Sakskart for møte i Programrådet for masterstudiet i rettsvitenskap

Transkript

1 1 Sakskart for møte i Programrådet for masterstudiet i rettsvitenskap J.nr.: 2016/1416 Tid og sted: Fredag 10. juni kl , Kollegieværelset DA Sak 1 s. 6- Protokoll Protokoll fra PMR møte 12. april er allerede godkjent 15 Sak 2 Erfaringer fra studieårene, LLMs, JSU og nytt fra Erling - Muntlig orientering om eksamen våren 2016 Sak 3 Diskusjonssak: Internasjonalisering s. 15- Notat fra Jens Peder Lomsdalen 20 og s Rapport fra spørreundersøkelsen Diskusjonspunkter: Øke antall utreisende: Hvilke tiltak anser PMR som hensiktsmessige og hvilke skal det fokuseres på? Avtalearbeid: Hvilke regioner/land ønsker PMR at fakultetet skal ha fokus på de neste årene? Bør antall avtaler reduseres? Studie- og undervisningssamarbeid: Ønsker PMR at det initieres et strategisk internasjonalt studie- og undervisningssamarbeid med en/flere partnerinstitusjoner? Praksismobilitet: Er det ønskelig å undersøke muligheten for en

2 2 praksisordning i utlandet som kan innpasses, som et semester i graden? Hvem i fagmiljøet bør involveres i arbeidet med slik ordning? Sak 4 s Vedtakssak: Årsplan for PMR høsten 2016 Årsplan for PMR høsten 2016 Forslag til vedtak: Årsplan for PMR høsten 2016 godkjennes Sak 5 s og s Diskusjonssak: Studiekvalitetsrapporter Ekstern programevaluering av Masterprogrammet Theory and Practice of Human Rights (HUMR): External Evaluation Report Periodisk emneevaluering av MARLTHESIS - Master thisis in Martime Law Høst 2015 Sak 6 Diskusjonssak: Undervisningsdagen 19. mai 2016 Alle lærere som har undervisning ved fakultetet var invitert til Undervisningsdagen. Cirka 40 personer var påmeldt, hvorav 25 deltok på seminaret (inkludert de som holdt innlegg og administrasjon). Kun to eksterne lærere deltok. Se program her: Diskusjonspunkter PMRs innspill til temaer på Undervisningsdagen høst 2016?

3 3 Hvordan få større oppslutning om arrangementet? Sak 7 Diskusjonssak: Spørretimen Det ble arrangert spørretime fire ganger våren 2016, to ganger for 1. og 3. studieår og to ganger for 2. og 4. studieår. Det er fremdeles noe lavt oppmøte blant studentene. Diskusjonspunkter Hva kan gjøres for å bedre nå ut til studentene? Er det andre grep som bør gjøres for å øke attraktiviteten til tilbudet (både for lærere og studenter)? Orienteringssak: Studieinformasjon ved Det juridiske fakultet - en oversikt Notat fra Egil Jahren og Christine Ødegaard Sten Orienteringssak: Studentstatistikker Notat Vedlegg: Statistiker fra DBH Sak 8 s Sak 9 s Sak 10 s Orienteringssak: Vedrørende adgangen til å oppnå graden Master i rettsvitenskap som privatist Fakultetet har mottatt flere henvendelser fra lærested, lærere og privatister vedrørende utfasing av ordningen med særlige privatisteksamener.

4 4 Dette brevet sendes ut til samtlige fakultetet har mottatt henvendelse fra. Sak 11 s Orienteringssak: Semesterplaner høsten studieår, 1. semester 1. studieår, 2. semester 2. studieår, 1. semester 2. studieår, 2. semester 3. studieår, 1. semester 3. studieår, 2. semester 4. studieår, 1. semester 4. studieår, 2. semester Sak 12 Saker tatt på fullmakt: - Vedtatt ansvarlig faglærere for perioden høst studieår, LLMs og andre emner - Vedtatt ny ansvarlig faglærer for emnet JUS4121 Rettsøkonomi; Jukka Mähönen - Vedtatt mindre endring i læringskrav for JUS2211 Velferdsrett høsten Vedtatt inntatt avsnitt om klokkeforbudet i Regulations for support materials permitted at examination for courses taught in English, se nytt punkt 6 - Vedtatt endret karakterregel for JUS5912 Legal Writing and Oral Advocacy in International Law. Endret fra B/IB til karakterskala gjeldende fom høsten 2016

5 5 - Vedtatt å innta JUS5405 Law of the Sea som valgbart profilemne i profilen Internasjonal rett Sak 13 Eventuelt Samlefil med alle dokumentene (PDF)

6 6 Protokoll fra møte J.nr.: 2016/1416 Tid og sted: Tirsdag 12. april kl , Kollegieværelset DA Tilstede: Erling Hjelmeng, Henrik Bjørnebye, Christoffer Eriksen (sak 6, 1-4), Inger Berg Ørstavik, Johan Boucht, Ingunn Ikdahl, Cecilia Bailliet, Elisabeth Ulleberg (sak 1-6), Mads Baardseth og Josefine Ardem Fra administrasjonen: Julie Orning og Randi Saunes Observatører: Ida Stabrun (sak 1-7), Finn Arnesen (sak 6), Morten Slind Olsen (sak 7) Referent: Eline Sørensen Sakene ble diskutert i følgende rekkefølge: 6, 1-8, 10 (1), 9, 10 (2)-12 SAK 1 Protokoll Protokoll fra PMR-møtet tirsdag 15. mars ble godkjent i møtet SAK 2 Erfaringer fra studieårene, LLMs, JSU og nytt fra Erling Eline Sørensen slutter som PMR-sekretær. Henvendelser vedrørende PMR sendes til Kristin Steen Slåttå fra og med 2. mai. 1. studieår: Det jobbes videre med plasseringen av menneskerettighetsfaget og endringer i rettskildeundervisningen. Periodisk emneevaluering for JUS1211 er ferdig. Det er en god læreboksituasjon, mye interne lærerkrefter og mye undervisning på studieåret. Tilbakemeldingene er jevnt over gode, men rettskildelære kommer for sent i semesteret. Menneskerettigheter er utfordrende å ha på studieåret. Studentene ønsker mer bruk av podcast og synes det er positivt med digital eksamen. 2. studieår: Det har blitt gjennomført møte med faglærerne i

