system; a one-third or one-half parity is not legally feasible
• Simon (University of Cologne) thinks this would be difficult to implement for all committees; does not understand lines 4 and 5
• Tobi B. (Council) suspects this refers to new parties entering the state parliaments
• Thiemo (University of Göttingen): just because we cannot achieve it, we can still set the demand as high as possible in our policy paper
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim) presents Amendment 2
• Anni-Jasmin (University of Lübeck) presents Amendment 3
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) is still in the process of submitting a more far-reaching amendment and asks whether this should be voted on first
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) presents Amendment 4
• Tobi Lutz (University of Hohenheim) would like the wording to be more meaningful
• Maris (University of Göttingen) agrees and suggests keeping the first sentence to make the wording more meaningful
• Anni-Jasmin (University of Lübeck) believes that the amendment is not wrong, but that the sentence to be deleted should be retained.
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): Keep the sentence in, so reject the amendment, but then accept the second sentence with the amendment
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) withdraws amendment 4 and submits a new amendment
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) presents amendment 5
• Dominik (Technical University of Berlin): Will anything further be done regarding quarter parity?
• Fynn (Council) points out that this policy paper no longer meets our standards. Policy papers can be deferred, revised or rejected.
• Jonas (Rhein-Wahlen): Finds it too vague to endorse
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) proposes to adjourn the meeting rather than present her amendment
• Marisa (University of Göttingen) proposes adjournment
• No objections
• The discussion will continue on 20 November
• Marisa (University of Göttingen): Proposal under the Rules of Procedure to adjourn

   *Adopted without objection 

• Marisa (University of Göttingen) presents an amendment
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal University of Applied Sciences): Are we calling for an amendment to the Basic Law with this?
• Stefan (University of Göttingen): Yes, you’ve got that wrong.
• Marisa (University of Göttingen): It’s still possible; there are already universities with a quarter quota
• Frank (University of Kassel): The ruling dates from the 1970s
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal): I agree with that in principle, too

Vote: The proposal was adopted with 46 in favour, 1 against and 6 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Sustainable Development at German Universities

• In light of the rapid changes to Earth’s systems caused by climate change, alarming biodiversity loss, soil degradation and desertification, water scarcity and pollution, as well as the current global resource scarcity and food insecurity, the Federal Conference of Student Unions in Economic Sciences wishes to advocate for a transition towards sustainability (see WBGU 2011).
• We call for the strategic and operational implementation of sustainability at universities.
• The term ‘sustainability’ is to be understood here as ‘[…] development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.[1] Governance, operational implementation and sustainability-oriented teaching and research are regarded as sub-themes in the field of higher education that must be taken into account in this process.

Governance

• All higher education institutions represented in the Federal Conference of Student and Faculty Representatives call for the establishment of sustainable development at both federal and state levels. This should be operationally implemented and structurally embedded in the form of sustainability strategies, and in particular climate protection strategies. In this way, higher education institutions assume their pioneering role in societal transformation processes and fulfil their obligation, in accordance with Article 20a of the German Basic Law, to champion the well-being of people and the protection of the natural foundations of life. We aim to think and act responsibly, in full accordance with the National Action Plan on Education for Sustainable Development, which was launched by UNESCO in 2015.

Measures:

• In the long term, the aim is to achieve climate neutrality in university operations, including through energy efficiency.
• We, as BuFaK WiWi, call for the promotion of discussion forums on the topic of sustainability at universities.
• The BuFaK WiWi advocates the nationwide introduction of sustainability reporting at universities.

University operations

• In addition, university operations should introduce an environmental management system, expand their sustainable procurement practices, champion a sustainable mobility concept and actively promote health. In this regard, sustainable catering options and green campus design are also desirable, such as a campus garden, which serves as a basis for student health and recreation.

Measures:

• The BuFaK WiWi advocates, in the long term, the introduction of a sustainability and environmental management system at all German universities (ISO 14001 or EMAS). Among other things, this measure serves to increase process efficiency and promote the general conservation of resources.
• Furthermore, as part of a sustainable mobility strategy, the use of public transport or the provision of campus bicycles should be prioritised.
• To prevent food waste, innovative food rescue schemes, such as Foodsaving, should be implemented.
• At the same time, the greatest possible divestment of fixed assets from existing, unethical investments is desirable.[2]

Teaching

• From a pedagogical perspective, students should be enabled to acquire skills rather than merely specialist knowledge, by promoting critical thinking, a diversity of theories and methods, and the creative and practical skills needed to solve future, challenging and complex problems in higher education. We therefore call for the introduction of education for sustainable development into higher education. Incentives to promote high-quality teaching should be put in place to support this.

Measures:

• In the interests of sustainable teaching, we, the BuFaK WiWi, call for examination formats that assess applied knowledge and the ability to reflect, rather than the mere reproduction of knowledge.
• In addition, an appropriately high level of interdisciplinarity is sought as a desirable component of the curriculum.
• Furthermore, creative initiatives to implement a diversity of theories and methods – such as online platforms for collecting lecture concepts, summer schools or project workshops – should be supported.

