Error message

Notice: Only variables should be passed by reference in hyy_utils_i18n_translate_path() (line 193 of /biz/1/hyy/git/drupal/modules/hyy_utils/hyy_utils.module).×

HYY has chosen BA Jenna Sorjonen as coordinator for the recruiting of student representatives in autumn 2017. Jenna has worked in the university administration and has held various positions of responsibility both at the university and in the Student Union. Jenna has also been a student representative herself and a member of the Representative Council of the Student Union since 2014.

The coordinator will prepare and see to the recruitment process of the student representatives in the university administration during the coming autumn. Representatives will be recruited for faculty councils, the university collegium and the board of the university. Jenna’s tasks will include overall admin for the recruitment committees, seeing to all administrative aspects of the application process, and working as the secretary of the committees.

“Influencing at the university has been long-standing passion of mine and it’s great to get the chance to oversee the recruitment of new active representatives. This is the first time the election of representatives will be done through a straightforward recruitment process instead of elections, and making this process as seamless and efficient as possible tickles the fancy of this student activist veteran. We need motivated students as decision makers at the university!”

Jenna will begin at the job 14 August.

SuomiAreena, the summer event for societal discussion and the favourite festival of politics nerds, does not have education as a special theme this time. However, SuomiAreena does feature more discussion panels related to general knowledge, education and science than can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

What sort of picture do they sketch for the future of the higher education field?

Akava’s forebodingly named panel ‘Did general knowledge die out’ dealt with the role of higher education as a distributor of social equality, wealth and general knowledge. Education clearly protects and benefits individuals both now and in the future. Sipilä’s Government’s one degree policy was criticised by Professor of Sociology Juho Saari from the University of Tampere, who emphasised the importance of being able to easily change one’s field of study. Quotas for first-time applicants in student admissions and insufficient student financial aid may create a situation in which incorrect choices made at the age of 18 result in life-long burdens for students.

The panellists had differing opinions on the extent to which so called high-status fields, that is, professions such as medicine and law, run in the same families. Akava’s president, Sture Fjäder, told the audience how he – the son of a carpenter – could have a higher education and a good life because of free education. ‘All talk about having education be subject to charge should be stopped, because it takes us towards the wrong direction’, Fjäder unambiguously declared. Akava has not been known as a supporter of tuition fees even before this, but Fjäder has previously rarely been heard using as strong language as this for free education.

The discussion panel of the University of Helsinki, ‘What good is science’ approached the question posed in its title from many perspectives. Science is present in our everyday life in the form of easily digestible rye bread, for instance. It helps us spot bombs with particle detectors and builds bridges between the parties of conflicts. At the same time, it also reflects on what sort of ethics should be programmed into unmanned combat drones and other machines used in killing people. Research-based teaching also brings up our future experts. It is self-evident that this happens at the University, but one rarely stops to think that Finnish kindergartens and early childhood education are also products of science.

Ideally, basic research benefits everyone, but researchers also have the moral responsibility to consider the practical implications of their research results and to participate in societal discussion on their own field if needed. Researchers and politicians are jointly responsible for the decisions which are made to truly reflect researched information. Politicians’ work begins where researchers’ work ends, as former researcher and current member of parliament Pilvi Torsti aptly put it. Currently, the situation regarding the matter is far from ideal.

If Finland really wants to become the world’s best-educated society, we must not only secure funding for higher education, but also overcome obstacles outside the actual education institution. The panel of Akava Special Branches highlighted some worrisome developments concerning the significance of the library system. Young boys have dropped out from among library users, particularly in sparsely populated areas. At best, libraries can act as paragons of researched information in a world of fake news, and regularly using their services provides good preparation for a future career at the University. For this reason, libraries must find a way to reform themselves, so that they will attract young boys, too – without driving away other genders. Fortunately, the entire picture is not yet all that alarming: Researcher Jukka Relander states that despite smart devices, one-and-a-half times more books are currently read in Finland than in the 1980s.

The format is, of course, not the primary issue – electronic books contain the same information as paper versions. The main thing is that good information is separated from bad. Google offers you 100,000 alternative answers, whereas library desks give you one good one. This is further emphasised in the nature of university libraries as compilers of current information. Talking in Akava’s panel on general knowledge, Secretary General Kaisa Vähähyyppä from the Matriculation Examination Board managed to sum up the relevant issue: ‘Google is not enough, as you must understand what you find.’

The conclusion that might be drawn from all of this is that the rumours of the civilised state’s demise are greatly exaggerated. Work to cut off the wings from rumours continues in the future, too.

Heikki Isotalo
Specialist, educational policy
Heikki and a bunch of others from HYY are spending a week in Pori to attend SuomiAreena.

Statement 10 July 2017

General housing allowance must be made modern and equal by making it personal. Students begin to receive general housing allowance at the beginning of August – and contrary to the housing supplement of the student aid before it, general housing allowance finally takes real living costs into account. However, the housing allowance features a significant problem: it is awarded to the entire household. This amounts to an assumption that people living together are liable to provide maintenance for each other.

The Student Union of the University of Helsinki proposes that the household-based nature of general housing allowance is abandoned in order to make the benefit system treat everyone in the same way.

For years, Kela’s employees have been assessing the nature of the recipients of the allowance’s relationships when making decisions on the allowances. Many applicants have seen their level of subsistence collapse because Kela has decided that their relationship is comparable to marriage. If a student’s partner or the person living together with them is in working life, the student is likely to lose their housing allowance entirely from the beginning of August onwards.

No one should have to report to the authorities anymore in 2017 on the arrangements they have made with the people they live with.

‘The processing of housing allowances should be founded on believing the applicants’ own reports. Using society’s resources and the working time of Kela’s staff for spying justified by the fear of abuse is irrational’, Ada Saarinen, member of HYY’s Board in charge of subsistence, sums up.

Students often live in very different and unusual arrangements compared to the rest of the population. For this reason, students’ reality and Kela’s interpretations of people’s relationships often do not correspond with each other.

It is completely unreasonable that the people processing benefits at Kela can interpret any people who live together and are of a similar age as a cohabitating couple, unless they can convince Kela otherwise. Moreover, watertight proof cannot be defined in legislation. Why should it concern Kela whether people have sex, a shared account for food or an unspoken contract on care in their relationship? For many students, Kela’s decisions seem arbitrary and unjust.

‘Housing allowance should be based solely on rental agreements. The people processing benefits should not be able to dictate that people’s relationship is comparable to marriage’, Saarinen appeals.

The power relations and dependencies created by the liability to provide maintenance do not belong in relationships. Society’s benefits should not place their recipients into unequal positions. The Student Union believes that housing benefits must be made personal regardless of how people live or the type of their family.

Assessing the nature of people’s relationships undermines the credibility of the benefit system, wastes society’s resources and has no place in the 2020s.

Student Union of the University of Helsinki (HYY)

Ada Saarinen, Vice Chair of the Board, subsistence
Laura Luoto, Chair of the Board, +358 50 595 0328 |, +358 50 543 9610