Visa resultat

Masters theses spring 2010, ARKX03

1. Learning outcome group 1 - knowledge and understanding

28 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		3		13%
Sufficient»		15		65%
Excellent»		5		21%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- I have spent this semester, as the whole of my studies on Chalmers, working very hard and I feel I´,ve come far in my thesis.» (Excellent)
- This, however, is not thanks to the department"s organisation of the Master Thesis...» (Excellent)
- Question is not clearly formulated.» (No opinion)
- What is this evaluation about, really? Is this an evaluation of my own work or of what the school has offered? And is the answers based on only this last semester or the whole education in this school? If it refers to the master thesis semester, it is a bit strange since we don´,t have lectures or any other sort of education from the school during this time. » (No opinion)
- Can"t understand the question. My knowledge, Chalmer"s knowledge or particular related persons" knowledge? It seems totally irrelevant for ME to assess MY performance in this forum. I"d rather have a serious assessment on my work from the institute.» (No opinion)

Goals and fullfilment of goals

2. Learning outcome group 1 - knowledge and understanding

28 svarande

Very insufficient»		2		7%
Insufficient»		6		23%
Sufficient»		12		46%
Excellent»		6		23%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- if you look at the overall outcome of students work, it s a mischmash» (Insufficient)
- Are we supposed to judge outcome of our own theses here?» (Sufficient)
- My questions from now on will refer to what I feel the school has offered during the whole education.» (Sufficient)
- Self taught» (Sufficient)
- Again this has got nothing to do with the Master Thesis at Chalmers.» (Excellent)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

3. Learning outcome group 1 - knowledge and understanding

28 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		4%
Insufficient»		6		24%
Sufficient»		15		60%
Excellent»		3		12%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- There"s always more methods and theories to be explored. » (Sufficient)
- "familiarity" is established before a thesis can begin..» (Sufficient)
- Again this has got nothing to do with the Master Thesis at Chalmers, what is this evaluation really about?» (No opinion)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

4. Learning outcome group 2 - Capabilities

28 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		4%
Insufficient»		3		12%
Sufficient»		9		37%
Excellent»		11		45%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.25

- commenting on MY thesis or the general demands from the school? Demands could be higher, if pre-informed and checked.» (Insufficient)
- self taught» (Excellent)
- who knows about the future? all we can presume is that we are most likely wrong» (No opinion)
- Again this has got nothing to do with the Master Thesis at Chalmers. If you don"t ask the right questions in the evaluation you won"t get our view on what is and what is not working in the process. » (No opinion)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

5. Learning outcome group 2 - Capabilities

28 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		4%
Insufficient»		2		8%
Sufficient»		15		65%
Excellent»		5		21%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3.04

- The thesis "course" allows for full freedom of methods, so much that there is no real level that needs to be met.» (Sufficient)
- self taught» (Excellent)
- Who am I evaluating, me or the department?» (No opinion)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

6. Learning outcome group 2 - Capabilities

26 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		3%
Insufficient»		2		7%
Sufficient»		10		38%
Excellent»		13		50%

Genomsnitt: 3.34

- see comments on question 1» (?)
- starting with the exhebition of the presentations itself, it looked un-proffesional (if the organizers for how the posters should hang and sit is unqualified and unaware on how to make an exhibition, then get someone in from the outside). on avererage, there should be a firmly stated frame on what quality a masters exhibition should have (models, posters, etc)» (Very insufficient)
- IMO are models, images, texts and so on more than just tools for presentation, » (Sufficient)
- During my time on Chalmers I"ve forced myself NOT to lower my standards and my ambitions. I feel that there"s sometimes difficult to keep the spirit when hard work is judged and commented alike with other projects that obviously has not been carried out with the same ambition/amount of work. I Believe this is one of the major problems for Chalmers Architecture to deal with. If the school wants to maintain a good reputation the evaluation of individual projects have to be much more clear and straight forward.» (Excellent)
- all options are open, though the initiative remains with the student entirely. (no necessity/demands)» (Excellent)
- is this evaluation designed for me to evalutate my own work? Wouldn"t it be better if the department evaluates me and I evaluate the department?» (Excellent)