Source:

• [1] Iglesias, E. et al. 1987: Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, p. 4
• [2] https://gofossilfree.org/de/was-ist-divestment/

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Regular confirmation

• Tobi B (Council) presents PosiPa
• Patrick (LMU Munich) presents ÄA2
• Julia (University of Duisburg) is against removal, as this reporting system is very important for understanding and ensuring sustainable work
• Ken (Council) agrees with Julia. Reports create transparency and do not encourage greenwashing
• Laura (University of Hohenheim) agrees with the previous speakers
• Lisa (LMU Munich) says we should keep them on their toes; sustainability reports are currently being drafted
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim) believes that it is not our place to determine how quickly or to what extent universities implement the guidelines.
• Robert (LMU Munich) presents Amendment 1
• Robert (Cottbus-Senftenberg) presents Amendment 3
• Anni Jasmin (Lübeck) agrees that these are two different aspects of sustainability; she suggests deleting one aspect and resubmitting it at a later date
• Fynn (Council): The term ‘sustainability’ encompasses more than just environmental sustainability. That is why the position paper should remain as it is.
• Anni-Jasmin (University of Lübeck) wishes to correct herself and agrees with Fynn.
• Patrik (Council) Proposals to confirm the present student bodies

Vote: The proposal was passed with 57 in favour, 2 against and 6 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Social responsibility in research at German universities

• The BuFaK WiWi calls on the state governments of all Federal States to retain the civil clause (or ‘peace clause’) in their respective state higher education acts or to incorporate it accordingly.
• The civil clause is a voluntary commitment by academic institutions, such as universities, to conduct research exclusively for civilian purposes. At present, the civil clause is enshrined in the higher education acts and state higher education acts of many Federal States, including Thuringia, Hesse, Brandenburg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Bremen.[1] The aim is to increase this number and, in the long term, extend it to the whole of Germany. The immediate reason for drafting this position paper is the removal of the civil clause by the North Rhine-Westphalia state government from its Higher Education Act.
• The BuFaK WiWi calls on the state governments to provide universities with the necessary framework conditions to enable them to contribute to a just, sustainable, peaceful and democratic world and to fulfil their special responsibility for sustainable development, both internally and externally. These framework conditions include enshrining the social responsibility of universities in law through the introduction or retention of the ‘civil clause’ in state higher education acts.
• Universities must take a stance that helps to shed light on the causes of war, those who profit from it, and misrepresentations. To this end, universities should conduct research into civilian means of conflict resolution. The significance of this is illustrated, for example, by the fact that RWTH Aachen University recently terminated a third-party-funded project involving a feasibility study for a plant to produce military vehicles in Turkey.[2] In doing so, it explicitly emphasised that it had been encouraged in this decision by the peace clause in the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Education Act. The removal of this clause increases the pressure on universities to assist even with inhumane projects. In our view, the aim of granting universities greater freedom through this measure is clearly missed by the removal of the civil clause.

Sources:

• [1] www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklauseln
• [2] www.rwth-aachen.de/cms/root/Die-RWTH/Aktuell/Pressemitteilungen/
• September-2017/~oktv/Statement-by-RWTH-Aachen-on-feasibility/

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Amendment 5

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (Councillor) presents PosiPa
• Tobi B (Councillor) takes over ÄA1
• Maria (Ansbach): Source link incorrect
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal University of Applied Sciences): Also delete “recently” in line 22
• Chiara (University of Münster): many Federal States, but only two examples; this is slightly contradictory
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim): The issue is resolved in the next amendment.
• Anni-Yasmin (University of Lübeck) suggests: “established in the following Federal States” (delete “line” and “among others”)
• Alexey (Council) requests that a further amendment be drafted from this
• Alexey (Council) takes on Amendment 3
• Alexey (Council) Amendment 4 is presented
• Alexey (Council): Amendment 4 is adopted
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim): merely an editorial comment
• Patrick (LMU Munich) opposes the position paper as it would restrict research in various areas

Vote: The proposal was not adopted, with 21 in favour, 14 against and 25 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Ensuring long-term financing for student services organisations by the federal and state governments

• The BuFaK WiWi calls on the federal and state governments to contribute more towards the financing of student services organisations in order to secure their adequate financing and long-term viability.
• Since 1992, state grants for the day-to-day operations of student services organisations in Germany have fallen steadily (see Figure 1). In 2019, state grants – totalling approximately 159.7 million euros – accounted on average for just 8.7 per cent of the total turnover of student services organisations.[1] This contrasts with the share of funding from student contributions, which averaged 19.2% in the 2019/20 winter semester, corresponding to a contribution of €74.50 per student.[2] This average student body contribution rose by 2.3 per cent (+€1.73) in the 2018/19 winter semester compared with the previous year.[3]
• The BuFaK WiWi views these developments with great concern: On the one hand, the absolute amount and the relative increase in the student body contribution are leading to an ever-increasing financial burden on students; on the other hand, the contribution is becoming increasingly important as a source of funding for student services organisations, as public subsidies are increasingly being cut or are not being adjusted to keep pace with price rises.[4] The BuFaK WiWi therefore calls for greater financial involvement from the federal or state governments in the financing of student services organisations and, at the same time, advocates that the share of financing for these organisations derived from student union fees should not exceed 10 per cent.
• Furthermore, the BuFaK WiWi calls for recurring one-off payments from the federal or state governments to clear the backlog of renovation work that has accumulated over the past decades in the student accommodation sector. The renovation costs must not be passed on to all students through an increase in the student body contribution, nor to residents of halls of residence through a rent increase. Recurring one-off payments can prevent structural losses within the student services organisations.
• In 2019, there were only 195,308 halls of residence places for a total of 2,897,300 students, corresponding to a halls of residence occupancy rate of 6.7 per cent.[5] Compared with 2016, this hall of residence occupancy rate has actually fallen from 7.7% to 6.7% in 2019. The BuFaK WiWi is therefore calling for support for the construction of new student accommodation amounting to €40,000 per place from the federal government or the federal states, as has already been established in Bavaria at a rate of €32,000[6], and for affordable, affordable student accommodation, as well as a cap on monthly rents charged by student services organisations.

