Visa resultat

Master thesis evaluation autumn 2014, ARKX03

1. Within which program/studio have you been working with your thesis?

MPDSD (Design for Sutainable Development)»		7		26%
MPARC: Future vision»		4		15%
MPARC: Architecture and Urban Design»		7		26%
MPARC: Matter Space Structure»		8		30%

Genomsnitt: 2.61

- First semester Matter space, second I changed to Future visions.» (MPARC: Future vision)
- Great, motivating studio, positive atmosphear. Good tutoring.» (MPARC: Architecture and Urban Design)
- Great studio. » (MPARC: Matter Space Structure)
- BSc Architectural Engineering» (MPARC: Matter Space Structure)

2. What was your main topic?

3. Preparation to start thesis work

26 svarande

yes»		15		57%
no»		11		42%

Genomsnitt: 1.42

- Good!» (yes)
- Advanced theory and methodology» (yes)
- Leadership- great course» (yes)
- leadership» (yes)
- Both» (yes)
- Advanced theory and methodology» (yes)
- Leadership in architectural professions and it was extremely helpful to define my topic. » (yes)
- Advanced theory and methodology» (yes)
- But it did not matter for me since my thesis had a different topic.» (yes)
- leadership in arch...» (yes)
- Leadership » (yes)
- Leadership» (yes)
- Advanced theory and methodology. I also took the matter space structure studio for one semester where I prepared for my thesis.» (yes)
- Leadership» (yes)
- I think these courses should be given in the first year of the master education in order to provide the student with tools in advance. By doing this the student will be provided with a long term vision increasing her/his awareness of the future need of focusing on some subject which might benefit the process and end results of the master thesis.» (yes)
- I think one of the courses, advanced theory or leadership should be compulsory» (no)

Information

4. What is your opinion about the information and guidance before starting, and during the start-up phase of your thesis work?

very good»		6		23%
good»		13		50%
bad»		6		23%
very bad»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.07

- I really enjoyed it.» (very good)
- There was an initial confusion regarding whether or not the thesis project could be done in a group consisting of more than two members. It took a bit of unnecessary time from the design process.» (good)
- If not participating in the course leadership in arch. I would have find the information about what you should deliver as a master thesis very poor.» (good)
- you know what older students have told you, and have you studied at chalmers long you know who the teachers are» (bad)
- very little, and hard accessed, information» (bad)
- I didn"t know where to go or with whom to talk » (bad)
- no general info about what a theis is and what to expect» (bad)
- I would have preferred it if I could have been given the information, instead of having to make sure I got all information and having to search for the rest.» (bad)
- It took a long time to get a examiner and then with my first examiner I in some way was introduced to how it would be when the others in the group have already started their projects. It stressfull to now yhat I was behind even if I had really tried to start earlier but the examiner did not respond to my attempts.» (very bad)

5. What is your opinion about the relevance and accessibility of the information on the website?

very good»		2		8%
good»		11		44%
bad»		9		36%
very bad»		2		8%
5»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- No opinion, didn"t use it.» (?)
- As long as you know the links in order to find it. » (good)
- A bit hard to find the right information.» (good)
- The web page can be confusing to navigate and the layout is heavy and clunky. Having two different student portals is a bit strange. » (good)
- I think it is very relevant but it is not very easy to find.» (good)
- Havenät used the website at all, didn"t know there was information there. Have gotten all relevant info via mail. » (bad)
- Some of the "rules" on the webside is not valid. That makes the process vague.» (bad)
- have not been to a website for choosing studio» (bad)
- Dont understand the question. Which website?» (bad)
- no relevant, for what I needed help with.» (bad)
- very little, and hard accessed, information» (very bad)
- Good Accessibility but it was difficult to make sure if the information was up-to-date since the document was from 2009. (https://student.portal.chalmers.se/en/chalmersstudies/masters-thesis/Documents/Rules%20for%20master%27s%20thesis.pdf)» (5)

6. What is your opinion about the information regarding the different procedures from start to final public presentation?

very good»		6		24%
good»		15		60%
bad»		3		12%
very bad»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 1.96

