More than 60 students and staff took part and shared their views. Read on to find out what conclusions were reached during the conversations.

STUDENTS’ MENTAL HEALTH:

Many concerns relate to excessive study workload and students’ difficulty in managing it themselves or signalling overload to lecturers. This leads to fatigue, stress and piling up of assignments. When a course is known to be particularly difficult or many students from previous years have failed it, motivation drops and a feeling of resignation can set in. Some courses also lack clear structure, so topics are not learned effectively.

Regarding mental health support, students note that the university’s psychological services are insufficient — there is only one psychologist for Estonian-speaking students and waiting times can be too long. At the same time, lecture-centred teaching is seen by students as not the most effective approach. External factors — economic uncertainty, doubts about whether studies will secure future employment, and the impact of war — add further pressure.

As solutions, strengthening preventive measures was proposed. Through the university, students could receive basic training in self-help, stress management and recognizing signs of burnout in themselves and others. The School of Economics already offers a course covering topics useful from a mental-health perspective; a similar course could be made available to students in every faculty. Participants also stressed the need for more effective study methods and better-structured courses, while taking into account the positive experiences of independent learning during the pandemic. Finally, mental-health and study-related resources should be more visible and easier for students to find.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LEARNING AND TEACHING: 

The discussion focused on the use of artificial intelligence in coursework — its possibilities, limitations and impact on learning. Based on an example from a master’s seminar, it was noted that students tend to rely on AI excessively: reviews were very similar and clearly produced with AI. This underscored the need for responsible and honest use of AI.

The role of AI in learning and teaching

It was recognised that AI can support learning, but its effect depends heavily on how learners use it. AI makes it easy to ask for clarifications, experiment with solutions and cram the night before a deadline, yet excessive use can make students passive and reduce true understanding. In some subjects (e.g., programming) there has been an increase in students who reach the exam but fail — a sign that homework was done with AI without genuinely understanding the material. At the same time, AI can be a helpful learning tool, for example to explain difficult texts or to allow students to ask “stupid” questions as they learn.

For lecturers, AI is primarily an assistant and enhancement: it can help design tasks, make materials clearer and support students’ understanding of complex topics. However, AI also brings new responsibilities — teachers must explain its limitations, integrate responsible practices and ensure students do not let AI do the thinking for them.

Awareness of AI’s capabilities

Awareness varies greatly across faculties. AI use is common in IT, but elsewhere students are often unaware of TalTech’s own AI guidance materials. It was agreed that skilled AI use will be inevitable in the future and that teaching it should gradually reach lower education levels — but not too early and not in ways that undermine students’ social or critical-thinking skills.

Ethics and boundaries

Participants discussed how much help from AI is too much and agreed that AI should support thinking, not replace it. If a learner allows AI to do all the work, their own mental effort is greatly reduced. Clear rules and transparency about when and how AI may be used were seen as essential.

AI’s impact on the learning process and the future

AI may change which skills universities teach. Yet it was emphasised that no technology replaces communication, collaboration and analytical skills — if anything, these will grow in importance. There was also discussion of the possibility that AI could become less accessible in the future, so learners should avoid becoming overly dependent on it.

Overall, AI was seen as having great potential as a tool to support learning and teaching — but only if used consciously, purposefully and honestly.

THESES AND SUPERVISORS: 

The Tudengite Hääl discussions raised several problems with the university’s thesis supervision system. The main concern is the ambiguity and undervaluation of the supervisor role: the official workload does not reflect reality, supervision is insufficiently compensated, and there is no shared understanding of quality or division of responsibilities. Workload is unevenly distributed among supervisors. Proposed solutions included creating a university-wide “Supervisor’s Handbook”, more clearly defining supervision workload, and recognising supervision both academically and financially. Programme leaders should ensure an even distribution of supervision duties.

Another major problem is the absence of a unified university-wide supervision process. Bachelor’s and master’s requirements vary too much and external supervisors are often unfamiliar with university standards. The proposal is to create a university-level “Thesis Process Manual” specifying workload, structure, assessment criteria, and the roles of supervisors and reviewers.

Communication between supervisors and students is inconsistent: contact breaks down, time planning is weak, and last-minute pressure is common. Suggested remedies include mandatory interim deadlines, regular supervisor check-ins, and programme-level oversight via Moodle.

Supervisor motivation is undermined by inadequate pay, heavy workloads and growing student numbers; bachelor’s theses are especially time-consuming. Better compensation for supervision, limits on the number of supervisees, and the option to change supervisors early were seen as necessary.