Sources:

• Figure 1 (Source: Deutsches Studentenwerk (2020): Studentenwerke im Zahlenspiegel 2019/20, Deutsches Studentenwerk, Berlin, p. 27)
• [1] Cf. German Student Services (2017), p. 2
• [2] See ibid., p. 2
• [3] See ibid.
• [4] See ibid., p. 26.
• [5] See Deutsches Studentenwerk (2017), p. 47 ff.
• [6] https://www.freistaat.bayern/dokumente/leistung/024320213283

ÄA1

Amendment

ÄA2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B presents the PosiPa
• Alexey (Council) presents Amendment 3
• Remus (University of Halle) presents Amendment 2
• Domenika (University of Wuppertal) does not understand why the focus should be on ‘work’; she thinks ‘existence’ is a more appropriate term
• Remus (University of Halle) points out that this concerns the existence and work of the student services organisations
• Marcel (University of Trier) asks whether the figures/information are still up to date or whether the situation has deteriorated in recent years
• Nicole (Rhein-Waal University of Applied Sciences) has found more up-to-date figures
• Ken (Council) presents a proposal to adjourn
• No objections

Vote: The proposal was carried with 50 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

The importance of quality reports from system-accredited higher education institutions

Background

• Both the ESG and the MRVO stipulate that accreditation reports, including accreditation decisions, must be published. This explicitly applies to the internal procedures of system-accredited higher education institutions, which must not lag behind programme accreditation in terms of transparency. In its resolution of 17 September 2019, the Accreditation Council drew up and made available further guidance on how system-accredited higher education institutions are to publish their so-called quality reports, and defined the requirements for those quality reports. According to this resolution, from 30 September 2020 at the latest, it will only be possible to enter one’s own degree programme into the accreditation database in conjunction with a quality report. The BuFaK WiWi advocates that these quality reports should now be required of system-accredited higher education institutions and welcomes the Accreditation Council’s decision of 17 September 2019. As some higher education institutions have expressed a desire to change the requirements for quality reports and the substantive added value of these reports has been strongly questioned, this paper aims to set out the students’ position.

Added value of quality reports

• It is a fundamental issue of transparency and comparability between different higher education institutions that system-accredited institutions, too, publish their accreditation reports and decisions in a comprehensible, comprehensive and accessible form. The current situation, in which some system-accredited higher education institutions withhold their accreditation reports from the public entirely, is non-transparent and unacceptable. At present, accreditation reports for programme-accredited degree programmes are made publicly available; these deal transparently with shortcomings, areas for improvement and measures taken. This gives certain system-accredited higher education institutions a perceived advantage, as they do not publish their own areas for improvement within degree programmes. However, in our view, prospective students, current students, employers and the general public are entitled to expect that system-accredited higher education institutions also fulfil their obligation to publish this information. In this regard, minimum criteria for quality reports are crucial to ensure that they provide comparable insights and thus allow for comparability between internally accredited and programme-accredited degree programmes. In our view, this also includes naming the assessors in the quality report, making the final accreditation result available for inspection, and disclosing any dissenting opinions. This does not contradict the diversity of our higher education landscape, but it does lead to clear, fair and equal rules for all higher education institutions. The degree of flexibility within the quality reports can be used as an opportunity to present the degree programme’s own measures and follow-up actions, thereby emphasising the importance of its own quality development. Quality reports can thus serve as a tool for highlighting an institution’s own efforts towards quality improvement and demonstrate to prospective students that, alongside glossy promotional materials, there is also a process of continuous development of the degree programme, whilst highlighting opportunities for them to get involved. In particular, students who have already gained some experience of higher education – for example, by having already obtained a bachelor’s degree at another higher education institution – are specifically looking for certain information. Quality reports can be used as a basis for various purposes and for a range of audiences. Students may wish to read for themselves how, for example, the feasibility of the degree programme, its management of studies or its compatibility with family responsibilities have been reviewed and assessed by independent experts. Furthermore, the quality reports can provide an overview of good practices within the various system-accredited higher education institutions and the diversity of quality assurance systems, and can serve as a basis for a systematic analysis of developments in internal procedures (see (ESG 3.4 Thematic Analysis Standard: Agencies should regularly publish reports that describe and analyse the general findings of their external quality assurance activities)). Against this background, we expect system-accredited higher education institutions to have greater confidence in their own processes and to deal transparently with their own potential for improvement and the corresponding measures. In our view, the publication of such quality reports by system-accredited higher education institutions presents an opportunity to project a positive image to the outside world.

Conclusion

• Accreditation decisions must already be documented in a meaningful manner within all systems. This documentation contributes to continuous quality assurance and further development. In accordance with the Accreditation Council’s resolution of 17 September 2019, the reports must be published and made accessible to all stakeholders.
• In summary, the obligation to publish quality reports and the consistent implementation of the minimum criteria already adopted are essential,
  • because quality reports are an indispensable part of the legitimacy of the accreditation decision,
  • because transparency is the foundation of any good and functioning QM system,
  • because they enable comparability between higher education institutions, degree programmes and QMS systems,
  • because a binding legal basis for documentation already exists.”

