In Agora Enschede many proposals were made on enhancing the Summer University Project. It is no different for this Agora, and yet somehow it is. Because this time, on behalf of the Comité Directeur (CD) Pavel Zbornik proposes to remove the Summer University (SU) booklet from the CIA and to open up SUs for non-AEGEE members. The latter proposal especially has caused much discussion around the Network, so The AEGEEan took the opportunity to interview Pavel and to hear about the idea behind the proposal.
The AEGEEan: How did you come up with this proposal?
Pavel: I think I got this idea in the summer, when I was thinking what I wanted to achieve in my CD term and I realized that with our SU Project we can achieve much more. SU has been our most successful project over the years, however we can see that there are still quite a lot of possibilities of expanding its success. Another important factor was that we as AEGEE should be more open. In the CIA it is written that most of our events can be attended by non-AEGEE participants (even if we seldom do it); so if we can agree that all our events can be accessible by externals (except our General Assembly), why not apply the same measures to our SU? I am personally against any elitist or close-minded attitude, and opportunities should be offered to everyone. Why should only a few AEGEE members instead of the entire European students community enjoy this opportunity? Why the other students who do not have an AEGEE local in their university city could not?
Why do you believe that, if approved, it would be good to open up the SUs for non-AEGEE members?
I will answer you differently; can you imagine if Erasmus program was open only to members of ESN? The point is to transfer SU into a mobility program, so that the benefits for non-AEGEE members will be same as for AEGEE members. We can see that in a lot of cases SU was the breaking point in many people’s lives. I can be the example; I would not be answering these questions today if I did not go to an SU in 2009, and I am sure that many people have a similar story. AEGEE enriches people, gives them new experiences and new knowledge, makes them feel more European and creates active citizens of future. Speaking for myself, I can say it was a great experience which made me who I am now.
Some locals mainly get their members because people want to apply for a Summer University and they could be concerned that getting new members will be even more difficult. What is your response to this? Do you agree that it will make this process more difficult?
In AEGEE we always complain that our members are not active, and that they are in AEGEE just to travel and have fun. If you look upon how we promote AEGEE nowadays, and given the fact that we get most of our new members through the SU campaign, then you cannot blame them for just wanting to travel. They joined AEGEE for this reason.
Right now the proposal is to open it only to young people who do not have AEGEE locals in their university cities. Therefore locals will not be endangered. We should ask ourselves: are we ready to change our strategy in getting new members from the ones interested just in traveling to the ones interested in AEGEE and its principles? This should be the effect of this proposal in the long run. AEGEE will become again a network of young people who are interested in Europe and who want to work to make it a better place.
You say that opening up the programme will increase the interest in AEGEE in countries with low AEGEE activity, but if people do not have to be members of AEGEE in order to apply for the SUs, why would the interest then increase?
How are we founding new locals these days? In most cases, when somebody gets involved in AEGEE activities (through another AEGEE local, through their friends, or when they go for Erasmus in a city where AEGEE has a local). These people, when they go back to their hometown are interested in continuing this experience, and they also want give the opportunity of experiencing AEGEE spirit to other students in their city.
If we open up the SU project and give this opportunity to somebody from (for instance) Norway, Iceland or Ireland, it is likely that new contacts will be created in those areas. It is for sure much more effective than somebody getting inspired by AEGEE just by reading information on our website.
Others argue that opening up the SUs will emphasize the “travel agency” label that AEGEE has carried during the last couple of years. Do you agree? And do you believe that this will affect AEGEE in a positive or negative way?
In previous years SUCT was doing a very good job in pushing locals to have real content in SU, and even if there might have been some resistance at the beginning, we can see that it works quite well nowadays. SU is not only about traveling and having fun, but also about learning about new cultures and new topics brought by this thematic frame. If we continue to push in this direction, and if we present the SU project this way, I do not see a negative outcome. As the promotion in the cities where there is no AEGEE will be done from the European level, we can be sure that the it will emphasize the content and the cultural aspects.
And about the brand of travel agency, you can also say that Youth in Action Programme by European Commission is a travel agency. Youth exchanges in action 1.1 or 3.1 are quite similar to our SUs. But nobody considers this YiA program a travel agency. In the end, it mostly depends on how we present AEGEE and the SU project itself. Then we will recruit a different kind of people and the image will eventually change.
AEGEE members in countries with a high application rate for the SUs like e.g. Spain are concerned about opening up the programme because there is already a high rejection rate, and this might increase if the programme is opened. Do you understand their concern, and do you agree?
I do understand their concerns, but selection of participants is done by organizers and it is their free will what they do with applications. In case the opening of the SU is connected with a big increase of SU applications, it will be from places where AEGEE is not present now and probably countries where not so many applications are coming from. The general practice is to have a balanced group of participants by nationalities, at least what I can say as an organiser of two SUs. If we take Spanish applicants as an example, for SUs with 25 places, and 40 applications, let’s say 14 of them are from Spain. No more that 4-6 participants from Spain generally will be accepted, so an increase of the total amount of applications will not have a strong influence on the acceptance rate.
I know that the situation with Spanish and Italian applications can be quite demotivating for the rejected people and their locals, but right now I do not see any other solution that can motivate the locals to organize more SUs, and instead of organising TSUs to take the challenge of organising one by themselves.
You mentioned that non-AEGEE members must pay a 40 EUR fee to AEGEE-Europe when applying for a Summer University: How did you come up with this fee? What will this money be used for?
For every SU application there is an application fee 2.5 EUR that is shared: 70% goes to SUCT and 30% to AEGEE-Europe. If we open the SU project to non-AEGEE applications, AEGEE members would be disadvantaged as they, apart from the SU application fee, have to pay the membership fee of their local and this would in turn disadvantage the locals, as some people would apply as non-AEGEE members instead of joining a local. That is why a higher fee for externals has been introduced. The amount of 40 EUR is connected with what is in general a regular AEGEE membership fee; in the majority of locals it is lower than 40 EUR, so AEGEE members will not be tempted to leave the antenna and go to an SU as external (not to mention that with your membership fee you also get the possibility to participate in a big amount of local activities).
According to CIA, 70% of the SU application fee goes to SUCT and it is SUCT’s responsibility to deal with it. In case SUCT has a bigger budget, this money can be invested back in the SU project, to make it even stronger. We want to have thematic SUs, so why not support them financially, with trainers’ reimbursement for instance? This can be one of the ideas; another can be to invest money in a big promotional campaign which will bring more attention to SUs and to AEGEE in general.
Why is it important to remove the SU booklet from the CIA?
I will start with a question: why is important to have such a description in CIA? Does everything have to be written in CIA? My opinion is that not everything does necessarily. If this proposal is accepted, it is up to SUCT to decide if they want to have a booklet or not.
As I am presenting this proposal I am asking if such an investment of 2800 EUR a year is a good investment? I am afraid it is not. I saw many times, when people were leaving EBM, due to having just carry on luggage, they had to throw booklets away. We are talking here about quite a big booklet that can be used only for a short period of time and its preparation and dissemination affects SU planning cycles which need to have a deadline right after New Year.
The AEGEEan hopes that some of your questions have been answered here, remember to check the other interviews with candidates and the other proposals in order to prepare for Agora Budapest in the best possible way!
Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København