- Matter Space Structure studio"s several critiques during the semester rather than one mid-critique works very good.» (very good)
- Thanks to Maja, think it would have been a lot more confusing without her» (good)
- everything in the studio was clear. about the review commitee there was very little information, that they changed it from an international commitee to old teachers from the school and that the review was a 10 min akward "discussion" and not a whole morning, like before. that was not communicated before it was too late to react to. the information from saddek could be communcated a lot more efficient. » (good)
- An option could be to have a gathering where every master student or group presents their work to the rest of the master students at the end (a short public pres.) That way you would as a master student get the opportunity to see your friends work.» (good)
- the deliverance of information was ok, until the presentation i A-salen in nove/dec regarding the public presentation which was a bad.» (good)
- very little, and hard accessed, information» (bad)
- only info about the exhibition» (very bad)

7. What is your opinion about the information you have recieved, regarding the requirements of a master´,s thesis?

very good»		4		15%
good»		10		38%
bad»		11		42%
very bad»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.34

- The information e-mail sent out regarding the master thesis presentation was informative but too long. Sending out an email which is almost 2 x A4 text a week before the thesis deadline is not a smart move if you want everyone to actually read it.» (good)
- Men enbart tack vare att jag gick Leadeship-kursen. Utan den hade det varit svårare» (good)
- Very unclear what is required, for example how much theory that needs to be included in a design focused thesis» (bad)
- very little information» (bad)
- see answ. 4» (bad)
- I found it quite difficult to understand what was expected of me. And most of the information isn"t really applicable on an architecture thesis, since it is, usually, quite different from an engineering thesis» (bad)
- have not seen any requirements » (very bad)

Thesis work, supervision, examination, work environment and administration

8. The learning objectives for the master´,s thesis are stated below. Have the objectives been reached?

26 svarande

yes, all of them have been reached»		17		65%
yes,some of them have been reached (which ones? state below)»		7		26%
no, few have been reached (which ones? state below)»		2		7%
no, none of the objectives have been reached»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.42

- yes, to different degree» (yes, all of them have been reached)
- Contribution to research and development is an important but rather difficult point to achieve in an architectural thesis project spanning only one semester. The time is simply not enough to carry out proper research.» (yes,some of them have been reached (which ones? state below))
- most of them has been reached but some onlu on the surface.» (yes,some of them have been reached (which ones? state below))
- this question has to be divided into each criteria! an ethical aspect has not been dicussed. » (yes,some of them have been reached (which ones? state below))
- first time we see the objectives» (yes,some of them have been reached (which ones? state below))
- I guess since I didnät pass» (no, few have been reached (which ones? state below))

9. What is your opinion about the mid-term seminar?

very good»		15		57%
good»		10		38%
bad»		1		3%
very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.46

- The smaller seminars along the wasy have also been very helpful. » (very good)
- This concern all 4 seminars in the Matter Space Stuio.» (very good)
- It was really interesting to hear what other students were working on.» (very good)
- The only time I had real constructive supervision. Poor planning though, I found out when I had to send in my work only 2 days before I had to send it.» (very good)
- It should be a 7-10 days earlier.» (very good)
- We had several "mid-term seminars" and that was great.» (very good)
- Bra upplägg och bra kritiker.» (very good)
- it"s great for most, for me it wasn"t. but the good things outweigh the bad there. » (good)
- It"s good that we have as many mid-term seminars as we have in the matter space studio, but maybe the mid term one should be more formal, and more a like the final presentation. » (bad)

10. What is your opinion about feedback and comments from/to students during your work process?

very good»		13		52%
good»		10		40%
bad»		2		8%
very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.56

- we didn"t comment on each others work that much. but what/when we discussed (it)was good. » (?)
- Regarding feedback it is helpful to be in the studio so that friends have seen your project at different stages. » (very good)
- It was crucial for me to be part of great studio environment and have a continuous exchange with the fellow thesis students on daily basis.» (very good)
- I was seldom at Chalmers, but the times I was there I had people look over my work and gathered relevant opinions.» (very good)
- to work in a good studio is key!» (very good)
- The fellow students were a good support and gave constructive feedback throughout the whole semester.» (very good)
- I hardly ever got any (I did my presentations on the other day than everyone)» (good)
- But there was never any official room for student comments.» (good)
- We did not diskuss enough with each other, mostly worked in our own bubbles. A little better in the end when we started practicing our presentations for each other» (bad)