7. Learning outcome group 2 - Capabilities

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		0		0%
Insufficient»		2		8%
Sufficient»		15		62%
Excellent»		7		29%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 3.2

- it varied too much between students» (Insufficient)
- Critiques were sufficiently and at the right time found.» (Sufficient)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

8. Learning outcome group 3 - Values and standpoints

27 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		4%
Insufficient»		3		13%
Sufficient»		13		59%
Excellent»		5		22%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3

- I learned this in 4th grade in the course "sustainable development in a northern context" but developed the skill during my internship in a planning office of a municipality.» (Sufficient)
- Options exist, but remain the initiative of the student. No real demands from staff, only "requested" guidance.» (Sufficient)
- self taught» (Excellent)
- This sentence is absolutely incomprehensive. I mean come on, we"ve spent day and night doing our best to achieve high quality theses, and you can"t even be bothered to do a proper evaluation of it!» (No opinion)
- see comments on question 1» (No opinion)

9. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge ?

No, the goals are to elementar»		5		20%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		19		79%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		0		0%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 1.79

- If the actual goals of the course are the abovementioned, then I think they are too generic and actually impossible to assess(see comment further down). Therfore I choose to answer based on the general level of the theses presented, and my honest opinion is that the lowest level is too low, and that many project seem not to handle a complex enough task, some of the ones that do, do not seem to reach far enough with a design and end up with some diagrams and a lot of text (and Im not referrering to purely theoretical works, but to design projects). » (No, the goals are to elementar)
- The official goals can be much higher, though personal goals are most often set high enough.» (No, the goals are to elementar)
- i dont know what the goals are. i thought it was all up to personal likeing. » (No opinion)
- There is a lack of definition in the aims and goals and a lack of universal standards to which one is held accountable (or conscientiously breaking).» (No opinion)

10. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?

Too small scope in relation to credits»		3		13%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»		20		86%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»		0		0%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 1.86

- The official scope can be much higher, though personal scopes & time spent are most often set high enough.» (Too small scope in relation to credits)
- Däremot bor nivån höjas på kvalitén av de exjobb som släpps igenom. Visst, marknaden reglerar sig sjlv till viss del och den som inte har kompetensen kan inte heller konkurrera om jobb. Men, att gå ut från Chalmers med examen där man släpper igenom exjobb som är direkt usla (bläddra igenom några rapporter i biblioteket)så sjunker bildn av ens egen insats i värde också. En Chalmers-examen upplevs urvattnad och föga värd i mina ögon (och sedermera i möjliga arbetsgivares.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- Maybe a good idea would be to increase the credits given, in order to give students more time to develop complex issues into equally complex designs. I would also request coarses earlier on in the education in which self defined tasks/briefs are supposed to end up in developed designs. Not having worked like this before makes 1 semester run very quickly just trying to develop tools to handle these more complex issues. » (No opinion)
- As one sets one"s own goals and all goals seem to be accepted, some student scopes were too small others too large.» (No opinion)
- Hard to know since no one has explained how far you have to reach in a master thesis to be approved.» (No opinion)

The process before the presentation

11. The preparation phase

27 svarande

attended the course»		12		44%
attended special seminars»		1		3%
neither»		14		51%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- i presume this was sten gromarks course» (attended the course)
- This was a great help in getting ideas flowing.» (attended the course)
- did not have any help of the course at all!» (attended the course)
- Really good! it really influenced my way of working for my master thesis and made me develop my own method for carrying out my thesis. Please give NN more time and space to really develop this course. He really showed his skills and capability of inspiring students to become more theoretical and critical abot architecture. » (attended the course) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- This course was not planned in advance, and should be removed from the curriculum if it is not taken seriously by the faculty. » (attended special seminars)
- belong to master DCPM so no time in schedule to do this» (neither)
- Should be available to everyone» (neither)