7 7 Menneskerettigheter. De er ubetinget positive til å flytte emnet til 2. studieår, men det er ikke klart hvordan dette gjøres, og hvilke emner som kan flyttes på. Det foreslås derfor at faglærerne på 2. studieår innkalles til møte for idémyldring. 3. studieår: Se sak 5. Det er nok ressurser blant lærere til den nye ordningen i Rettshistorie. Arbeidet med tilsynssensur er i gang. Bemanningssituasjonen for høsten grei. 4. studieår: Fortsatt utfordringer med lærersituasjonen på JUS4211, og det jobbes med å få alt på plass for høsten. Ansvarlig faglærermøte gjennomføres i mai. 5. studieår: Se sak 8. Administrasjonen jobber med å avklare hvem som skal jobbe med prosedyrekonkurranser. Pilot i TULSA gjennomføres til høsten i utvalgte engelske valgemner. LLM-ansvarlig: Se sak 7. LLM-ansvarlig har vært i Washington, og vært i dialog med Justisdepartementet i Norge. Det er endring i fokuset i den internasjonale strafferetten; det går mer i retning mot terrorisme. LLMansvarlig føler ansvar for å tilpasse undervisningen som gis, slik at studentene får jobb når de er ferdige. Hun vil derfor involvere aktuelle lærere for å få til en enklest mulig endring i PIL-programmet og skrive et notat til PMR om endringene som foreslås. JSU: Lanserte karakterpresskampanjen i forrige uke, som var vellykket. Dette er noe studentene er engasjert i. Erling: Gjennomført samtaler med hver enkelt studieårsansvarlig, instituttledere og administrasjonen. Formålet er å knytte instituttene tettere til undervisningsplanlegging, rekruttering osv. Det har vært nyttige og konstruktive møter. Nasjonalt dekanmøte i Bergen har blitt gjennomført. Mange av de samme utfordringene går igjen på fakultetene. Blind klagesensur er en bekymring, fordi den gir et stort sprik i resultatene på alle de tre fakultetene, se her også sak 9. Undervisningsdagen arrangeres for interne og eksterne lærere 19. mai

8 8 fra kl. 14. SAK 3 Vedtakssak: Møtedatoer for høsten 2016 Vedtak: Tirsdag 6. september kl Tirsdag 11. oktober kl Tirsdag 15. november kl Tirsdag 13. desember kl SAK 4 Vedtakssak: Forslag om å opprette bacheloremne i Internasjonale menneskerettigheter, samt endre navn på emnet til Menneskerettigheter Studiedekanen orienterte om saken. Hovedargumentet for endring er at faget da kan tilbys andre studenter enn programstudenter ved MIR. PMR mottar mange godt begrunnede forslag til nye valgemner, og det kan skje noen endringer i forbindelse med arbeidet med prosedyrekonkurranser. Det er en stor økning i antall valgfag. I utgangspunktet er det også skepsis til å utvide et emne som nå ligger under grensen for oppslutning til eksamen for å kunne tilby undervisning. Det er allerede et bredt tilbud i emner om menneskerettigheter. Imidlertid er det vanskelig å avvise gode forslag. Det må derfor forberedes en sak til PMR med håndfaste tall på bordet, som redegjør for hva valgfagporteføljen koster fakultetet, hvilke ressurser som tas vekk fra MIR osv. PMR og ledelsen må videre foreta en faglig prioritering. Forslaget aktualiserer vårt ansvar for å tilby undervisning til andre fakulteter i form av definerte 40-grupper. Å få studenter inn i en 40-

9 9 gruppe vil åpne for andre muligheter for finansiering. Dersom man skal opprette en slik gruppe er det viktig å tenke på innhold og det faglige utbyttet. En idé er å opprette én gruppe i offentligrettslige emner, og én i privatrettslige emner. Fakultetet tilbyr tre JUROFF-emner til studenter utenfor fakultetet. Det ble også kommentert at det er behov for å se på kostnadene for obligatorisk undervisning, ikke kun valgemner, og at det burde tillegges vekt at det er mange kvinnelige faglærere involvert i forslaget. Temaet er aktuelt, siden det stadig er debatt rundt nasjonale menneskerettigheter. Videre ble det nevnt at dette er et emne som det er viktig å tilby studenter på andre fagfelt, og at situasjonen stiller seg noe annerledes når det gjelder utvidelse av et emne, og ikke opprettelse av et nytt. JSU orienterte om at de har fått tilbakemelding om at undervisningssituasjonen blir annerledes når studenter på andre fagfelt har samme undervisning som våre programstudenter da forutsetningene er forskjellige. PMR ønsker en god metode for å veie nye forslag opp mot gamle emner, fordi det er vanskelig å vurdere nye emner slik situasjonen er nå. Det skal gjennomføres en større programevaluering neste år. Denne kan benyttes til å se på helheten. Det ble foreslått at det legges inn en vurdering av nye emner i forhold til eksisterende tilbud i emnemalen for opprettelse av nye valgemner. Avstemning: Flertallet stemte mot forslaget med ni mot en stemmer. Mot: Hjelmeng, Bjørnebye, Eriksen, Ørstavik, Boucht, Bailliet, Ulleberg, Baardseth og Ardem For: Ikdahl Endring av navnet på emnet fra Internasjonale menneskerettigheter til Menneskerettigheter ble vedtatt på fullmakt, se Godkjent endringer i litteratur, hjelpemidler, læringsutbytte og fagbeskrivelser for våren Vedtak:

10 10 Forlaget om utvidelse av emnet Internasjonale menneskerettigheter ble ikke tatt til følge. SAK 5 Vedtakssak: Alternative vurderingsformer, 3. studieår Randi Saunes orienterte om saken. Det er viktig at den nye ordningen orienteres godt ut til studentene. Vedtak: Høst 2016 tilbys både ny og gammel ordning i faget JUS3211. Dette innebærer følgende: Eksamen i JUS3211 (gammel ordning) avholdes siste gang høst Samme semester innføres ny ordning med hjemmeeksamen i JUS3212 Formuerett II og JUS3220 Rettshistorie. Hjemmeeksamen i Rettshistorie (JUS3220) går over 3 hele dager (døgn), med ordgrense på 3000 ord. For skoleeksamen i JUS3212 videreføres skoleeksamen på 6 timer. JUS3220 og/eller JUS3212 kan studentene fra våren 2017 ta opp igjen uavhengig av hverandre, og hver av dem vil telle som ett gjentak på den samlede gjentakskvoten. Den samlede kvoten (4) økes ikke. Dette gjelder ikke studenter som gjentar bestått eksamen i JUS3211. For gjentak av bestått JUS3211 er det et vilkår at både JUS3212 og JUS3220 gjentas. De to emnene vil samlet telle som ett gjentak på kvoten av JUS3211. Emnemaler for JUS3212 og JUS3220 godkjennes. SAK 6 Vedtakssak: Endringer i litteratur og læringskrav for emnet EØSrett på 2. studieår Finn Arnesen redegjorde for saken.