11. What is your opinion about the final seminar (examination), and are you satisfied with the jury´,,s comments about your work?

very satisfied»		13		50%
satisfied»		11		42%
unsatisfied»		1		3%
very unsatisfied»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.61

- It was good to have the final seminar early, when there was still time to work with critique before the public presentation.» (very satisfied)
- more than "very satisfied"» (very satisfied)
- it was a good discussion. I think it would have been goo dto have two external proffessors instead of just one, to get a broader perspective. also maybe a demand? the studios are so different!» (very satisfied)
- Great jury (Gert Wingårdh and John Ross)» (very satisfied)
- it was a good work and the comments reflected the work.» (very satisfied)
- It would have been even better to have more than just on external member in the jury. Even though the jury "s comment were really valuable.» (satisfied)
- One of the jury did not receive my thesis since it ended in her junk mail. Therefore I make a rule for myself always to ask for confirmation after sending important documents.» (satisfied)
- Men det måste finnas ett fokus på att ta upp positiva grejer också, för även om det är intressant att diskutera sådant som kan utvecklas, är det viktigt att ge studenten erkännande för allt arbete man lagt ner. Och det måste vara något mer än att säga "du har gjort ett fint arbete". Jag hade Claes Caldenby som "extern" kritiker. Även om han har mycket att bidra med, och kan ge många värdefulla synpunkter, och ta upp intressanta frågor upplevde jag att på diskussionen på mitt seminare handlade mer om exjobb i allmänhet, än om de frågor jag hade undersökt i mitt projekt. Det är värdefullt att få en åsikt från någon utifrån, som har en annan synvinkel, och som inte har sett flera hundra studentarbeten och exjobb. » (satisfied)
- I agree that my work didn"t reach the pass level, but some criticism was not relevant, and unnecessary. And what irritated the most was that three weeks earlier I got an OK, that my thesis had reached the right level, but then three weeks later at the examination, it was not enough , so I felt (or still feel) duped and betrayed. » (unsatisfied)
- The comments proved that the supervision was not the same direction with jury » (very unsatisfied)

12. What is your opinion about the physical work environment?

very good»		5		19%
good»		12		46%
bad»		8		30%
very bad»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.19

- High ceiling, good light conditions. More shelves to put models on is essenatial though! Corner A1. » (very good)
- I worked with an office in town and was seldom at Chalmers.» (very good)
- The usual problem of space, once you start making big models in the studio. It would therefore be great to have access to the wood workshop"s space (not the machines themselves) after 5 pm.» (good)
- Ok, except that the studio was always really cold» (good)
- In matter space there was really crowded so to be there when special focus was needed was not a good option. » (good)
- The stress came from the lack of information» (good)
- it was ok. Rats in the studio, to few/non computer screens for the persons that work with laptops (which is basically everyone). » (good)
- We needed more space and computers.» (good)
- More computers would be good.» (bad)
- The common room is very beneficiary in design master thesis. For my theoretical MT it was noisy. I understand that groupmates have to talk to each other, but it was kind of annoying when I was reading difficult english papers and eventually I couldn"t focus. » (bad)
- As a MPDSD student you feel detached from the Architecture institution when you sit in the V-building. It is also far to the worksop and the library.» (bad)
- very stressful. It"s nice that we all sit together in the studio, but still out examiner has the ability to get people to feel stressed. Eventhough, he says that the policy is "no stress" he is very good at making the student feel stressed » (bad)
- The A and V building lack quality reading spaces. I would like to have access to a good library-style working space, for reading and writing and minimizing disturbance. Could one of the upper floors be opened into ljusgården and turned into a common workspace for individual work (not groups)?.» (bad)
- Alla exjobbare borde få sitta i ett eget rum, enbart tillsammans med andra exjobbare. Jag förstår att det är svårt med ekonomin, men exjobbens kvalitet påverkas faktiskt av arbetsmiljön. Vi i housing-studion satt nästan hela terminen tillsammans med Local context-kursen. Det fungerade, men att hela tiden störas av diskussioner och handledningar var inte optimalt. Jag upplevde också att vi pratade med och stöttade varandra mer när Local context inte var där, något som är jätteviktigt för att hitta fokus och få stöd, framförallt när man jobbar ensam.» (bad)