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Tobi B (Council) presents PosiPa
• Tobi Lutz (University of Hohenheim) – Amendment 1 is likely editorial

Vote: The proposal was passed with 54 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

Effectively promoting student mobility

• The BuFaK WiWi is committed to the active and effective promotion of mobility for all students. This includes, above all, student-friendly semester public transport passes based on the solidarity model, as well as cycle-friendly infrastructure and international mobility. Mobility is an important part of the learning process and of experiencing university life as a phase of one’s life, and all students should be able to choose their preferred means of travel. The Federal Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, together with the transport associations, should ensure that this mobility is accessible to students.
• Currently, for example, 12 of the Federal States offer state-wide semester public transport passes. In referendums on extending the semester public transport passes, there is consistently clear support from students. In Schleswig-Holstein, Baden-Württemberg, Saxony-Anhalt and Bavaria, the fight to introduce such a scheme is still ongoing. At some university locations last year, 95 per cent voted in favour of retaining the semester public transport pass despite a 30 per cent price increase. This clearly demonstrates how important mobility is for young adults, and the freedom of choice of where to live that it provides. It also lowers the barrier to focusing entirely on the subjects on offer when choosing a place to study, rather than neglecting the cost of travelling home.
• Students should see many parts of the country in order to broaden their cultural and geographical horizons. To make this possible for all students, regardless of their financial means, a nationwide semester public transport pass is essential.
• Furthermore, a semester public transport pass would shift travel from cars and aeroplanes to rail. This not only benefits the environment but also improves capacity utilisation, thereby enabling a denser rail network. The sooner society begins to travel by rail, the more likely it is to reap lifelong benefits. Consequently, this means that the long-term benefits for the environment and society are likely to be substantial if this reduces the long-term burden on federal roads. The savings and economic gains can thus be channelled directly into the federal government’s support and subsidisation of the ticket, where they can be invested wisely.
• Consequently, the prices of regional tickets must fall drastically, and Deutsche Bahn must provide support to the regions in line with their specific needs. Prices must be set for users differently from those of a Bahncard 100, as the frequency of use is significantly lower. The solidarity ticket scheme must be available nationwide to all student unions; however, each student union must and can decide for itself whether or not to adopt the scheme in its entirety. The solidarity contribution will be suspended during stays abroad, as affordability for students cannot be guaranteed and the opportunity to use the ticket no longer exists.
• The BuFaK WiWi therefore calls on those responsible to commence negotiations on a nationwide semester public transport pass and urges the other federal conferences and comparable associations representing student interests to endorse this paper.

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Routine confirmation

• Moritz (Councillor) – Proposal under the Rules of Procedure to adjourn
• Moritz (Council) presents a general amendment
• Fynn (University of Leipzig): Why are we sticking with 49 euros?
• Moritz (University of Darmstadt): For want of alternatives
• Tobi L. (Hohenheim) speaks out against 29, as this would render the position paper as a whole more or less null and void
• Leif (Münster): Would like to delete the paragraph on shower facilities
• Maria (Ansbach): Among other things, this concerns the certification that goes hand in hand with it and leads to funding

Vote: The proposal was adopted with 47 in favour, 3 against and 3 abstentions.

FS WiSo, University of Hohenheim

The broadcasting licence fee, as introduced in 2013, is intended to guarantee the financing of public service broadcasters. More than 8.4 billion euros (2021) are collected from all citizens living in their own homes, regardless of their viewing habits [1]. In addition, businesses contribute to the total revenue from the licence fee, depending on their size. This right to adequate financing has been clearly established under constitutional law, at the latest since the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling of 2021 [2]. However, criticism of the scale of the funds used by public service broadcasting and their allocation to all citizens remains. From the BuFaK Wiwi’s perspective, independent and critical journalism is indispensable for a healthy democracy. In this regard, public service broadcasting can, in particular, promote independent political opinion-forming and discourse on current political and social issues. From the BuFaK Wiwi’s perspective, the role of public service broadcasting therefore lies exclusively in the areas of culture, general news, political education and reporting on regional issues. The BuFaK Wiwi therefore believes that the financing of purely entertainment-based programmes is not the role of public service broadcasting. Only then is a solidarity-based model, to which all citizens contribute, justified. Furthermore, the BuFaK Wiwi opposes a flat-rate licence fee for all citizens. For students in particular, the current practice represents a significant monthly financial burden that is disproportionate to the services provided, especially for young people. The BuFaK Wiwi therefore calls for the licence fee to be waived in principle for all enrolled students, as well as for an income-based licence fee for all those in employment. This approach is consistent with the exemption from the licence fee granted to other financially disadvantaged groups, such as those receiving Bafög or those eligible for Hartz IV benefits. Exempting all students would reduce the basic financial burden on this important section of society and rectify existing injustices, such as the exemption granted to shared flats in which at least one person is entitled to BAFöG benefits. Source: [1]: Annual Report 2021 (rundfunkbeitrag.de) [2]: Federal Constitutional Court – Press – Successful constitutional complaints regarding the First State Treaty on Media Reform

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

  Lines 20 to 21: 