12. The seminars about briefs

27 svarande

Yes»		12		44%
No»		15		55%

Genomsnitt: 1.55

- my examiner was Peter Fröst» (Yes)
- Our examiner was not informed about normal procedures and we did not complete planning reports at any stage » (No)
- Only private meetings.» (No)

13. if you have answered yes to question 12

15 svarande

Very little»		3		21%
Rather little»		6		42%
Sufficient learning and exchange»		5		35%
Excellent»		0		0%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.14

- Our examinor was stuck smewhere in Europe due to volcanic ashes and the substitutes had very little to say. Noone had really read the project. Had some good student"s comments though.» (Very little)
- There was a seminar where we were supposed to DISCUSS out briefs. On that occation it became clear that most of us could have benefited from more information about what these breifs should contain.» (Rather little)
- -this seminar, not these» (Rather little)
- It was good as a startingpoint for the thesiswork but if it would have been in the end of the fall semester there would have been more time to develop the synopsis and the task before starting with the work.» (Sufficient learning and exchange)

14. Midterm seminar

28 svarande

Yes»		24		85%
No»		4		14%

Genomsnitt: 1.14

- It was more of a "short term seminar", due to the late date.» (Yes)
- the seminar was held a couple of weeks before the jury seminar, no opposition, more like a presentation and comments from fellow students» (No)
- Vi hade ett seminaritum där endast vår examinator och hans tre andra studenter deltog. Jag hade förväntat mig ett stort seminarium med flera andra examinatorer och deras studenter närvarande. Det hade gett mycket! Istället blev det som en vanlig handledning.» (No)
- We had a "midterm" seminar, but about three weeks before the final presentation and with no one else than the examiner and a few other students. » (No)

15. if you have answered yes to question 14

27 svarande

Very little»		3		11%
Rather little»		8		29%
Rather much»		11		40%
Excellent lesson»		5		18%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- It was good and affected my project in a good way. But, because of bad planning our seminar group did not have the possibility to mix with other groups. To mix with different kinds of project might have been more inspiring and given us the possibility to have new eyes on our projects. Please try to have better planning next year so that the groups can mix and still have forward planning.» (Rather much)
- The seminar was held too late. The comments we had would have helped us earlier in the process. Also the project at this state was judged as a finished proposal rather than an ongoing one. This ofcourse made the project look poor and a lot of the commenting was irrelevant.» (Rather much)
- There should be more seminars so that students get more access to peer projects, especially those in other studios. » (Rather much)

16. Was your examiner/supervisor oriented with the procedure and guidlines

Very bad»		1		4%
Rather bad»		5		20%
Rather well»		16		64%
Very well»		3		12%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- What do you refer to? Which procedure and guidelines?» (?)
- There was a lack of continuity in the contacts with our examinator. I guess both sides are to blame for this. We could have needed more help with structuring our time distribution.» (Rather well)

Work environment

17. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		5		17%
Rather well»		12		42%
Very well»		9		32%
I have not asked for assistance»		2		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- There is little opportunity to ask questions because there is so little interaction among students. The time to ask questions to the advisor was adequate, but i think students could benefit more from each other, and don"t have the possibility for that now.» (Rather bad)
- Teachers are willing, but are generally very busy and don"t have time to get involved.» (Rather bad)
- i got some help, but the examiner were not always reasonebly prepared even if i sent my material in advance.» (Rather bad)
- I found it very difficult to get in contact with an examiner. The capacity of examiners in the pathway MPDSD seems too low. » (Rather well)
- The thesis work really put focus on acquiring information and knowledge from the adequate person, whether in- or outside the Chalmers environment, rather than relying on a single teacher or tutor. » (Rather well)
- better here in sweden than in france» (Very well)
- I have carried out my whole education in Chalmers and know alot of the teachers and different skills in the building. I felt very free to ask for help from different persons, depending on what kind of issue I wanted help with. If the teachers and researchers had signs on theit doors explaining their fields of knowledge more students could use this.» (Very well)

18. Have you had cooperational contacts with other masters thesis students during your work

Yes»		18		64%
No»		10		35%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 1.35

