I don't understand the value of failing students in this way. At medical school I failed some exams but was allowed to retake them, and received coaching for one of the re-takes. (Relax, I had to prove I'd learned the material before I could work with patients.)
At my brother's economics PhD, however, the school (can you guess which it is) took pride in failing 50% of the class. Why? And when the students are going into so much debt, why is this appropriate? Pick students who can pass your exams in reasonable numbers, reject those who cannot, and then invest in teaching the ones you chose.
Bravado over failing students to demonstrate how difficult your course is is a waste of human talent.
It's not about failing students. Sure, students could be failing because your education is poor. That was not the case. It's about challenging students to the point where those with the intellectual prowess and discipline and the rest go on to study something that more closely matches their abilities (and the university should help them with that).
Debt is never a serious problem in the Netherlands. The government interest rates are so low that if you loan the maximum and put the money in bonds or a high interest savings account you'll actually turn a profit.
At my brother's economics PhD, however, the school (can you guess which it is) took pride in failing 50% of the class. Why? And when the students are going into so much debt, why is this appropriate? Pick students who can pass your exams in reasonable numbers, reject those who cannot, and then invest in teaching the ones you chose.
Bravado over failing students to demonstrate how difficult your course is is a waste of human talent.