Amendment 4

Amendment

Amendment 5

Amendment

Amendment 6

Amendment

Spoken

• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim) presents the position paper
• Leif (University of Münster) asks why public service broadcasting should not fund entertainment programmes?
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): The core remit of broadcasting is journalism, not entertainment
• Leif (University of Münster) does not agree that entertainment programmes should be excluded. The programme needs to be revised
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): TV series are welcome to be produced by private organisations and do not need to be funded with public money
• Tobi B. (Council): This refers specifically to pure entertainment, not a mixed programme combining entertainment and information
• (University of Bremen): Agrees with Tobi. Under certain circumstances, the level of funding for entertainment programmes could also be adjusted.
• Anni Jasmin (Lübeck) notes that the main issue is which parts of the public service broadcaster’s remit are actually being fulfilled
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim): It is precisely programmes on YouTube that provide entertaining information; we’re thinking of series such as *Traumschiff* and the like.
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal University of Applied Sciences): Broadcasting isn’t just for our age group. For older people, for example, *Traumschiff* is considered part of their cultural heritage
• Robert (LMU): Why it is necessary for us to discuss the content of public service broadcasting lies outside our remit and our remit
• Maurice (TU Dresden): It’s short-sighted to advocate removing certain programmes from the schedule. We should focus on the demand for a reduced licence fee for students
• Partik (Council) Calls for its removal, as it concerns general politics/opinion and is therefore none of our business
• Nils (Bremen) Distinguishes between different forms of entertainment
• (LMU) Culture is not our core focus, but certain entertainment formats should not be funded through the licence fee
• UZK: Agrees with the proposal to delete the second paragraph.
• Patrik (Council) tables a proposal to adjourn
• Jules (University of Dresden): Objects, as the wording on this point is not decisive
• Ken (Council): Supports Julius’s objection.
• Patrik (Council) withdraws the procedural proposal
• Ken (Council): Submits a proposal to close the list of speakers.
• Anni-Yasmin (University of Lübeck): Requests a discussion on the content of material produced using public funds
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim) Emphasises once again that the core of the position paper is not the subject of entertainment, but the programme and its composition
• Timm (University of Stuttgart) points out once again that the issue is not about explicit entertainment content, but about entertainment as a component of public service broadcasting
• Domenik (Technical University of Berlin): is critical of the final paragraph concerning the exemption for BAföG recipients. If people live at home and receive BAföG, is the whole family then exempt?
• Domenic (Paderborn): The aim is to exempt students, and for them, some programmes are less relevant or irrelevant. That is why this point should remain in the position paper.
• James (Dresden): Proposes splitting the position paper into two.
• Remus (University of Halle) disagrees with Julius’s assertion that the wording in that section is not insignificant.
• Dominik (LMU Munich) refers to his earlier remarks
• Ken (Council) GO proposal to adjourn
• (Bielefeld) Counter-argument: please seek a gauge of opinion
• Point of order proposal accepted
• Timm (Stuttgart) presents Amendment 4
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim): At the Barcamp, the focus was interpreted as being more on financing
• Robert (LMU Munich): ‘Culture’ seems to have been left out
• Tobi L. (Hohenheim): No
• Rudi (Bielefeld) presents Amendment 1
• Tobi L. (Hohenheim) notes that precisely what had been deliberately removed shortly beforehand is now being reintroduced
• (LMU) presents Amendment 3; has spoken to the Students’ Union, hence this amendment
• Tobi (University of Hohenheim): We removed that sentence with our amendments because it raised too many questions. Should Amendment 3 perhaps be withdrawn so that the sentence remains out?
• Leif (Münster): Why was ‘unemployment benefit’ changed to ‘Hartz 4’?
• Sebastion (Bayreuth) asks for a more detailed explanation of the amendment
• (LMU) withdraws Amendment 3
• Daniel (Dortmund Technical University) presents amendment 2
• Tobi L. (Hohenheim): The justification is missing, as the sentence is no longer included in the position paper
• Daniel, TU Dortmund, withdraws Amendment 2
• Leif (Münster): Presents Amendment 5
• Thiemo (University of Göttingen) proposes treating the amendments as if the far-reaching ones did not exist
• Sebastian (Bayreuth): To whom does this refer?
• Tim (University of Stuttgart): In shared flats where only one person receives BAföG, the whole flat should be eligible for exemption
• Maurice (Dresden): Incorrect
• Sebastian (Bayreuth): It is not permitted for an entire flat to be exempted if only one resident receives BAföG
• Jacob (University of Göttingen): A flat separated by a door pays a contribution
• Toni (Halle): This applies to partnerships
• Marisa (University of Göttingen): Proposal to adjourn
• Tobi L. (Hohenheim): The discussion does not relate to the core of the Posipas proposal, so a postponement is not appropriate
• The proposal under the Rules of Procedure is withdrawn
• Domenic (TU Berlin): presents Amendment 6
• Sebastian (Bayreuth): What injustice are we talking about?
• Tobi L (Hohenheim): The injustice relates to the shared accommodation situation
• Patrick (Council): Proposal to close the list of speakers
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): This is about financial relief and a solution that can be implemented quickly for the students. This should be borne in mind during the vote. We’re getting bogged down in trivialities
• Sebastian (Bayreuth): Nevertheless, it’s about the text as a whole

Vote: The proposal was passed with 45 in favour, 2 against and 5 abstentions.

Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim

The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis with sharply rising prices, are placing an increasing financial burden on all citizens. Particularly amongst students, who are generally in a weaker financial position than other sections of society, current developments are causing enormous financial strain. To provide relief for students, the Federal Government approved the Heating Cost Allowance I (Relief Package I) in June 2022, amounting to a one-off lump sum of €230. All students receiving BAföG who no longer live in their parents’ home, as well as those receiving Aufstiegs-BAföG or housing benefit, are eligible for this. The payment was made in September 2022. Another relief measure, from which some students have benefited, is the energy allowance paid out in September 2022. All students in employment received a one-off energy allowance of €300. The German Federal Government will continue to support students with further relief measures in the future. The second heating cost subsidy (Relief Package III), amounting to a one-off lump sum of €345, was approved in October 2022. Those eligible are, once again, those who already met the criteria for the first heating cost subsidy. The Federal Government had planned to pay out this subsidy before the end of this year. According to media reports, payment can be expected in January 2023 or February 2023 at the earliest. Furthermore, under the third relief package, all students will be treated equally for the first time and are set to receive a one-off payment of €200. According to the Federal Government, this payment is to be made quickly and without red tape. However, it remains unclear as to when and how this lump sum is to be paid out. A swift payout should therefore be viewed with scepticism. The measures implemented so far support only those who receive BAFöG or similar benefits from the federal government. However, from the BuFaK Wiwi’s perspective, supporting this small group of students – compared to the student body as a whole – is insufficient to prevent students from facing precarious financial situations and the resulting dropouts. On the one hand, only around 11 per cent of students in Germany receive BAFöG benefits, though this does not mean that students not receiving BAFöG are not in need. Secondly, families whose income has not previously fallen below the BAFöG threshold are being affected by rising inflation and, looking ahead, by short-time working, redundancies and other consequences of the emerging economic crisis. This inevitably puts pressure on the financial support provided by parents. Furthermore, there are fears that rising energy and raw material prices could lead to increases in rents – particularly in previously affordable student halls of residence – as well as in canteen meals and, more generally, in semester fees. As around 80 per cent of students visit their student union’s canteen at least three times a week, cost increases in these areas can quickly lead to a significant additional financial burden [1]. According to Matthias Anbuhl, Secretary-General of the DSW, canteen prices have already been increased by 10–20 per cent at many locations [2]. To prevent further price rises, the resulting risk of students dropping out due to financial difficulties, and the emergence of further psychosocial problems amongst students, the Federal Government must urgently take effective measures that apply to all students. The BuFaK WiWi therefore calls for: Gender equality in financial relief for all groups of people on low incomes. The immediate structural reform of the BAFöG in line with the three-pillar model proposed by the BuFaK WiWi, in order to grant significantly more students sustainable access to financial support from the Federal Government.- Federal government involvement in the financing of student services organisations, e.g. through subsidies for canteen meals, financial assistance with the purchase of building plots, the construction of new student halls of residence and their energy-efficiency refurbishment, in order to keep the prices of, and contributions to, student services organisations stable. A federal funding programme for all higher education institutions to offset the additional energy costs incurred by these institutions, thereby preventing any increase in semester fees. The prompt establishment of a nationwide register of all students to facilitate the processing of direct payments, as well as the disbursement of the agreed €200 to all students before the end of 2022. The payment of heating allowances 1 and 2 to all students who do not live at home. Sources: [1] Canteen & Co.

[2] Winter semester begins – canteen meals more expensive at many universities (rnd.de)

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

Amendment 3

Amendment

Amendment 4

Amendment

Oral

• Tobi Burg presents the position paper
• Rudi (Bielefeld) presents Amendment 1
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim) approves of Amendment A1. However, it became clear at the Barcamp that the phrase “war on European soil” is truly problematic
• Jonas (Rhein Waal) says the last sentence also needs to be revised grammatically
• Amendment 1 is withdrawn and resubmitted
• Ruffi (Bielefeld) presents Amendment 2
• Tobi L (University of Hohenheim): The wording in line 40 is too vague; instead of “could”, it should be “this”
• Amendment ÄA2 is adopted as proposed by the proposer
• Amendment ÄA3 is accepted by the proposer
• Amendment ÄA4 is accepted by the proposer

Vote: The proposal was adopted with 59 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

Lena Härtl, Sebastian Schröter, Hannes Koch (Student Body RW – University of Bayreuth)

• At present, pseudonymisation of exams is rarely carried out at German universities and institutions

pseudonymisation of written exams.

• We consider general pseudonymisation (for the legal definition, see: Section 3

(6a) of the BSDG (previous version)[1]; Art. 4(5) of the GDPR[2]) to be necessary and feasible. In our view, complete anonymisation is neither necessary nor possible or legal. We therefore believe that the following arguments support pseudonymisation:

• Protection of examinees’ personal data

The University of Bayreuth, for example, is a small, close-knit campus, and within our School, students and student representatives engage in lively personal interaction with lecturers. Many other small universities in Germany are in a similar situation. Particularly in smaller degree programmes, it is often the case that students and markers know each other personally by name. This is not out of the question even in large degree programmes, for example when mid-level academic staff and students in higher semesters know one another privately (or through working as student assistants at a chair). We know that today’s fellow students are tomorrow’s examiners. For students, this can create a stressful situation. For example, when an exam is marked by someone they know who may have high (or even low) expectations.