Finding a suitable supervisor is currently random and ineffective. One idea is a university-wide thesis portal — a “Tinder” where students and supervisors can match by topic. The co-supervision system should be made transparent and should formally involve master’s and doctoral students.

Students’ skills and expectations are uneven, particularly in methodology. Early training, clear templates, and a mandatory preliminary-proposal defence are needed. It was recommended to publish public guidance materials outlining the steps of the thesis process.

Finally, it was noted that roles and responsibilities in the supervision process are unclear. There is no unified system to ensure supervision quality, and students may be left without adequate oversight. The proposal is to give clear responsibility to the programme leader and to create a university-wide monitoring system to identify students “left in limbo.” From the moment a topic is chosen, the faculty should guarantee sufficient resources and support.

DORMITORIES AND THE STUDENT LIVING ENVIRONMENT: 

The discussion on dormitories and the student living environment highlighted two main topics: waiting lists and needed improvements.

Waiting lists

In recent years demand for dorm places has grown, especially during the summer admissions period when most applicants are first-year students. The longest queues are for single rooms, and the situation is particularly difficult for students coming from further away who have no alternative housing. The current system does not tell applicants their position in the queue or when a room might become available. As a solution, participants proposed a live waiting list and a real-time overview of available dorm places. To guarantee housing for international students, the idea of creating hostel-style additional spaces on the upper floors of dormitories was also raised.

Improvements to the dorms

It was emphasised that dorms should primarily be places for living and resting, not for large parties. Students miss common rooms for meetings, small events and leisure activities. More outdoor seating — for example sheltered benches — was also requested.

On the practical side, it was suggested that each floor should have laundry rooms to avoid long trips to the basement or another building. Dorms need an overall upgrade: better ventilation, ovens in kitchens and more shared appliances (e.g. microwaves). The possibility of allowing pets on certain floors or in specific sections of dorms was discussed, taking allergies into account.

In summary, participants called for more transparent and user-friendly accommodation management and for more comfortable, better-equipped, student-friendly dormitories.

STUDENT WORKLOAD AND WORK LIFE: 

The discussion highlighted several systemic problems in study organisation, university culture and the reconciliation of students’ work and study lives, while also proposing solutions to support student wellbeing and smoother progress through studies.

Rigidity in studies and distribution of workload

Students experience a major buildup of workload in spring, which leads to missed deadlines and a risk of burnout. The winter exam session is short and there are few retake opportunities. Currently there is no flexible legal framework that would allow exams to be held in the summer, even though examinations ran successfully into August during the pandemic. In addition, the national requirement to graduate within the nominal time often forces students to take unreasonably heavy loads. Proposed solutions include permitting summer examinations, enabling students to make more informed choices about their workload, and making the state’s three-year norm more flexible to account for students who work.

University culture and communication barriers

Many students perceive lectures as having a rigid atmosphere and feel that asking questions is not truly welcome, despite formal encouragement. There is also fear about requesting exceptions or deadline extensions — students worry about sharing personal problems and about possible indifference from lecturers. Awareness is also low that psychological and academic support services exist and can help with broader issues. Suggested solutions include more direct communication with teaching staff, clearer visibility of roles and support services, and the option to ask anonymous questions in lectures to support more reserved students.

Balancing work and studies and cooperation with employers

Employers do not always value obtaining a degree, especially in the IT sector where emphasis is placed on work experience, which can reduce motivation to complete studies. Internal university employment practices are unclear — positions are often allocated informally rather than through open calls. Students lack summer internship opportunities in university projects because supervisors are on holiday, and scholarship availability varies significantly between faculties. Proposed solutions include broader collaboration with employers to emphasise the value of education, making university internal job postings transparent, involving students more actively in research and development projects, and increasing scholarship funds in cooperation with companies. The university could also act as an intermediary for information on external scholarship opportunities.

MOBILITY CENTRE AND STUDY ABROAD: 

The discussion focused on how to improve students’ awareness of study-abroad and internship opportunities and on the barriers that affect the decision to go abroad for study or an internship. It emerged that the most trusted information reaches students through friends and first-hand experiences, while the university’s official information often gets lost in the noise. Students said they would prefer to learn about study-abroad options at info events featuring personal stories and in the student-life weekly newsletter, since individual e-mails tend to be overlooked. The main obstacles are lack of accessible information and fear of going abroad — both of which could be eased by hearing direct experiences from other students.

As solutions, participants proposed student-ambassador experience events, stronger intra-disciplinary cooperation and a more active role for programme coordinators in sharing information. Returning students could be systematically asked if they are willing to share their experiences. Rather than taking EuroTeq courses remotely, students generally want to go abroad in person; pressure to graduate on time affects this decision, although it is usually possible to complete the curriculum while including study abroad — this should be agreed with the programme coordinator in advance.

