Response to interpellation 2025/26:284 on increased ceiling amount to secure the supply of engineers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government is investing in quality and increased throughput by raising the compensation amount per student to enable more teacher-led time and better educational environments 1. 2 3 L emphasizes that it is important for students to complete their studies and that one should not admit more students if it leads to an increase in dropouts 2 3. 1 3 L argues that quality is crucial and that low throughput needs to be addressed 1 3. 4 5 C argues that Sweden needs more engineers to maintain its competitiveness in a global technology race 4 5. 6 5 C argues that the government is not meeting the universities' requests despite their high quality 6 5. 4 C argues that it is contradictory that the government has a STEM strategy but at the same time does not increase the ceiling amounts for KTH and Chalmers despite that they can train more engineers 4. 7 L has added educational places to the civil engineering programs 7. 7 L has also added money to, for example, increase teaching time 7. 7 L argues that the number of places must be expanded with some precision 7. 7 L argues that they have added more money during the mandate period and will certainly need to expand the number of places even further 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Anders Ådahl has asked me how I intend to act to raise the ceiling amounts in general and for Chalmers and KTH in particular, and thereby ensure that more can pursue a STEM education.
To meet the rapid developments within technology and natural sciences and to ensure that Sweden remains an innovative technology nation at the forefront in the future, more people need to be educated in STEM subjects. In its STEM strategy, the Government has presented measures covering the entire education system, from preschool to doctoral studies, with the aim of strengthening education within just natural sciences and technology.
Already in the budget bill for 2024 (prop. 2024/25:60), the government allocated funds for a comprehensive engineering package. The package included both initiatives for more locations within engineering education as well as initiatives for strengthened quality in the educations. The civil engineering education is today one of the country's largest. During the academic year 2024/25, nearly 8,700 new students began a civil engineering program, and an additional 4,100 began a higher education engineering program. But the number of students who complete an engineering education and who receive a degree is still all too low. A decisive factor for Sweden to get more engineers is that a larger proportion of those who begin such an education also complete it.
To strengthen the conditions for high quality in education, the government has increased the compensation amounts per student within the educational areas of science and technology in order to enable more teacher-led time and improved educational environments. Quality initiatives have been partially financed by redistributing funds between higher education institutions. Furthermore, the government has invested in higher education pedagogical development in the engineering programs and expanded foundation year programs, the latter with the hope that more students will continue on, among other things, engineering programs after the foundation year. All of this creates good conditions to increase throughput and reduce dropouts. In the long run, it means that a larger proportion of the students who begin the civil engineering program also complete their studies and graduate, which in turn leads to more trained engineers and thus higher quality in Swedish industry and Swedish business.
It is important to emphasize that it is not only the number of educational places that is of significance, but also the quality of the educations and their orientation. The purpose of the redistribution is to strengthen the drivers for an educational offering of high quality. With higher quality and improved prior knowledge among the students, we can in the long run see an increased retention within the educations, which can affect the need for caps for certain institutions. The Government therefore follows the issue as part of the follow-up of the STEM strategy, not least to ensure an increased throughput in the educations.
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! Hello to those of you sitting up in the gallery! I shall see if I can explain a bit more clearly what it is we are debating here.
We are talking about ceiling amounts in higher education. One could say that a ceiling amount is the government's order to its agencies, that is to say the universities, the educational institutions and those they have agreements with, regarding how many who should be educated, who should undergo a higher education, for example a civil engineering education which we are debating here. STEM was mentioned. It stands for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, i.e., engineering subjects.
But let us start at the other end. The world faces completely new challenges. We have a global technology race at the same time as we have a global geopolitics that has become more and more uneasy, where people are starting to talk about different spheres of interest even from the American side. Europe and Sweden, as part of Europe, need to look at their own house. We need to focus on our competitiveness and on being able to develop as a country. This applies in particular to the technology areas, so that our companies in Sweden can develop new products and new services with even more knowledge content, so that we bring in tax revenues to Sweden, so that we can afford school, the police force, and so on. It is extremely central for Sweden that we go that way.