• Protection against conscious or unconscious discrimination

A person’s name could allow supposed inferences to be drawn about their background, gender identity, social status or even age. Studies suggest that, amongst others, people with a migrant background or women are marked more harshly in examinations.[3] Ultimately, pseudonymisation brings benefits for both students and chairs. Chairs would thus not be exposed to accusations of individual discrimination, and students could be confident that their assessment is carried out independently of societal and personal prejudices.

• Avoiding disputes regarding examination regulations

Allegations of bias in exam appeals can generally be ruled out through pseudonymisation. This also protects chairs and markers from claims of favouritism or discrimination against students, as the identity of the candidate remains unknown. For example, in the supervised written examinations for the first law degree examination, pseudonymisation is not only standard practice; indeed, an examination is deemed to have been failed if a candidate makes comments that allow conclusions to be drawn about their identity (Appendix 1 No. 3 First State Law Examination – Guidelines for the Conduct of the Examination). At other universities, pseudonymisation is already standard practice (e.g. in Passau and Bonn). In our view, it is sufficient for students to state only their student ID number and degree programme on written exams. If one wishes to avoid system errors in individual cases (transposed digits, etc.), a combination of student ID number and seat number can ensure this. Sources: [1] Pseudonymisation is the replacement of a name and other identifying characteristics with a code for the purpose of preventing or significantly hindering the identification of the data subject. [2]‘Pseudonymisation’ means the processing of personal data in such a way that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that this additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures that ensure the personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person. [3]Towfig, Emanuel V. / Traxler, Christian / Glöckner, Andreas, ‘Gender and Ethnicity Effects in the Marking of State Law Examinations’, ZDRW 2018, 115 ff.; Towfig, Emanuel V. / Traxler, Christian / Glöckner, Andreas, ‘On Marking in Exam Preparation and in the First Examination’, ZDRW 2014, 8 ff.

Amendment 1

Amendment

Amendment 2

Amendment

ÄA3

Amendment

See text of the motion

• Lena (University of Bayreuth) presents a position paper
• Efin (Bielefeld) is critical of the inclusion of details such as student ID number, number of semesters and number of attempts on data protection grounds
• Sebastian (Freiwald): Irrelevant under data protection law
• Thiemo (Göttingen): Add examples, e.g. from Göttingen
• Jonas (Rhein-Waal) A similar sentence is already included. We could add other universities here to make the whole thing shorter.
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim) presents Amendment 1
• Sebastian (Freiwald) requests a more explicit explanation of the amendment
• Tobi L. (University of Hohenheim): Delete two sentences; this is not an editorial change. We consider the wording to be highly problematic
• (Münster) Don’t we want to leave that in, as it does come up in practice
• Timo (RTWH Leipzig) agrees with the amendment; we’re attributing this to the professors
• Domenic (LMU Munich) speaks in favour of the source
• Thiemo (University of Göttingen) presents Amendment 3
• Sebastian (Bayreuth) – the proposer adopts Amendment 3
• Julia (Duisburg) presents amendment 2
• Sebastian (Bayreuth), the proposer, adopts Amendment 2

Vote: The proposal was carried with 44 in favour, 0 against and 5 abstentions.

BuFaK Council

The Federal Conference of Student and Faculty Representatives shall dissolve the Networking Working Group.

In accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Section 8 of our university charter, we are putting the dissolution of the Networking Working Group up for debate. The group appears to have been inactive for some time, and the task of long-term networking can be ensured through supporting membership of the BuFaK WiWi Friends’ Association.

No discussion.

Vote: The proposal was carried with Yes: XX, No: XX, Abstentions: 5.

Lisa Weimer (University of Göttingen)

Dear BuFaKis, A brief introduction: I am currently studying for a Bachelor’s degree in Business Education in Göttingen and am 23 years old. I have been active in the WiWi Gö student body since 2017. I have already gained a fair amount of experience within the student body and, for example, served on the FSR for three years (one year each as deputy spokesperson, spokesperson and networking officer). Most recently, as part of the organising committee, I had the privilege of organising the Summer BuFaK 22 in Göttingen. I have been a member of the BuFaK Council since the Summer BuFaK in Hohenheim 21. I was a co-opted member for one year and, since Göttingen, I have been elected to the Council as an administrator. Thanks to my long-standing involvement, I’ve been able to familiarise myself with the Council’s structures and gain a good understanding of the spokesperson’s responsibilities. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. :) I’d be delighted to have your votes!

Election as spokesperson

• Lisa introduces herself

Vote: The proposal was carried with 53 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.

Moritz Richter (Darmstadt)

Hi Bufakis, my name is Moritz and I’d like to apply for the vacant admin role on the Council. I’m 23 years old and am currently in my second semester of a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering at TU Darmstadt. I have been active in the student body in Darmstadt since 2018 and have gained a fair amount of experience during this time. Since the start of this year, I have been serving as a co-opted member of the Council. During this time, I have gained a good overview of the Council’s responsibilities and would now like to play an even more active role in its work. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Otherwise, I would be delighted to receive your votes :)

Election as an administrator on the BuFaK Council

• Moritz introduces himself
• Lisa (Alumni): Will you still have time to programme our app?

Moritz: That’s no problem at all

Vote: The proposal was (not) passed with Yes: XX, No: XX, Abstentions: XX.