11 11 Forslaget har vært på høring blant faglærerne, og er godt forankret i fagmiljøet. Dette er en nødvendig endring som vil gjøre det enklere for studentene å få et blikk på hva EØS-rett er. JSU kommenterte at forlaget er over sidetallsnormen og ba om at det ble kuttet noe. Det ble foreslått at det kreves kjennskap til, i stedet for god forståelse av, reglene om fri bevegelighet av tjenester i læringskravene. Under diskusjonen ble det nevnt at man på et senere tidspunkt bør vurdere om det skal tillegges et studiepoeng til i EØS-rett. Vedtak: Endringene som fremgår av notatet vedtas med virkning fra og med høsten 2016 med en endring: Det kreves kjennskap til, i stedet for god forståelse av, reglene om fri bevegelse av tjenester i læringskravene. SAK 7 Diskusjonssak: Ekstern vurdering for PIL-programmet LLM-ansvarlig presenterte rapporten. Det er en grundig og god rapport. Justisdepartementet legger vekt på internasjonal erfaring, og ser positivt på mer samarbeid mellom MIR og fakultetets internasjonale programmer. De er også positive til moot courts som undervisningstilbud. Det vurderes et samarbeid med rettshistoriemiljøet for å dekke behovet for undervisning i folkerettshistorie. Det planlegges tutorials hvor de etterspurte temaene tas opp (TULSA). Fronter fungerer ikke bra nok. Det ble også kommentert i rapporten at man burde vurdere å utvide programmet til to år. Gode tilbakemeldinger fra studenter, som er imponert over valgfagtilbudet, og at det tilbys emner som ikke finnes andre steder. Det er positivt for fakultetet med et slikt program.

12 12 SAK 8 Diskusjonssak: Periodiske emneevalueringer Studieårsansvarlig for 5. studieår innledet. Studentene er opptatt av podcast, men også skeptiske til at diskusjonene i timen blir tatt opp. Det er ofte lav svarprosent på evalueringene. Det kom opp spørsmål om nye lærebøker, som følges opp av ansvarlige lærere. Studenter ønsker mer undervisning, kurs, kollokvier osv. Det er tilbakemeldinger om at skatterett må deles; dette ble gjort gjennom vedtak i PMR i forrige møte. Det er ikke skrevet rapport i seks fag. Disse følges opp. SAK 9 Orienteringssak/diskusjonssak: Klageomgangen høsten 2015 Eline Sørensen orienterte om saken. Studiedekanen informerte om at dette også er en utfordring på UiB og UiTø. UiB har innført tiltak for å få kontroll på klageomgangen. Bergen sørger for at klagekommisjonene får så mye spredning av karakterer i den enkelte kommisjon som mulig. De sikrer også erfaringsoverføring fra ordinær sensur til klage, blant annet ved at sensorveiledningen revideres og bygger på nivåkontroll etter ordinær sensur. A- og B- besvarelse sendes ut til alle kommisjonene. De har nivåkontroll i klageomgangen ved at vurderingen sendes til en «oppmann». Dette kan sikre likhet mellom kommisjonene. Det er imidlertid viktig at dette balanseres mot at det skal være blind sensur. På nasjonalt dekanatmøte ble det diskutert om de tre studiedekanene bør sende brev til KD, hvor de kommenterer den juridiske synsvinkelen på blind klagesensur. Det er bekymring for hvordan blind klagesensur slår ut. Fakultetet arbeider for å få opp kvaliteten i sensorveiledningene, som vil bidra med kvalitetssikring av sensuren. Det er stort fokus på klagesensuren både på studieårene, blant sensorene og på andre fakulteter ved universitetet. Under diskusjonen ble det kommentert at det er et tillitsproblem at så

13 13 mange ikke stoler på førstegangssensuren, og stilt spørsmål ved om gjentak er en utfordring i sensuren. JSU meldte om at det er ulike meninger blant studentene om blind klagesensur. SAK 10 Orienteringssaker: Skriftlig orienteringssak: Hjemmeeksamen Randi Saunes orienterte om ny digital løsning for hjemmeeksamen. Muntlig orienteringssak: Muligheten for annen fordeling av kandidater ved kandidatnummerering. Randi Saunes orienterte om at det vil bli foretatt tilfeldig kandidatnummerering på noen av valgemnene ved vårens eksamen. Da får vi erfare om dette fungerer greit i praksis. SAK 11 Saker tatt på fullmakt: Godkjent endringer i litteratur, hjelpemidler, læringsutbytte og fagbeskrivelser for våren 2016 Godkjent ny vara for faglig eksamensleder for 3. studieår våren 2016 Godkjent endringer i litteratur for emnet JUS5850 International Trade Law Godkjent endringer i litteratur for emnet JUS5970 Barnerett SAK 12 Eventuelt

14 Ingen saker. 14

15 Det juridiske fakultet Universitetet i Oslo 15 Notat Jens Peder Lomsdalen Til: PMR Dato: Internasjonaliseringsarbeidet på studiesiden (juss) status og muligheter UiOs Strategi2020 vektlegger i stor grad internasjonalisering. Fakultetets strategi for gjenspeiler UiOs fokus på internasjonalisering, blant annet skal samarbeidet med utenlandske institusjoner økes og flere studenter skal motiveres til å benytte de internasjonale faglige tilbud fakultetet har etablert. For å oppnå UiOs og fakultetets målsetninger i forbindelse med internasjonalisering på studiesiden ble internasjonalisering diskutert på dekanatmøte 04. mai For å sikre en faglig forankring og formulere konkrete tiltak ble det i dekanatmøtet konkludert med at nedenstående punkter bør diskuteres i PMR: Studentutveksling Nedenstående oversikt viser antall inn-/ og utreisende utvekslingsstudenter fra fakultetet: Innreisende Utreisende Kilde: DBH ( De siste årene har antall innreisende utvekslingsstudenter økt. Antall utreisende studenter varierer fra år til år, men er på rundt 100 per år. For å promotere utvekslingsmulighetene arrangerer vi hvert semester informasjonsmøter og en utvekslingsmesse, der innreisende studenter presenterer sine hjemmeinstitusjoner. Studentutveksling har hittil stort sett vært drevet av administrasjonen. Erfaringen fra JF, UiB viser derimot tydelig at ledelsen og fagmiljøet må involveres i større grad for å motivere flere studenter til å reise ut. Studentmobilitet skal ideelt sett ikke bare komme den enkelte studenten til gode, men institusjonen som helhet. Fakultetet ber de utreisende studenter om reisebrev og gjennomfører hvert semester en spørreundersøkelse blant disse. Utover det finnes det ingen ordninger som legger til rette for at fakultetet og dets studenter kan dra nytte av den kompetansen og de erfaringene, som fakultetets utreisende studenter opparbeider seg i utlandet. Muligens ville flere studenter bli inspirert til å gjennomføre et utvekslingsopphold dersom utvekslingsstudentenes erfaringer ville bli bedre Studieseksjonen Postadr.: Postboks 6706 St. Olavs plass, 0130 OSLO Kontoradr.: Telefon: Telefaks: postmottak@jus.uio.no Org.nr.:

16 16 2 integrert i studiehverdagen. Det ville også kunne føre til at utenlandsstudier i større grad ville bli ansett som faglige relevante. For å øke antall utreisende studenter og for å dra nytte av kompetansen til de tidligere utvekslingsstudentene kan følgende tiltak være relevante: - presentere utvekslingsmuligheter på velkomstmøtene for nye jusstudenter og kommunisere tydelig at utveksling ansees som en naturlig del av studiene - motivere fagmiljøet til å promotere utvekslingsmuligheter på forelesninger - oppfordre tidligere utvekslingsstudenter til å bidra med sin internasjonale erfaring i undervisningen (f.eks. der komparative betraktninger kan være av nytte) - skape fora, der tidligere utvekslingsstudenter, studenter som ikke reiser på utveksling og faglærere kan diskutere problemstillinger der utvekslingsstudentenes erfaringer/kunnskap kan dras inn Hvilke av disse tiltakene (eventuelt andre) anser PMR som hensiktsmessige og hvordan kan vi sikre at fagmiljøet bidrar til å gjennomføre relevante tiltak? Avtalearbeid Fakultetet har per dags dato rundt 80 utvekslingsavtaler med institusjoner i Europa, Nord-Amerika, Asia og Australia. Den omfattende avtaleporteføljen sikrer våre studenter store valgmuligheter og bidrar til at fakultetet mottar innreisende studenter fra et stort spekter land, kulturer og ulike rettssystemer. Dette mangfoldet i studentmassen gir et stort potensiale for internasjonalisering hjemme. Den omfattende porteføljen synes samtidig å skape utfordringer for potensielle utreisende studenter, siden enkelte opplever vanskeligheter med å vurdere hvilken institusjon som passer best med hensyn til deres faglige interesser. I tillegg til Norden og Europa har åtte land status som prioriterte samarbeidspartnere for Norge på kunnskapsfeltet (f.eks. USA, Brasil, Japan, Kina, Russland, India). Studentene etterspør spesielt flere avtaler i USA. De siste 2 årene har vi derfor hatt spesielt fokus på å øke antall utvekslingsmuligheter i USA og etablere utvekslingsmuligheter i Kina. Fakultetet har bl.a. inngått to avtaler med kinesiske institusjoner (Renmin og CUPL) og en ny avtale med en amerikansk Law School (UT Austin School of Law). For tiden er fakultetet i forhandlinger om en utvekslingsavtale med en japansk institusjon (Kyushu University). Spørsmålene, som må avklares i forbindelse med avtalearbeidet er følgende: - Savner fagmiljøet noen regioner/land? - Bør vi ha fokus på en tettere kobling til eksisterende forskningssamarbeid ved nye avtaleinngåelser for å sikre faglig eierskap til avtalene?

17 17-3 Hvordan kan fakultetet dra bedre nytte av fagmiljøets kontaktnett i forbindelse med avtalearbeidet? Studie- og undervisningssamarbeid relevante prosjektmidler På fakultetet har det hittil vært lite fokus på strategisk internasjonalt studie- og undervisningssamarbeid (f.eks. å etablere felles emner med en partnerinstitusjon) for å øke den internasjonale dimensjonen og kvaliteten i jusstudiet. Et mer strategisk samarbeid på studiesiden vil bidra til tettere og gjensidig nyttige partnerskap. Dette er spesielt viktig med hensyn til amerikanske partnerinstitusjoner. Fakultetet har veldig attraktive og populære avtaler i USA. For å opprettholde disse og etablere nye er det viktig å sikre at samarbeidet også ansees som fordelaktig og attraktivt for de amerikanske partnerne. Et studie- og undervisningssamarbeid der fakultetet bidrar med kompetanse som partnerinstitusjonen(e) ikke innehar, vil anses som fordelaktig og attraktivt. JF, UiB etablerte for eksempel en praksisordning kombinert med undervisning (fokus på opphavsrett) for innreisende Penn State studenter. Fakultetet kan for eksempel vurdere følgende: - Etablere felles emner med felles undervisning med utvalgte institusjoner enten ved hjelp av lærerutveksling eller ved hjelp av moderne IKT-løsninger (videokonferanse, videosnuter) f.eks. er Sverre Blandhol interessert i å etablere et felles kurs sammen med Pepperdine Law - Samarbeid med Internasjonal Sommerskole (UiO) for å tilby juridiske emner (f.eks. emner etablert sammen med en/flere partnerinstitusjoner) egnet for studenter fra utvalgte partnerinstitusjoner (reservere plasser for partnere) Det finnes flere programmer, som tilbyr prosjektmidler for å etablere slike prosjekter. Noen av de mest relevante er: - Erasmus+ (spesielt interessant er tiltakene mobilitet og strategiske partnerskap) Maria Lundberg søkte om Erasmus+ Global Mobility midler for et prosjekt med Yunnan - Partnerskapsprogram for Nord-Amerika (mål for programmet er økt studentmobilitet, økt kobling mellom forskning og utdanning samt økt samarbeid med arbeids- og næringsliv) - NORPART (mål for programmet er å styrke kvaliteten i høyere utdanning i Norge og utviklingsland gjennom utdanningssamarbeid og gjensidig studentmobilitet). Søkt om støtte til samarbeid med Etiopia og Nepal

