Recent news reports have revealed that the state plans to start charging vocational education students tuition fees and that universities claim microdegrees do little to address the financial challenges they face. To clarify, in the case of vocational education, this policy will only affect those who obtained their vocational diploma less than five years ago or their higher education diploma less than ten years ago.

What do these messages actually convey?

Vocational and hobby education

Let's start with vocational education. In recent years, the state has made significant investments in vocational education. I've visited vocational education centers equipped with more advanced and expensive presentation technology than what you might find in universities. Some vocational schools and programs are highly competitive, and their graduates have no trouble finding jobs in the labor market.

However, there are also fields where a flashy name conceals an old and traditional discipline, where after graduation, the pay is low and job opportunities are scarce. The teaching staff is aging, and the overall reputation of vocational education isn't particularly good, although recent years have seen clear improvements.

So, why would we introduce fees in such a situation? It's a clear signal that we are moving toward a new paradigm, one that embraces the idea that "there's no such thing as a free lunch," and that tuition fees might motivate people to work harder.

In vocational education, new fields have emerged, such as horticulture, handicrafts, guiding and tailoring, which attract people who have already obtained higher education and established themselves in the job market. They pursue these studies for personal development, not to start a new career. This can be termed as "hobby education." The key question is whether hobby education should be free. The current decision is that it should not be, and this marks the first step toward making vocational education paid.

Higher education and microdegrees

Next, let's take a look at higher education. Although it is officially supposed to be free in Estonia, the reality has been different for quite some time. The introduction of paid education initially came through the recruitment of international students. However, due to geopolitical shifts, this market has cooled down, and there is no longer a significant influx of international students.

Since the COVID-19 crisis, the number of international students has decreased by about a thousand, with a little over 4,000 currently studying in Estonia. At one point, students from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine made up nearly a third of international students (at least at the University of Tartu), but for understandable reasons, their numbers have dwindled.

Universities have found another way to generate additional revenue by offering microdegrees. These short courses provide specific competencies in a narrower field and typically cover 15-20 ECTS credits. In simpler terms, this means that students need to acquire the necessary credits within about a year, often while juggling other work commitments.

Thirdly, open universities have started charging fees for master's and bachelor's programs, particularly in fields with high demand, such as economics and law.

If we look at the numbers, during the 2023/2024 academic year, according to the Haridussilm database, there were 44,610 students in Estonia. Of these, 7,252 students, or 16 percent, paid for their studies out of pocket.

The breakdown by field painted quite a diverse picture. For example, in business, law and administration, 43 percent of students (3,472) paid for their studies. In the ICT field, 23 percent of students paid for their education, while in agriculture, 20 percent did so. In natural sciences, 17 percent of students funded their studies themselves.

In light of these figures, we can no longer speak of free higher education, and I'm not sure we should. Data and studies show that the goals set in 2013 – to reduce dropout rates, improve access to education and increase commitment to studies so that students wouldn't have to work as much – have largely gone unmet.

Returning to microdegrees, I personally believe that they are the future. Traditional professions that require specific qualifications and a thorough education will continue to exist, such as doctors who need to study for at least six years (and 10-11 years to become a specialist), judges or engineers, who require five years of continuous education. There are quite a few professions where acquiring the necessary competence requires at least five years of dedicated study.

However, there are fields where a shorter period of study is sufficient. For example, the debate over teacher education – whether five years are necessary or whether a three-year bachelor's degree supplemented with a master's in teaching skills is enough – will likely never end. Similarly, it's questionable whether one needs a bachelor's degree to become a journalist or if a two-year master's degree would suffice. For instance, an aspiring economic journalist might benefit from studying economics first to better understand the topics they'll write about later. These debates will continue.

There are many fields where a five-year education isn't necessary. In marketing, for example, three years may be enough to acquire basic knowledge. The direction one takes afterward is a matter of choice – whether to continue with psychology, IT or another field, especially as artificial intelligence increasingly takes over complex and creative jobs.

The job market is constantly evolving: new professions emerge and old ones disappear. The notion of working in the same job from graduation until retirement is now rare.

As a result, people need to continuously learn and upgrade their skills. Microdegrees are an ideal solution in this regard, showing how individuals who already have a higher education can enhance their knowledge with more specialized competencies.

As the dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, I initiated efforts to enable the University of Tartu to offer a comprehensive master's degree in social sciences by combining microdegrees. The idea is that if a person acquires four to five microdegrees along with an integrative module, they can earn a master's degree. This approach essentially allows students to "build their own" curriculum.

I'm not sure how far this initiative has progressed by now, but I believe this could represent the future of master's degrees in many fields. By studying a bit of this and a bit of that, students can become more competitive in the job market than someone with a very narrow specialization. However, as mentioned earlier, this approach excludes professions that require specific qualifications and individuals planning an academic career.

Returning to the original topic, university representatives argue that microdegrees don't solve the funding problems faced by universities. These arguments may be somewhat exaggerated, for instance, by highlighting the additional costs associated with implementing a microdegree system. In most cases, microdegree students are integrated with those already enrolled in degree programs, so significant additional costs aren't incurred – though these are more technical details.

I understand the concerns of university representatives, as the growth of paid education increases the risk that the state might reduce its funding for teaching, seeing that universities can generate revenue on their own. For example, in 2023, revenue from paid education at the University of Tartu amounted to 10 percent of the state-provided education funds, and this proportion has been gradually increasing.

Meanwhile, the dynamics of student numbers indicate that paid higher education is here to stay, especially in fields with higher demand. Essentially, we are moving back to a financing scheme that was in place before 2013. At that time, about 80 percent of students in the social sciences paid for their studies themselves.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!