- Not on a very organized basis. More of spontanious discussions with the fellow students who were working on similar projects.» (Yes)

19. if "yes" how has the cooperation between you and the other students

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		1		5%
Rather good»		8		44%
Very good»		9		50%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- much of the important information about the formalia came from other students.» (Rather good)
- "Rather good" speaking in terms of social atmosphere and mutual hints, tips and spreading the information that the school administration failed to.» (Rather good)
- We had different projects but worked close and dealed with all kinds of issues togehter. We were threee student involved with each others projects. This was good because we always had someone to ask for assistance and guidance in tough decisions.» (Very good)

Concluding questions

20. Final phase - "censors" feedback to students

28 svarande

Irrelevant»		5		21%
Somewhat useful»		4		17%
Good advice»		4		17%
Relevant»		6		26%
Inspiring»		4		17%
No opinion»		5

Genomsnitt: 3

- They seemed too focused on the qualities of the presentations, and not on the qualities of the projects. They were not able to summarize the projects they had seen. they should have been able to for example say "We have seen projects of this, this and this kind, With these aims, these kinds of processes, etc." That should be possible without regards to their opinion of the projects. They were not able to explain where, according to their opinion, the projects did not show the height they claimed their own schools did. Since they all represented schools where students work with their final thesis for a year, all of them naturally have greater looking presentations. I think they are easily blinded by fancy renderings, like most jurors are, of course. And maybe the only way to tackle this preoblem is to allow for a years work on the master thesis as all other schools do, with a deadline 6 weeks before the final presentation, and using the last six weeks exclusively to the presentation.» (Irrelevant)
- Our sensor basically said nothing about our project. A couple of questions, but no comments or judgements or even explanations why he asked those questions or if our answers were satisfying in anyway. » (Irrelevant)
- The feedback session ended up being a wailing wall for spoilt kids who used the occassion to vegetate upon the general traumas of the bachelor period. The censors did a very good job, though.» (Irrelevant)
- Gave to much critic when not supposed to» (Irrelevant)
- Very good that the censors also asked questions to the examinators about thier role in the thesis and how they had choosed to guide the student.» (Relevant)
- I think that the censors came with very many valid points and comments on individual projects, but their dual task was quite evident and somewhat problematic, some students had to answer questions that probably should have been directed more towards the examiners and advisors. I would suggest giving them a more direct task as external criticts. Telling them not to critique projects seems overly protective from the school to us students, having finished a master thesis one should be able to answer to proper critique. Good critics are unfortunately not as common as one would like at this school and not using the censors as proper external critics seems a waste of resources. Im also very critical to the fact that they are given such a tight schedule that there is not enough time for the censors to attend all the presentations, this must be changed in the future!» (Relevant)
- Personally, I think there should be an opportunity for the sensors to give more feedback directly to the students as well as the school as it is a excellent opportunity for us as students to get feedback from someone external to the school who has not seen the project before.» (Inspiring)
- Their feedback was the most valuable of any given throughout the entire program. Students deserve honest criticism. The standards for projects at chalmers are too low, at all levels, and students should be able to handle honest criticism and use it constructively. Chalmers differs from all other programs because all work is treated equally, and there is no common criteria for evaluating work. Outside critics are extremely helpful for students to guage how their work compares to that of students at other universities, and is a valuable part of any critique, not just at the thesis level. » (Inspiring)
- they didnt even show up to our presentation» (No opinion)

21. Final phase - procedure

28 svarande

Very bad»		12		44%
Rather bad»		5		18%
Good»		10		37%
Excellent»		0		0%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 1.92