But judge my surprise when I listened to Lotta Edholm's answer to my interpellation. I can almost see a comic strip with three panels. In the first panel, you see the government, saying: We must have more engineers. It is very important. In the second panel, Chalmers and KTH stand and say: We can train many more engineers. We have very high demand. And in the third panel, we have the government again, saying: No, that was not a good idea. We do not want that.
For the Center Party and for me as the spokesperson for research and higher education, this is deeply contradictory. On one hand, a STEM strategy is developed that clearly points out the direction for Sweden in a global competition, where we need more engineering knowledge. On the other hand, you say to our two perhaps heaviest institutions in the field of technology education: No, we do not want you to educate more even if you can. Despite the fact that Sweden's need for civil engineers and engineers in the future is so great, the government says: We do not want you to educate as many as you actually can.
I believe I need to redirect the question to our Minister for Education, Research and Innovation: Does Lotta Edholm believe that Chalmers and KTH should train more civil engineers now that they are raising their hands and saying they can do it, for Sweden's sake?
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to Anders Ådahl both for a very important interpellation and for trying to explain what the ceiling and so on are for! It is not entirely easy.
We have a great need for more civil engineers. I truly agree with that. At the same time, the government has made major investments, both regarding more places in the civil engineering programs and more money for these programs so that quality can be strengthened. These are important investments, and I absolutely do not rule out that we must continue in that direction. It is not that I say no directly to KTH and Chalmers; one should not rule out that we need to increase the number of places.
What is also important to remember is that only 56 percent complete a civil engineering education in Sweden today, after eight years. That is, only just over half complete their education compared to an average of about 70 percent for all higher education programs. This we must also address. It is no use admitting many more who want to study to become civil engineers if it leads to the proportion who complete the education falling further. The universities must try to get their students through the programs.
There are, of course, various reasons why one does not complete their education. On one hand, dropouts occur because one might discover that this is not for them; on the other hand, the educational institutions themselves testify that some of the students have too poor knowledge and skills in, among other things, mathematics – they simply do not manage to complete the programs. It is actually not a problem for the educational institutions but for primary school and upper secondary school. There are also those who have not actually dropped out of the education but who have gotten jobs and thus have not taken the final credits.
Nevertheless, it is important that more people actually complete the entire training. I do not, however, rule out in any way that we must invest in even more places than we have done so far.
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! The reason we are debating this today is that the rectors of Chalmers and KTH recently appeared in a debate article and, with great frustration over the situation, announced that they can educate many more than the government gives them permission to do. I believe that at these two institutions, there are over 9,000 first-hand applicants for barely 4,000 places, so there is an enormous demand.
Sometimes we hear in society and in the debate that interest in technology is low among Sweden's girls and boys, our young people, but that is actually not true. There is a very large interest in technology. As the Center Party's spokesperson for research and education, I therefore think it is very pleasing to see that KTH and Chalmers also have such a great opportunity to quickly be able to transition and educate many more.
I share the Minister's thoughts on throughput; it is of course extremely important that the throughput increases at our universities. I do not have the figure in front of me, but I believe that the figure for KTH and Chalmers is incredibly much higher than the 56 percent that the Minister refers to. I believe that it is over 80 percent throughput on the programs offered there.
In its research proposal and its general communications on research policy, the government speaks very much about excellence as a guiding principle. Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled that one does not want to meet with the two universities in Sweden that perhaps have the greatest credibility in the business sector and industry when it comes to educating the most skilled civil engineers, now that they are raising their hands and saying that they can educate very many more engineers than they are permitted to because they hit the ceiling quite early.
I believe that KTH stated that they could easily admit 1,000 more people and still maintain an incredibly high quality. Chalmers' figures are in the same ballpark. If the government raises its ceiling amount and permission is given to KTH and Chalmers to admit more students to the civil engineering program, it would then result in 10,000 more engineers from KTH and Chalmers over five years.