18 18-4 INTPART (skal bidra til høyere kvalitet og relevans i faglig samarbeid med utvalgte land, særlig gjennom gode koblinger mellom høyere utdannings- og forskningssamarbeid) Følgende spørsmål må avklares i denne sammenheng: - Er det interesse blant fagmiljøet å initiere og utvikle strategisk internasjonalt studie-/ undervisningssamarbeid med en/flere partnerinstitusjoner, f.eks. ved å etablere et pilotprosjekt? - Hvordan motivere fagmiljøet til å utvikle utdanningsprosjekter med relevante partnerinstitusjoner? Praksismobilitet Erasmus+ praksismobilitet er utveksling til en bedrift eller organisasjon i Europa. Studenter som reiser på Erasmus+ praksismobilitet får økonomisk støtte til å gjennomføre praksisoppholdet. Oppholdet må vare i minst 2 måneder og det forutsettes at oppholdet godkjennes som del av studentens grad ved UiO. Det må inngås en avtale mellom hver enkelt student, UiO og organisasjonen, der innholdet i oppholdet avklares. De programansvarlige på «Theory and Practice of Human Rights» og «Public International Law» ønsker å legge til rette for at studenter på disse programmene kan ta i bruk Erasmus+ praksismobilitet i forbindelse med praksisopphold i Europa. Det er visse utfordringer knyttet til å utnytte Erasmus+ praksismobilitet på programmene (f.eks. planlagt uttelling for praksisoppholdet, administrativ prosess, osv.), men vi arbeider med å løse disse. Flere studenter fra mastergraden i rettsvitenskap har etterspurt muligheten for Erasmus+ stipendmidler i forbindelse med planlagt praksisopphold i Europa. Siden det hittil ikke er mulig å godkjenne et slikt praksisopphold som en del av mastergraden i rettsvitenskap ved UiO, har denne studentgruppen ikke tilgang til Erasmus+ stipendmidlene. Det skaper en del frustrasjon blant enkelte studenter. Fakultetet tilbyr praksisordning» (10 studiepoeng), men det er ikke mulighet å ta praksis for jusstudenter som reiser ut. Det humanistiske fakultet ved UiO, tilbyr et «Internasjonalt prosjektsemester Europa Amerika». Prosjektsemesteret er delt mellom eget arbeid med en semesteroppgave og arbeid for en oppdragsgiver og gir 30 studiepoeng. JF, UiB, holder på å etablere et tilbud til sine studenter, der studentene kan kombinere studier på et kinesisk partneruniversitet med et praksisopphold hos norske eller internasjonale bedrifter og organisasjoner i Kina. Prof. Graver, som nettopp var på partnerbesøk i Kina med SMR, anbefaler at fakultetet prøver å etablere en lignende ordning som JF, UiO. Ved å legge til rette for praksismobilitet ville fakultetet bidra til en sterkere kobling mellom utdanning og arbeidsliv i internasjonaliseringsarbeidet. Studentene ville da også ha muligheten til å

19 19 5 søke om Erasmus+ stipend (dersom praksisperioden gjennomføres i Europa) og ha mulighet til å motta støtte fra Lånekassen til å gjennomføre et praksisopphold. Forutsetningen er at praksisoppholdet godkjennes som en del av graden og at studenten ikke blir forsinket i studieløpet sitt (ideelt ville derfor være en ordning tilsvarende HFs prosjektsemester, 30 sp uttelling). - - Anser PMR en praksismulighet i utlandet som ønskelig? I tilfellet ja, hvordan bør den utformes - ren praksis á la HFs prosjektsemester (30 sp uttelling), en blanding av et utvekslingsopphold på et partneruniversitet og en parallell praksisperiode (à la JF, UiBs opplegg i Kina, samlet sett 30 sp) eller kan begge modeller være aktuelle? Hvem fra fagmiljøet bør i tilfellet involveres i utformingen av en slik ordning? For å utvikle internasjonaliseringsarbeidet på studiesiden er det viktig å få avklart hvilke tiltak det skal fokuseres på fremover og hvem i fagmiljøet som kan/skal involveres i de ulike tiltakene.

20 20 Oppsummering av spørreundersøkelse: Utreisende studenter - Høst 2014 og vår 2015

21 21 Om undersøkelsen Sendt studenter på Master i rettsvitenskap som har vært på utveksling til et partneruniversitet i utlandet Viser studentenes motivasjon, tilfredshet med ulike forhold og utbytte av utvekslingsoppholdet Utsendelse til studenter som var på utveksling høst 2014 og vår Svarprosent: 66 % (51 av 77) Undersøkelsen skal gjentas hvert semester

22 22 MOTIVASJON

23 Hva var hovedgrunnen(e) til at du valgte å gjennomføre et utvekslingsopphold ved et annet universitet? Vennligst list opp de viktigste grunnene :14 Temaer som går igjen hyppigst i svarene: Oppleve et nytt land/kultur Få nytt perspektiv på jussen Internasjonale relasjoner/nettverksbygging Bli bedre i språk Utfordre meg selv

24 24 OM STUDIESTEDET

25 25 Hvilket semester var du på utveksling? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 58,8% Prosent 50% 40% 39,2% 30% 20% 10% 0% Høst 2014 Vår 2015 Høst 2015 Vår ,0% 2,0%

26 Hva var hovedgrunnen(e) for at du 26 valgte akkurat dette studiestedet? Kryss av det som var viktigst for deg, maksimalt :14 Hovedgrunner for valg av studiested: byen studiestedet ligger i, fagtilbud, akademisk omdømme og anbefalinger fra tidligere utvekslingsstudenter 100% 90% 80% 74,5% 70% Prosent 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 25,5% 2,0% 13,7% 27,5% 27,5% 7,8% 5,9% 0,0% 15,7%

27 27 Vil du anbefale dette studiestedet til andre studenter? :14 88,2 % av studentene (45) vil anbefale studiestedet videre. 11,8 % vil ikke anbefale studiestedet (6). 100% 90% 88,2% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 11,8% 0% Ja Nei

28 28 INFORMASJON OG HJELP FØR AVREISE

29 29 Hva var den viktigste informasjonskilden før avreise? (maksimalt 3) :14 Studentene oppgir administrasjon på vertsuniversitetet som den viktigste informasjonskilden, etterfulgt av info på nett og utenlandskonsulenten ved fakultetet. Prosent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 31,4% 2,0% 45,1% 7,8% 47,1% 0,0% 15,7% 31,4% 45,1% 2,0% 0,0% 7,8%

30 :14 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du 30 med hjelpen/veiledningen du fikk før avreise fra: Svært misfornøyd Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke relevant 0,0% 3,9% 5,9% 9,8% 2,0% Faglærer/professor på fak. 78,4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100% Prosent Studentene oppgir at de er mest fornøyd med administrasjonens hjelp før avreise. Fagmiljøet synes å være lite involvert i prosessen. 1 er svært misfornøyd, 5 er svært fornøyd Svært misfornøyd 1 2,0% 2 3,9% 3 21,6% 4 23,5% Svært fornøyd 5 45,1% Ikke relevant 3,9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent Svært misfornøyd 1 0,0% 2 3,9% 3 9,8% 4 13,7% Svært fornøyd 5 9,8% Ikke relevant 62,7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100% Prosent Svært misfornøyd Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke relevant 5,9% 2,0% 23,5% 29,4% 35,3% 3,9% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Utenlandskonsulent på fak. Faglærer/professor på vertsuniv. Adm. på vertsuniv.