- everything was last minute. the exhibition looked amateurish» (Very bad)
- the catalogue was graphically embarassing considering what should be expected from a school of design. » (Very bad)
- The exhibition catalogue and the exhibition setup is not very inspiring, nor attractive for visitors. Information have to be sought after and could be more easily available.... » (Very bad)
- Information to both students and public were often lacking, misleading or inconsistent.» (Very bad)
- I have not used the homepage since my first year, it is very uninformative. The catalogue together with design and structure for the exhibition should have been assigned to someone with energy and knowledge to do it in a manner that suits a design education (as we are in). We should have had a meeting about the exhibition where the school would form the procedures in discussion with the master thesis students. Or an interested group of students.» (Very bad)
- NN could work on the ability to disperse correct, understandable and relevant information» (Very bad) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- information came out late. » (Rather bad)
- The layout of the catalogue was a true graphical disaster. Please let someone with graphical skills do next years catalogue. However the cover was nice exept for miss spelling the TITLE! As was pointed out in the censors-discussion the arrangements and execusion of the final exhibition was very poor. The masters thesis students have, for obvious reasons, not the time to make a beautiful exhibition and I haven"t got an answer who that could do it. However if the theses are important the school should in some way provide the conditions to upgrade the status of the presentation days. » (Rather bad)
- Poor graphic design. Embarrassing really.» (Rather bad)
- The procedure was good, but the outcome could have looked more professional. If you have the budget, ask students to take on the mission to develop a concept for the catalogue and exhebition. » (Good)

22. The procedure as a whole, what should be preserved?

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

nothing»		1		3%
preparration phase,»		11		39%
mid term seminar»		21		75%
catalogue»		14		50%
jury seminar»		24		85%
presentation»		18		64%
assigning censors»		18		64%
others»		1		3%
No opinion»		1

- i can not emphasize too strongly how extremely valuable the external censors are. chalmers need to pick up its pace to be anything more than average (in the international arena... comparing with rest of sweden is irrelevant since they are no "competition" you want to be compared with).» (mid term seminar, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- I think there should be more preparatory courses during the previous term to have the opportunity to do research for the thesis project which will then enable the students to go further in the architectural explorations in the final project.» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- The mid term seminar is a good idea, but it needs to be in the middle of the term to have any real effect. As it was it was too late for any major changes.» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors, others)
- The preparation phase needs to be preserved but also developed. Make the student feel engaged with the thesis during the fall semester by good information and fixed dates foor occations where all master thesis workers can meet and start up their work. Maybe students could give feedback on eachothers synopsis at an early stage. It is also important that this is combined with fixed dates for handing in synopsis and other materials.» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- Preperation: I know it"s an ongoing work to improve this part Mid term seminar: Should be held earlier and maybe be complemented with an additional seminar Catalogue: As mentioned before it should be made with more care of the graphical design. Jury seminar: A very important step Presentation: Raise the status and the feeling of a proper examination. Assigning censors: This is a must. I believe the forms are right. Most teachers did the right thing and followed the recomendation of leaving the censors-students discussion. The school have problems and this is a great way to throw light on those.» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- in principle, the procedure is ok, it just needs to be enforced consistently throughout the school, and common standards need to be implemented. » (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- would also show that the juror has taken his or her duty seriously. the jurors should be able to point out bad AND good points AND why. The good and bad points should be aspects worthy of attention and in proportion to the kind and aim of the project. To not be able to give a single positive comment, and to only point out petty negative details like the kind of font chosen for the written report, is really showing great disrespect for another persons work. Such a juror should be relieved of all future similar duties. (I am here talking about Ulla Antonsson, I have it all on tape) If as in a worst kind scenario, both jurors spend all their time talking about personal opinions far feched from the students project, and not give a single constructive positive OR negative critizism is really a hard situation to face, and the opportunity to get any kind of feedback is totally gone.» ()
- By preserving, what do you mean? I for instance think having a catalogue is a great thing, but the one that was made was clearly substandard in terms of ambition and graphic design. So I need to check the boxes for both "preserved" and "changed" for a few things when they are a good idea in theory but poorly executed in reality» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- All students need to have access to the preparation phase (ie. course). It is an unfair disadvantage when some students are more informed and prepared than others. » (mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- Everything should be preserved, but needs much more effort put into it if the school wants to take the master thesis projects seriously and really understands that this is what defines the quality of the school and the main thing to be proud of in an architecture school.» (preparration phase,, jury seminar, assigning censors)
- mid term seminar should be earlier, or even better have two "mid-term" seminars. Get rid of the last official presentation and just have the jury seminar that is open to the public, don"t have a presentation that is aimed at not gettin feedback from censors/critics. Then allow some time for corrections after that seminar before handing in the final document.» (mid term seminar, jury seminar, assigning censors)
- ... but they all need to be progressed a lot! (especially preparation phase)» (preparration phase,, mid term seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- It"s all good ideas but due to a lack of information (I got not even half of Saddeks e-mails, therefore constantly got second hand info) and lack of enthusiasm from teachers I have experienced the departments involvement in my master thesis next to useless.» (mid term seminar, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- A real mid term seminar would be good. A jury seminar were the jurors are prepared, have to be a requirement. The jurors should be able to give proper feedback. For example: "I can see that you work/ your process is in this and this way" "I read your project as... and here they should be able to in a few words describe the project in their own words, as a summary. That would give some kind of feedback to the student that the project was, or was not read as the student ment it to be, and would also show that the juror has taken his or her duty seriously. the jurors should be able to point out bad AND good points AND why. The good and bad points should be aspects worthy of attention and in proportion to the kind and aim of the project. To not be able to give a single positive comment, and to only point out petty negative details like the kind of font chosen for the written report, is really showing great disrespect for another persons work. Such a juror should be relieved of all future similar duties. (I am here talking about NN, I have it all on tape) If as in a worst kind scenario, both jurors spend all their time talking about personal opinions far feched from the students project, and not give a single constructive positive OR negative critizism is really a hard situation to face, and the opportunity to get any kind of feedback is totally gone.» (mid term seminar, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