Madam Speaker! The Minister said in his speech that it is important to emphasize that it is not only the number of places of study that is of importance, but also the quality and direction of the education. Then I become a bit curious: Is one from the government's side dissatisfied with the quality at KTH and Chalmers? Should we read the message that one does not want more places at these institutions because the quality does not quite measure up?
A follow-up question therefore becomes: Is it a problem with quality that makes one not want to raise the ceiling amount, or is it rather as I suspect, that it is a budget restriction and that the government cannot afford to invest more than it does?
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! When we talk about quality, it is about every educational position receiving more money. We are launching that initiative now, partly against the background that we have very high dropout rates. Many students, for example, are calling for more teaching time. Sweden is one of the countries in Europe that has the lowest number of teaching hours in higher education. For very many years, we have had a focus on quantity rather than quality. The previous government expanded the number of places very significantly but did not provide the corresponding means to ensure that the students received a good education, for example in the form of much more teaching time.
I mean that we must do something about this. If one enters higher education, it is important to, for example, receive a lot of teaching time, not least because we see that some of the students who enter the civil engineering programs do not have the knowledge in mathematics with them that one could expect. In that way, the quality issue is incredibly important.
As I said, I am of course not excluding more places in the civil engineering programs. But we have added both in the number of places and in money per student precisely in order to be able to raise the quality of our programs. It is also important to point out that the universities also have a responsibility to ensure that the students complete the program. As I said, it is 56 percent on average who graduate from the civil engineering program within eight years. At Chalmers and KTH it is slightly higher, 60 percent. But it is still below the average for all programs at universities and colleges. Something must be done about this.
I also think it would be interesting to have a dialogue with the industry on these issues. The reason why some never pick up their degree is that they have gotten jobs and the premium in the form of more money in the paycheck is very small if one were to pick up their degree. This is something we should perhaps look at together, the state and the business sector. It is important that one takes their degree.
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! I share much of what the Minister says regarding the need for quality and increased throughput. It is true that the better quality and more teacher-led hours we can have in the education, the better quality it will ultimately be in the engineers who reach Swedish industry or proceed to doctoral studies. In that part, I completely agree with Lotta Edholm.
The problem is that there are two aspects to this. We cannot mix up the quality with the quantity of engineers we need in society. I began the interpellation debate by speaking about the enormous need that Sweden and Europe have for engineers to keep up in the global competition and not be devoured by China and the USA and their spheres of interest.
Europe needs many engineers, who naturally must be highly qualified. This is addressed in the Dragherr Report in Europe and also in Sweden's own STEM strategy. That is also why I am so surprised by the Minister's answer. Chalmers and KTH have stated, both in a debate article and in a follow-up editorial text in the trade journal Ny teknik, that they can already today train many more engineers. But the government chose during this mandate period not to meet that request and not to raise the ceiling amount. They did not want to have more civil engineers on the market from KTH and Chalmers, despite the high quality of those institutions. I meet that with great surprise.
The Minister says that they are looking into this, but now they have sat in power for almost an entire parliamentary term without doing anything about the matter. Soon the parliamentary term will be over. Why do they not want to meet KTH's and Chalmers' requests here and now?
Gymnasie-, högskole- och forskningsministern Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! We have added places to the civil engineering programs. We have also added money to, for example, increase the teaching time. I also do not rule out that we should expand the number of places. I believe it is important, just as Anders Ådahl says. But we must also ensure that the throughput becomes greater. It is clear that if one takes in more students and the proportion who graduate still falls further, we have not won much. More of those who begin these rather demanding programs must also complete them.
I note that Anders Ådahl has a rather high tone, especially considering that Centerpartiet is not putting another krona into civil engineering educations in its alternative budget. That is, of course, because this discussion is quite new. We have indeed added more money during the mandate period and will certainly need to expand the number of places even further. I mean, however, that we must do it with some precision, for example by ensuring that more complete their educations.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.