31 31 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd var du med søknadsprosessen ved fakultetet (UiO)? (Eksempelvis bruk av SøknadsWeb) :14 100% 90% 80% 70% Prosent 60% 50% 51,0% 40% 35,3% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0,0% 0,0% Svært misfornøyd 1 11,8% 2,0% Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke relevant

32 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd var du 32 med søknadsprosessen ved vertsuniversitetet? (For eksempel deres online-løsninger, søknadspapirer, emnevalg)? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 41,2% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3,9% Svært misfornøyd 1 23,5% 19,6% 11,8% 0,0% Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke relevant

33 33 Reiste du via en av våre Erasmus-, Nordplus- eller øvrige utvekslingsavtaler? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 49,0% 47,1% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3,9% Erasmus Nordplus Øvrige utvekslingsavtaler (bilaterale avtaler)

34 Til studenter som var på avtale med Erasmus: Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med prosessen rundt søknad og tildeling av Erasmus-stipendet? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% Prosent 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0,0% Svært misfornøyd 1 44,0% 24,0% 16,0% 8,0% 8,0% Svært fornøyd 5 Ingen formening Sitat i forbindelse med tilleggsspørsmål: Hva var den største utfordringen( )? «Lite informasjon. Uoversiktlig. Mye papirstyr»

35 Til studenter som var på avtale med Erasmus: Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med prosessen rundt søknad og tildeling av Learning agreement? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 8,0% Svært misfornøyd 1 20,0% 28,0% 32,0% 12,0% 0,0% Svært fornøyd 5 Ingen formening Sitat i forbindelse med tilleggsspørsmål: Hva var den største utfordringen( )? «Helt meningsløst å skulle fylle den ut før avreise, alt måtte gjøres om på når man ankom og man hadde ikke i nærheten av nok informasjon tilgjengelig på noe tidspunkt» «At ingen visste hvordan skjemaet skulle fylles ut + at det ikke fantes noen oversikt over hvilke fag vi kunne velge da dette måtte fylles ut.»

36 :14 Til studenter som var på avtale med Erasmus: Vil du anbefale andre studenter om å reise på utveksling via Erasmus? 100% 100,0% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ja 0,0% Nei

37 :14 Til studenter som var på avtale med Nordplus: 37 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med prosessen rundt søknad og tildeling av Nordplus-stipendet? Vil du anbefale til andre å reise på utveksling via Nordplus? Prosent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 50,0% 50,0% 0,0% Prosent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100,0% Ja 0,0% Nei

38 38 HJELP UNDERVEIS

39 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd var du 39 med hjelpen/veiledningen du fikk underveis i utvekslingsoppholdet fra: :14 Svært Svært fornøyd 5 0,0% 3,9% 7,8% 2,0% 0,0% Ikke aktuelt 86,3% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Studentene oppgir at de er mest fornøyd med medstudenters hjelp underveis, etterfulgt av utenlandskonsulent på Det juridiske fakultet. 1 er svært misfornøyd, 5 er svært fornøyd Faglærer på fak. Svært Svært Ikke aktuelt 2,0% 2,0% 13,7% 31,4% 33,3% 17,6% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Svært Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke aktuelt 2,0% 5,9% 13,7% 19,6% 27,5% 31,4% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Svært Svært Ikke aktuelt 3,9% 7,8% 3,9% 19,6% 33,3% 31,4% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Svært Svært fornøyd 5 Ikke aktuelt 3,9% 0,0% 13,7% 21,6% 43,1% 17,6% 0% 50% 100% Prosent Utenlandskons. Faglærer på vertsuniv. Adm. på vertsuniv. Medstudenter

40 40 UNDERVISNING OG LÆRINGSMILJØ PÅ STUDIESTEDET

41 41 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer på vertsuniversitetet? :14 a) Faglig utbytte av studiene b) Emnetilbudet Svært misfonøyd 1 2,0% Svært misfonøyd 1 0,0% 2 7,8% 2 15,7% 3 11,8% 3 29,4% 4 33,3% 4 37,3% Svært fornøyd 5 45,1% Svært fornøyd 5 17,6% Ingen formening 0,0% Ingen formening 0,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

42 42 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer på vertsuniversitetet? :14 c) Fasilitetene (bibliotek, forelesningsrom, lesesaler) d) Undervisningskvaliteten Svært misfonøyd 1 2,0% Svært misfonøyd 1 3,9% 2 9,8% 2 5,9% 3 17,6% 3 13,7% 4 31,4% 4 35,3% Svært fornøyd 5 39,2% Svært fornøyd 5 41,2% Ingen formening 0,0% Ingen formening 0,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

43 :14 43 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer på vertsuniversitetet? e) Interaksjon med faglærere f) Tilgjengeligheten på faglærere Svært misfonøyd 1 2,0% Svært misfonøyd 1 2,0% 2 9,8% 2 5,9% 3 5,9% 3 17,6% 4 37,3% 4 19,6% Svært fornøyd 5 45,1% Svært fornøyd 5 52,9% Ingen formening 0,0% Ingen formening 2,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

44 44 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer knyttet til undervisningen ved vertsuniversitetet? :14 a) Faglærers evne til å gjøre undervisningen engasjerende b) Faglærernes evne til å gjøre vanskelig stoff forståelig Svært misfornøyd 1 0,0% Svært misfornøyd 1 2,0% 2 2,0% 2 3,9% 3 15,7% 3 15,7% 4 35,3% 4 49,0% Svært fornøyd 5 47,1% Svært fornøyd 5 27,5% Ingen formening 0,0% Ingen formening 2,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

45 45 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer knyttet til undervisningen ved vertsuniversitetet? :14 c) Hvordan undervisningen dekker emnets lærestoff d) Faglærernes tilbakemeldinger på ditt arbeid Svært misfornøyd 1 3,9% Svært misfornøyd 1 7,8% 2 3,9% 2 7,8% 3 13,7% 3 25,5% 4 37,3% 4 29,4% Svært fornøyd 5 31,4% Svært fornøyd 5 27,5% Ingen formening 9,8% Ingen formening 2,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent Prosent

46 46 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med følgende faktorer knyttet til undervisningen ved vertsuniversitetet? e) Den individuelle oppfølgingen fra faglærerne :14 Svært misfornøyd 1 3,9% 2 13,7% 3 25,5% 4 21,6% Svært fornøyd 5 29,4% Ingen formening 5,9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

47 Sammenligning resultat fra studiebarometeret for master 47 i rettsvitenskap 2015 og undersøkelsen for utreisende (gjennomsnitt) :14

48 48 SPRÅK

49 Språk 49 a) På hvilket språk studerte du? Prosent 100% 90% 84,3% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 7,8% 0,0% 5,9% 2,0% 0% Engelsk Tysk Spansk Fransk Annet b) Hvilke språklige forkunnskaper hadde du før avreise? (flere kryss mulig) Prosent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 94,1% 2,0% 5,9% 13,7% 17,6% 5,9% :14 c) Hvordan taklet du det å studere på et annet språk? Prosent 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0,0% 1 Svært dårlig 3,9% 9,8% 31,4% 54,9% Svært godt

50 50 SOSIALT, BOLIG OG ØKONOMI

51 51 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du med måten du ble integrert i studiehverdagen på? (følte du deg som en del av fakultetet / universitetet du utvekslet til, fikk du god kontakt med medstudenter) :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 37,3% 39,2% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13,7% 9,8% 0,0% 0,0% Svært misfornøyd Svært fornøyd 5 Ingen formening

52 52 Hvilken studentgruppe hadde du mest kontakt med? :14 100% 90% 92,2% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 7,8% 0% Nasjonale studenter (fra vertslandet) Internasjonale studenter

53 :14 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd var du med det sosiale miljøet på vertsuniversitetet? % 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 45,1% 30% 20% 21,6% 29,4% 10% 0% 3,9% 0,0% 0,0% Svært misfornøyd Svært fornøyd 5 Ingen formening

54 :14 54 Fikk du bolig gjennom studiestedet? Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd var du med boligen du fikk? * 100% 90% 80% 100% 90% 80% Prosent 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 39,2% Ja 60,8% Nei Prosent 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5,0% Svært misfornøyd 1 10,0% 35,0% 30,0% 20,0% Svært fornøyd 5 0,0% Ingen formening *Spørsmål stilt til studenter som fikk bolig gjennom studiestedet.