23. What should be changed?

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

everything»		4		14%
preparration phase. "pre course"»		12		42%
midterm seminar»		9		32%
catalogue»		12		42%
jury seminar»		3		10%
presentation»		9		32%
assigning censors»		4		14%
nothing»		0		0%
others»		4		14%
No opinion»		3

- -more time for preparatory research -more room for comments to the individual students from the sensors during the finalpresentation» (preparration phase. "pre course")
- The exhibition is unprofessional and conveys a sad image of our school and our work» (midterm seminar, catalogue, presentation, others)
- midterm seminar wasnt really midterm, it was 2 weeks before final hand in. should be earlier. preparation course be good.» (preparration phase. "pre course", midterm seminar)
- The exhebition should have a clearer concept that should be communicated to the students early in the process of the thesis work. That could give a feeling of working towards a common goal- el grande finale!» ()
- need more notification by like email to possible candidate when to start prepare for the thesis (in a formal way that can really caught people"s attention)» (preparration phase. "pre course")
- This last pair of questions is put wrong. I have to give the same comments on both questions. All the STEPS should be preserved and kept but with minor changes. Preperation: I know it"s an ongoing work to improve this part Mid term seminar: Should be held earlier and maybe be complemented with an additional seminar Catalogue: As mentioned before it should be made with more care of the graphical design. Jury seminar: A very important step Presentation: Raise the status and the feeling of a proper examination. Assigning censors: This is a must. I believe the forms are right. Most teachers did the right thing and followed the recomendation of leaving the censors-students discussion. The school have problems and this is a great way to throw light on those.» (everything)
- I have not attended the preparation course, however I believe it is more relevant to have different preparation courses depending on what type of Master thesis you are preparing, i.e. considering form (text report or project) and optimally also theme (urban design, housing, sustainability). The midterm seminar was good, but should come earlier. Now it was more in 2/3 of the work than the 1/2. It gives you a deadline which is valuable so you do not postpone necessary decision-making about your project for too long. I believe that the efforts of making it obligatory to translate all project posters and presentations to English regardless of if the project has an international context or not is questionable. The reason to invite censors from non-Nordic countries seem to steem more from Chalmers architecture"s need to boost its international self-esteem and aura rather than a real need. There are plenty of knowledgable professors and PhD students within Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. that understand Swedish. A presentation in Swedish would also contribute to the goal of Swedish universities to cooperate with it"s immediate surroundings ("den tredje uppgiften"). Master"s students should be able to choose whether they want to present in Swedish or in English. As a native speaker of a language you can express yourself much more freely, and with more nuances, than when using a second or a third language. If your project is in a local context, and you want to later be able to present it to people that have interest in your work in Sweden, it is more relevant to do your work and presentation in your own language. On the other hand, if your project is part of an international discourse in for example research of sustainable buildings with advance materials it could be more relevant to present in English. » (preparration phase. "pre course", midterm seminar, assigning censors)