Awareness of internship opportunities is low, especially among first-year students, and a common complaint is that students must find internship opportunities themselves. The discussion also emphasised the many benefits of studying abroad: broader horizons, increased self-confidence, international contacts, new friendships and a greater readiness to go abroad again for master’s studies. Finding accommodation can be a barrier, but host universities can usually advise on this.

The discussion highlighted integration issues as well: Estonian students interact little with Erasmus students, who tend to stick together. Joint projects, events and extending the buddy system to local students could promote cooperation and integration — helping both the international experience and students’ willingness to go abroad.

Motivating less active students is harder, but they could be engaged by sharing practical success stories or running campaigns that stress the long-term value of study abroad. Participants also discussed whether making certain international experiences mandatory (for example, some EuroTeq English-taught courses) might encourage more students to participate.

STUDENTS’ RIGHTS AND PROTECTION: 

The discussion focused on how poorly students currently know their rights and options, and on how to improve the flow of information. It emerged that students often do not know where to find legal information. Although students’ rights and obligations are set out in the Academic Policies(ÕKE) and in the student union statutes, these materials are complex, hard to read and many are unaware of their existence. For example, students are often not aware that they are entitled to three exam attempts; some instructors therefore limited students to two attempts and the students did not know how to argue against this.

Master’s students lack an orientation week and with it the opportunity to get a systematic overview of their rights. Information distribution across the university is uneven: it depends on Programme Director and study consultants’ willingness to share information, students do not regularly open the universityl e-mails, and the effectiveness of Outlook is questionable. As a result, much important information reaches students mainly by word of mouth or incidentally via screens.

Several solutions were proposed. TalTech’s website could include an easy-to-find, plain-language FAQ section about student rights and student-life opportunities. The ÕKE should be introduced to all new students and periodically recalled. The student portal could serve as the central information hub, but its user experience should be improved.

An important proposal was to restore the course-representatives system to improve internal communication, strengthen programme-level cohesion and ensure that essential information reaches students. Course reps could be incentivised with additional ECTS credits, scholarships or events, similar to the tutor programme.

The discussion also considered how to ensure the actual protection of students’ rights. Teaching staff should be aware of the rules, but sometimes students’ lack of knowledge is exploited. It is also unclear how much feedback submitted via the Study Information System (ÕIS) is taken into account. As a remedy, students must know whom to turn to with different concerns: the Programme Director is the primary contact for academic issues, the Student Union board protects students’ rights at university level, and nationally the Estonian Students’ Union (EÜL) represents students.

Finally, one motivating fact was noted: if TalTech reaches 10,000 students, the student union will gain an additional seat in the Estonian Students’ Union (EÜL) — and this goal is already within reach.

MODERNISATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COURSES: 

The discussion raised several issues that directly affect teaching quality and students’ learning experience. The main concern was that course materials are often too abstract and not connected enough to real-world contexts. Students want practical examples, a broader context and a clearer understanding of how the knowledge they acquire fits together and why it is useful. A positive example mentioned was INSÜK’s collaboration with companies, which helps create more real-life assignments.

Participants also stressed the importance of coherence between courses: students want to clearly understand how one subject supports the next and what learning outcomes to expect. Project-based learning was seen as valuable — long-term projects help build the bigger picture and apply knowledge gradually. A cross-faculty project teaching model was proposed to support interdisciplinary cooperation.

When building the learning environment, a safe atmosphere was considered essential — one in which students feel comfortable asking questions and where feedback is a natural and valued part of the learning process. The role of teaching assistants/support staff was also discussed: good teaching requires both pedagogical competence and a clear path to an academic career. It was noted that students have little information about how the academic career ladder works.

Finally, the feedback system was examined. Students feel that feedback submitted via ÕIS has little meaningful impact and is too superficial. They want to see how student feedback actually influences teaching and to have feedback that is more substantive and forward-looking.

In summary, raising the quality of education requires making course materials more practice-oriented, strengthening links between subjects, supporting academic succession, and creating an environment where feedback is valued and effective.

Alexander Rein Robas, Chair of the Student Union and organiser of Tudengite Hääl, said: “Tudengite Hääl highlights each year the students’ biggest pain points, giving a clear direction to our work in the Student Union. I am genuinely pleased to see such active students at TalTech who dare to speak up about problems and help think through solutions. This is your voice, and we hear you — use this opportunity and don’t face your concerns alone, because together we will always find a solution!”

Tudengite Hääl will take place again next year!