55 :14 55 Hvor lett/vanskelig var det t å finne bolig på det private markedet?* Fikk du noe hjelp fra vertsuniversitetet til å finne bolig på det private markedet? * 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 74,2% 70% 70% Prosent 60% 50% 40% 30% 29,0% 32,3% Prosent 60% 50% 40% 30% 25,8% 20% 10% 12,9% 12,9% 12,9% 20% 10% 0% Svært vanskelig Svært lett 5 0% Ja Nei *Spørsmålene er stilt til studenter som ikke fikk bolig gjennom studiestedet

56 56 I hvilken grad synes du at du klarte deg godt økonomisk med den støtten, som du mottok fra Lånekassen (eventuelt Erasmus- / Nordplus-stipend i tillegg)? :14 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 15,7% 21,6% 29,4% 17,6% 15,7% 10% 0% Svært dårlig Svært godt 5 Ingen formening 0,0%

57 57 UTBYTTE AV OPPHOLDET

58 :14 Hvilket utbytte ga utvekslingsoppholdet? 58 a) Nye venner / nytt nettverk c) Økt interkulturell kompetanse Ikke noe utbytte Svært stort utbytte 5 Ingen formening 0,0% 2,0% 11,8% 29,4% 2,0% 54,9% Ikke noe utbytte Svært stort utbytte 5 Ingen formening 2,0% 5,9% 9,8% 2,0% 39,2% 41,2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent b) Bedre språkkunnskaper 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent d) Bedre samarbeidsevner Ikke noe utbytte ,0% 2,0% 3,9% 4 31,4% Svært stort utbytte 5 62,7% Ingen formening 0,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent Ikke noe utbytte 1 2 5,9% 5,9% 3 4 Svært stort utbytte 5 Ingen formening 25,5% 31,4% 11,8% 19,6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

59 :14 Hvilket utbytte ga utvekslingsoppholdet? 59 e) Økt selvstendighet g) Økt selvtillitt Ikke noe utbytte 1 2,0% 2 0,0% 3 5,9% 4 31,4% Svært stort utbytte 5 52,9% Ingen formening 7,8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent Ikke noe utbytte ,9% 5,9% 9,8% 23,5% Svært stort utbytte 5 45,1% Ingen formening 11,8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent f) Utvidet faglig kunnskap Ikke noe utbytte 1 3,9% 2 5,9% 3 15,7% 4 35,3% Svært stort utbytte 5 37,3% Ingen formening 2,0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent h) Opparbeidet nyttig kunnskap om studielandet Ikke noe utbytte Svært stort utbytte 5 Ingen formening 0,0% 2,0% 9,8% 2,0% 33,3% 52,9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

60 :14 60 Hvilket utbytte ga utvekslingsoppholdet? i) Ser på forhold i Norge med et nytt blikk Ikke noe utbytte ,0% 3,9% 9,8% 4 29,4% Svært stort utbytte 5 47,1% Ingen formening 7,8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Prosent

61 61 LÆRINGSPOTENSIAL FOR FAKULTETET

62 Hva kan det juridiske fakultet lære av studiestedet du utvekslet til? Beskriv med egne ord: :14 Temaer som går igjen hyppigst i svarene: Mer kontakt mellom lærer og student (!) Mer tilgjengelige faglig ansatte Bedre faglig oppfølgning av studenter Færre studenter på grupper/mer gruppeundervisning Mer variert undervisning, diskusjoner og muntlig framlegg Ulike eksamensformer Mer inkluderende for utvekslingsstudenter

63 63 TILFREDSHET SAMLET SETT

64 :14 Hvor fornøyd eller misfornøyd er du samlet sett med utvekslingsoppholdet? Hele 70,6 % er svært fornøyd samlet sett. Kun 2 % oppgir at de er misfornøyde % 90% 80% 70% 70,6% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 13,7% 13,7% 0,0% 2,0% Svært misfornøyd Svært fornøyd 5

65 65 Hva var du mest fornøyd med i forbindelse med utvekslingsoppholdet? Beskriv med egne ord: :14 Temaer som går igjen hyppigst i svarene: Sosialt nye venner/nettverk Oppleve ny kultur og et nytt land Nye faglige perspektiver Høyt faglig nivå Økt selvstendighet Ny motivasjon Avbrekk fra studiehverdagen på UiO

66 :14 Var det noe som du ikke var så fornøyd med i forbindelse med utvekslingsoppholdet? Beskriv med egne ord: 66 Temaer som går igjen hyppigst i svarene: Søknadsprosessen Økonomi Vanskelig å få bolig Informasjon fra vertsuniversitetet

67 :14 Vil du anbefale dine medstudenter å reise på utveksling? Samtlige studenter vil anbefale å reise på utveksling! % 100,0% 90% 80% 70% 60% Prosent 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ja 0,0% Nei

68 68 Saker Møte 6. september Kommentarer Innsendelsesfrist 16. august Vedtakssaker Innstilling fra arbeidsgruppen oppfølgning av 3+2 Forslag til endringer i lokalt regleverk Diksusjonssaker: Valgemneporteføljen Orienteringssaker: Faglige eksamensleder for høsten 2016 Tall for eksamensmøtte valgemner våren 2016 Møte 11. oktober E-post om revidering av læringskrav/litteraturliste og hjelpemiddelliste sendes alle ansvarlige faglærere før 1. september Innsendelsesfrist 20. september Vedtakssaker: Opprettelse av nye emner/nedleggelse av emner Dekanatet behandler søknader om opprettelse av nye emner Endringer av emner, eks. undervisningsformer og eksamensformer etter behandling i PMR Læringskrav, litteratur og hjelpemidler Møtedatoer for våren 2017 Innstilling fra arbeidsgruppen om Prosedyrekonkurranser Diskusjonssaker: Undervisningsbudsjett 2017 Kvalitetssikring: Periodiske evalueringer/emnerapporter Tilsynssensors rapport fra 3. studieår H15/V16 Orienteringssak Eksamensbudsjett 2017 Møte 15. november Orienteringssak Periodisk programevaluering av MiR i 2017 Innsendelsesfrist 25. oktober Vårens semestersider publiseres ca. 20. november med informasjon om: Eksamensdato

69 69 Læringskrav/litteraturliste Undervisning Kontaktinformasjon Møte 13. desember Vedtakssaker: Årsplan for PMR våren 2017 Endringer i regleverk Programbeskrivelse og Nærmere regler Innsendelsesfrist 22. november 15. desember publiseres regleverket for våren Regelverket skal kun endres før hvert semester, og gjelde ut semesteret. Alle vedtak som har ført til endringer i regelverket, publiseres først 15. desember. Det er allikevel hensiktsmessig å fordele sakene utover i semesteret.