13. What is your opinion about the administration and coordination of all the events from registration to final presentation?

very good»		4		15%
good»		21		80%
bad»		1		3%
very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- the review commitee meeting was unorganizied. » (good)

14. What is your opinion about the supervision you got during your thesis work?

very good»		16		61%
good»		5		19%
bad»		4		15%
very bad»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.61

- Great supervision. I am very happy I got Daniel Norell as a tutor. » (very good)
- Magnus Persson was very helpful and gave a great deal of relevant comments and additional guidance.» (very good)
- I had i great supervisor» (very good)
- The supervisors insight into the subject was very good. He could see where I wanted to take the work and helped me on that path. » (very good)
- When I reached to final seminar I found the comments were not good, even my examinar was like she know about my thises first time but she and my supervisor both of them delay my final seminar 45 days to correct my work.» (bad)
- A supervisor shoulod not be too stressed to take the time to understand what the student is working with... Sometimes I got conflicting information from my supervisor and examiner.» (bad)
- No external censors.» (bad)
- We had two supervisors, one of them clearly more dedicated, he came to his students public seminars, sent them emails with advise regarding presentation, asked his group out for "after work", etc. This while the rest of the group who had the other supervisor felt left behind since we, I had the other, did not receive any encouragement or dedication.» (bad)
- Very very bad. I didn"t get along with my supervisor. I asked for another but my examiner told me to give the supervisor a chance, which cost me my master thesis, (half a year of studies spoiled - just a waste of time and money) My supervisor was also the one who criticised my project the most at the final seminar. » (very bad)

Exhibition, public presentation and the role of the review committee

15. What is your opinion about the organization of the exhibition?

very good»		6		25%
good»		16		66%
bad»		2		8%
very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- I did not shared » (?)
- EXCELLENT !!! » (very good)
- Better for every year! Should be more boxes, didn"t get what I needed and had stated. » (good)
- The general organization of the exhibition was good. Two comments: - Two of the tables I had asked for were simply removed the last 5 days of the exhibition, and the models were placed on the floor. Just unacceptable! Of course if you ask for tables, they should be available during the whole exhibition. - I appreciated the pictures of each thesis project shown on the screen by the library. It would be even be nicer if they were arranged properly on the screen. The asymmetric "lay out" looked kind of sloppy.» (good)
- The opening should NOT be 10 in the morning since no relatives, friends, colleagues can usually come that time. The exhibition should be more of an event inviting people, offices etc from outside the school. » (good)
- but I didn"t participate since I didn"t pass (and wasn"t allowed to)» (good)
- there was definetlety a lot of work put into the exhibition, but it wasn"t focused enough on making out projects look good, but rather focusing on the exhibition itself. I think it should be in the union building, this is too off. also the exhibition wasn"t cleaned, there were old cups for days. and during the last days tables were taken from a presentation, leaving models on the floor. that looks unprofessional. » (bad)
- way to much to write here, but i´,ll make a try. 1. no adv. for the presentation what so ever. 2. bad dates for the exhibitions. Should be fri-mon so the relatives could come and stay over the weekend. More expensive for the school due to more costs for the review commitee but that should be ok. 3. No external / famous names as supervisors. Felt like a poor middleway solution this year. A dissipointment. » (bad)

16. What is your opinion about the presence of the review committee at your presentation?

very good»		6		24%
good»		14		56%
bad»		4		16%
very bad»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Lifted the level of the discussion after the presentation» (very good)
- I was lucky to have the only actual external commitee member! great comments, very interesting, and good discussion. » (very good)
- Disappointed that there where no external critics this year. » (good)
- I appreciated his comments.» (good)
- would have been nice to have external censors instead. » (good)
- ok» (good)
- didn"t have a public presentation» (good)
- I think the school should be assessed as a hole and not through individuals presenting their last work. "The hole is not the sum of its parts"» (bad)
- see answ. 16» (very bad)

17. The role of the review committee is to assess the thesis process in general at the school. What is your opinion about their work?

very good»		2		8%
good»		12		52%
bad»		6		26%
very bad»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