Stina Mitsche (University of Oldenburg)

Hello dear BuFaK family, my name is Stina, I am 25 years old, I am in my first semester of a Master’s degree in Economics and Law, and I have been a co-opted member of the Council for a year. Here, I am mainly active in the politics team. Our aim is to represent our positions to the outside world and to champion our students’ interests. It is also very important to me that everyone feels comfortable and safe at the conferences, which is why I am deeply committed to this issue. The work on the Council and the experience gained through it are a real source of enrichment for me, which is why I would like to stand for election as a member. P.S. I hope you all had a great conference and are at least as knackered as we are. Best wishes, Stina

Election as an additional member of the BuFaK Council

• Stina introduces herself
• Daniel (TU Dortmund): What’s your favourite dinosaur?
• Stina: T-Rex

Vote: The proposal was carried with 53 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

Konstantin Schultewolter

• Hello,
• I was involved in accreditation at the University of Cologne and subsequently completed the accreditation seminar. I hereby request to be added to the pool.
• Kind regards
• Age:
• 23
• Student Body / FSR:
• University of Cologne, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Student Body
• Place of study:
• Cologne

Oral

No questions

Vote: The proposal was carried with 48 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

Pascal von der Linde

• Hello everyone,
• I’m interested in accreditation as my own university is currently undergoing the system accreditation process. Having attended the accreditation workshops at the last BuFaK and completed the training seminar over the summer, I’d now like to stand for election to the student pool.
• Best regards
• Pascal
• Age:
• 23
• Student Body / FSR:
• Economics and Social Sciences Student Body
• Place of study:
• University of Cologne

Oral

• Pascal introduces himself

Vote: The proposal was passed with 50 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

Jendrik Ehlers

• Hi,
• I’m Jendrik and I’ve been the 1st Faculty Councillor at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (WiSo) in Cologne for about a year.
• Since the start of my term of office, the UzK’s ongoing system accreditation process has been a major issue; accordingly, I enrolled on the programme accreditation seminar in July so that I can gain experience in this area next year.
• Ultimately, the aim is to support other universities with their system accreditation as a student assessor.
• Age:
• 20
• Student Body / FSR:
• Economics and Social Sciences Student Body, University of Cologne
• Place of study:
• Cologne

Oral

No questions

Vote: The proposal was carried with 50 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

Fynn Hug (FSR WiWi, University of Leipzig)

I attended the system accreditation seminar and would like to be seconded to the system accreditation pool so that I can carry out a system accreditation there. In doing so, I hope to gain more experience, which I can then bring to the BuFaK and use to provide expert support to students.

Verbal

• Fynn introduces himself

Vote: The proposal was carried with 51 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

Tobias Jansen (WiSo Students’ Union)

Dear Bufak Council, I would like to be nominated to join the student accreditation pool for the following reason. Having taken part in a programme accreditation as a student assessor in May, I would like to do so again. However, due to scheduling and personal commitments, I have not yet been able to attend an official accreditation seminar, though I plan to do so in the near future. Best regards, Tobias

Verbal

• Tobias introduces himself.

Vote: The proposal was passed with 51 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

Juliane Patry (currently none)

Dear Plenary of the BuFaK Wiwi, my name is Juliane Patry and I am requesting your nomination as a supporting organisation in the student programme and system accreditation pool. I began my studies in Administrative Sciences between 2011 and 2015, and through my work with the student union, I also participated on several occasions in the Federal Conference of Student and Faculty Representatives (then known as WiSO). I was also able to serve on the BuFak Council and help shape many exciting changes in higher education policy. I have already assessed around 15 programme accreditation procedures. When I decided to resume my studies at the IU this year (three months after the birth of my first son), I contacted the pool to enquire whether there was a need for my services and under what conditions I could rejoin. Consequently (as agreed), I have now attended a programme accreditation seminar from 28–30 October 2022 as a refresher course and, last weekend (12–13 November 2022), a system accreditation seminar. For these reasons, and to ensure completeness and my proper reinstatement in the pool, I request that the BuFak plenary in Oldenburg re-appoint me. Many thanks – should you have any queries, you can contact me using my usual contact details. Wishing you all a wonderful BuFak! Best regards, Juliane Patry

Oral

• Fynn introduces Juliane.
• Elisa (Alumni): Juliane served on the Council for a year, including in the area of accreditation, and I can highly recommend her.

Vote: The proposal was passed with 53 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

Susann Nicolai (LAG Hamburg)

Hello, members of the BuFaK Wiwi plenary session, my name is Susann Nicolai; I am a third-semester student studying business law at the HFH (Hamburger-Fern-Hochschule). I completed my Bachelor’s degree at Wismar University of Applied Sciences. Before starting my degree, I completed an apprenticeship as a social security clerk and further education to become a specialist in social and health care. I am also a certified trainer. It took a while before I was able to pursue my passion for studying, as I embarked on a traditional career path in public administration before starting my degree. Even now, alongside my studies, I am employed by a statutory health insurance fund and also work as a research assistant at Saarbrücken University in the field of white-collar crime. In my previous role as a student assistant, I also had the opportunity to get a taste of university politics and gain some experience. In my private life, I am married, a mother of two young girls, and also look after family members within my household. On the last weekend in October, I attended a fantastic seminar organised by the student accreditation pool on the implementation of programme accreditation and was immediately ‘hooked’ on the subject. I would very much like to work towards improving degree programmes, contribute the experience I have gained so far, and play a part in accreditation processes. To this end, I am applying to be appointed to the student pool. If you have any questions, you can reach me on 01743777909. Kind regards, Susann Nicolai

See text of the application

• Fynn introduces Susanne.

Vote: The proposal was carried with 50 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.