- 1) final examinations on friday afternoon and saturday when people can attend. 2) saturday evening a festive event with some concluding speeches, 3) Exhibition for a whole week in the big hall in kårhuset where everyone can see it from the tram and get curious and visit. Master thesis for a whole year, starting with theoretical aims, a written essay, analysis, volume studies and a couple of presentations with critique first semester. Second semester deadline middle of april. rest of time for presentation. Like in TU Delft.» ()
- The pre-course could be more orientated towards defining the topic to be studied, and there would be more time for the actual work during the next term...» (preparration phase. "pre course", catalogue, presentation)
- Med detta svar menar jag att allt kan förbättras en he del men systemet i stort kan fungera väldigt väl. Personligen tror jag att en sån saksom att sätta en person kunnig på layout att jobba med katalogen, gärna en elev från en master 4a som vill äna några extra slantar. Jag vet att det inte var friktionsfritt mellan eleverna och personen som höll i detta jobb i år. Dessutom kan katalogens utseende höjas avsevärt på detta sätt. Mid-term seminarierna måste skärpas upp, gärna med externa kritiker. Och så bör det förtydligas att cencorerna faktiskt ska och får lämna kritik, vi kan hantera det. Sist tycker jag att utställningen ska bakas ihop med "vårutställningen" så att det helt enkelt blir en stor chalmers-utställning där vi visar upp allt ifrån exjobb till konst-laborationer.» (everything, others)
- Perhaps the midterm seminar should be smaller and more personalized to allow more feedback for each student. I believe the seminars were conducted quite differently depending on the professors involved. Perhaps the students can be involved in the choice of how their seminars are conducted, or even allowed to form groups themselves.» (preparration phase. "pre course", midterm seminar)
- Higher/clearer demands from the school, and feedback on HOW these are met or not met. (both at midterm and jury)» (preparration phase. "pre course", catalogue, others)
- The organization needs to sharpen up a lot. If it is midterm seminars, then every examiner should clearly know how to proceed and agree on taking it seriously. The catalogue should represent the works in the best possible way, for the exhibition but also as a time document of what the semester has given. It deserves a much higher quality in layout and over all performance. Take the works seriously, like any other schools do! The exhibition has been very poor in ambition from the schools side. It needs a lot more effort and resources put in to it, the school will really win from it in the long run! And by the way, what is an exhibition without an opening?? Whats the problem of setting a time and offering a few glasses of cider and a bunch of salta pinnar at least?! Now there was nothing, and I think the exhibition just passed by without notice for most of the people in this school. For the final presentations: where was our ceremony?? Where was the dean of school having a speech congratulating us on good work?! You have to show that you are proud of the students work! Why does not the school prepare a ceremony like any other education when we after five hard years have passed through??? » (midterm seminar, catalogue, presentation)
- Most things simply need to be looked at in terms of when they happen and how they are presented.» (everything)
- see above!» (preparration phase. "pre course", midterm seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, assigning censors)
- Having said this, I think there is a lot to be done to make the master theses good, in all procedures.» (preparration phase. "pre course", catalogue)
- collective up-start meeting with clear guidelines, dates and useful information. No crucial information should depend on a chain-letter like e-mail method. » (midterm seminar, catalogue, jury seminar, presentation, others)
- Well, since everyone couldn"t attend the pre course, something else should have been available! Students in that course could use a lot for their planning report, but the rest had to spend time doing that at the start of this semester.» (preparration phase. "pre course")

24. Other comments