- No opinion, I don"t know what their conclusion was.» (?)
- I don"t know. The questions I got was relevant.» (?)
- After 1 and half year at Chalmers following Master"s Theses exhibitions and presentations, I think that the quality of the work was improved because of this committee. » (very good)
- I think their conclusions should be open for us students to read/hear.» (good)
- It was OK but not very good(experience from my fellow students" presentations)» (good)
- The questions asked where relevant. Peculiar that there where people associated to the school that did the review. On another note the sum up just before the party om Wednseday showed little signs of self critique or self awareness from the schools side. » (bad)
- Their review remained unclear even after they had given their opinions...» (bad)
- I did not get any such questions.» (bad)
- This is the weakest part of the whole thesis process. Don"t get me wrong the comments of the review committee members at the presentations were relevant and valuable. But I get the impression that the actual constructive self criticism of the work of the school of architecture as whole was either not done at all or not communicated to us students. The meeting between the thesis students and committee, potentially the most important dialogue for improvement of the school as a whole was a joke. It was planned just half an hour before the party, there was no room booked, it was delayed 20 minutes and half the review committee weren"t even there. Finally it ended up being just a thank you speech from the committee to us students. No constructive reflection, no ideas on what we could do better as a school or even as architects taking our first steps into the real world. This meeting left a very sad -not to mention unprofessional - last memory of what actually has been a few good years at the school. » (very bad)
- old teachers where brought in to review themselfs. it was clear that the current administration did not find it important with the review of the school. first, it was almost 30 min late, and I think only started because Tabita find a room for us, then hejl had a short and clearly unprepared speech telling us how much better we where than students a few years back. then comes edén who"s been in charge for decades before hejl and continues to congratulate himself on such a good job, and then the other commitee members also garanteed us we where so good. but its not about us now! it"s about the school. then hejl wanted to quit the meeting as soon as possible, and a round of questions was only present because tabita asked for it. i asked a question and had a very personal answer that I and edén could go through my project afterwards. it"s not about that! if you are so afraid of critisism, well, I just think it"s time for change at this school. » (very bad)
- questions like: "did your supervisor help you during the process" is an example of questions i got in public. I you want real opionons about the process etc. have those questions asked in privat/anymous.» (very bad)

18. What is your opinion about the value of the public presentation?

very good»		8		33%
good»		12		50%
bad»		4		16%
very bad»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- Don"t know» (?)
- Very important to have a second and public presentation. » (very good)
- You have the opportunity to have a more calm presentation than the final seminar"s presentation. » (very good)
- It would be great if the presentations could take place as close to the actual exhibition as possible. Preferably on the exhibition itself.» (good)
- Mostly for inspiration for students that are about to start their thesis» (good)
- its great but its not really public. put it in the union building, advertise for it on campus, and keep it clean and professional. also, if you make the effort of a catalouge and showing photos at the entrance screen, make it professional. there are many skilled students! just look at the yearbook, thats a great example!» (good)
- it was just for fun, a "show of" for friends and family. » (good)
- Is this needed? » (bad)

Possible improvements

19. What should be preserved for the future?

20. What should be changed in the future?

21. What is your overall opinion of the master thesis work process?

very good»		8		30%
good»		14		53%
bad»		3		11%
very bad»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

- MSS has a good work method. » (very good)
- I really enjoyed the freedom of working on a subject of interest, as well as gaining the confidence that I could manage my own time.» (very good)
- Mostley due to my own result and a great supervisor + helpful staff in the library and good mates in the studio. The school did not help out to much besides that.» (very good)
- » (good)
- In between god and bad. The options of this evaluation is very strange. Most things are not heaven or hell, but in between. You might want to use a different vocabulary with more nuanced options in the future.» (good)
- Det mesta har fungerat bra, vi var en bra grupp som satt tillsammans i Housing-studion, och vi hade mycket hjälp av varandra. Ola har också varit stöttande när man behövt hjälp.» (good)
- The overall structure is ok, but the information channels are not really working. A lot of information could probably be given to the students earlier (like dates for the seminars) which would decrease stress levels» (bad)
- At chalmers in general It"s the supervisor who tells you when you are ready to present your thesis. Here at architecture the supervisor doesn"t even indicate whether he thinks you are ready to present you work and if he thinks you should go up and present the project during the only occasion/opportunity we have during the semester. I"m really disappointed at the institution, at my examiner and at my supervisor. how this have been carried out very is unspeakable. I"m really disappointed » (very bad)