70 70 External Evaluation Report Two Year Master s Programme Theory and Practice of Human Rights, University of Oslo, Norway Members of the Committee: Noëlle Quénivet (Chair) Bjørn Stensaker (Deputy Chair) Nadia Bernaz (Member) Lars Petter Soltvedt (Member) Kristin Bakke (Member) Marius Emberland (Member) Dorina Damsa (Member) 21 May 2016

71 71 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Summary of Observations and Concluding Recommendations... 3 Strengths... 6 The Programme... 6 A Multidisciplinary Programme... 6 Structure of the Programme... 6 An International and Diverse Student Cohort... 6 Learning and Teaching... 7 Teaching Staff... 7 Assessments... 7 Practice and Research... 8 HUMR4505 Human Rights in Practice... 8 Research... 8 Student Environment and Facilities... 8 Management of the Programme... 9 Weaknesses... 9 The Programme... 9 Learning and Teaching... 9 Modules... 9 Teaching Assignments and Feedback Practice and Research Student Environment and Facilities Opportunities General Recruitment and Expansion Programme Interdisciplinary Programme Structure of the Programme Monitoring of the Programme Learning and Teaching Modules HUMR4504 Human Rights in Practice Attendance Assessments and Feedback

72 72 Threats Recruitment and Drop-Out Rates Skills Courses Employability PhD Candidates as Teaching Staff Annex

73 73 Introduction In December 2015 a committee of seven members was appointed to conduct a review of the MA programme in Theory and Practice of Human Rights offered by the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the University of Oslo, Norway. This two-year postgraduate programme attracts a broad and diverse cohort of students interested in gaining not only an academic qualification in human rights but also practical experience in the field. The review is based on the 25 November 2015 internal evaluation report that was sent to the Committee, information gleaned on the website of the programme and, crucially, answers given by the programme managers to questions sent by the Committee. The members of the Committee would like to thank the programme managers for their cooperation and the time and effort spent in answering very comprehensively these questions. The Committee was required to conduct a SWOT analysis of the programme and provide critique as well as thoughts and ideas on how the programme can be improved. With this view, each member of the Committee made initially a list of the five key strengths and five key weaknesses of the programme. As the members of the Committee were situated in different countries, they worked via s. This enabled the Committee to agree on what worked well and not so well in the programme and seed thoughts about the opportunities and threats. Subsequently, to gain further insights into the programme a set of 25 questions was sent by the Committee in February 2016 to the programme managers. Indeed, clarification on some issues was needed to assist the members of the Committee to understand not only how the programme worked in practice but also some of the practical and financial constraints relating to the programme which would affect the Committee s recommendations. A draft structure of the sections Strengths and Weaknesses of the report was circulated and commented upon by Committee members. Later, s were exchanged on the opportunities and threats in order to give shape to the second part of the report. The report was eventually written by the Chair of the Committee and circulated for comments. The report was then submitted on 31 March Following further information sent by the managers of the programme, exchanges between committee members and a phone conversation between the Chair of the Committee and the Director of the Programme a revised version was submitted on 21 May Summary of Observations and Concluding Recommendations Strengths - Programme clearly geared towards providing students with an overview of human rights issues, espousing a multidisciplinary approach. Carefully thought-out structure imparting the basics in the first year and allowing students to specialise later on. Open structure of the programme. International and diverse student cohort. Students taught by well qualified and experienced members of staff. Use of guest speakers to enrich the course and support its multidisciplinary character. Diversity of assessment types. Opportunity to undertake an internship. 3

74 74 - Friendly environment, conducive to studying and enabling students to forge bonds between them. Programme seems to be very well-developed, managed and run efficiently. Weaknesses - Overall, the number of students on the course appears to be rather small. Too heavily focused on the legal perspective to human rights. The distinction between the various approaches in social sciences seems to go amiss as they appear to be bundled up. The distinction between modules does not appear to be always clear-cut. It is suggested that some of the titles of the modules be amended to better reflect the content of these modules. A solid research methods module appears to be necessary for the completion of a research master dissertation and, possibly, further academic work. Some modules appear to lack internal coherence mainly due to the use of internal and external guest speakers. The feedback provided by lecturers seems to be of varied quality. More attention could be paid to supporting the students looking for internships. There also appears to be some problems with space in the sense that either there are not enough available rooms for students to study or the rooms are not spacious enough. The lack of podcasts and generally the lack of use of modern technology in applied teaching can be seen as a weakness. Opportunities It would be good if students were told that should they be interested to visit The Hague, Strasbourg or Geneva in order to not only bridge the gap between the classroom and the real world but also to improve social relations among themselves, the managers are happy to support them with recommendations and contacts. Given the quality of the master programme and the number of students applying for it we would recommend the managers to increase the number of students enrolled on the programme. Where possible, the presence of two staff members in the room might assist the students in understanding the various perspectives on human rights issues, deploying different disciplines skills and knowledge. The programme would benefit from highlighting more effectively its interdisciplinary features. To foster a more interdisciplinary approach the programme managers could help organise brown bags around topics that can be viewed from a variety of disciplines. The research methods module (HUMR5191: Human Rights Methodology: Research, Analysis and Thesis ) ought to be placed closer to the master thesis. We recommend that all optional modules be offered at all times. We recommend the programme managers to organise an away day for staff members, as mentioned on page 23 of the internal evaluation report, to discuss and revise the programme in light of changes in the education business and trends in human rights. 4

75 75 - A number of elements that one would expect to be covered in a research methods module are missing. The programme should try to increase the number of agreements concerning internship places with partner institutions, NGOs, law firms or companies. To improve the attendance rate the programme managers might consider a range of options so as to involve the students even further in the delivery of the modules. As feedback is essential for students to improve upon their knowledge of human rights issues and their skills it ought to be standardised and detailed, in a single feedback sheet template. Threats - There are four elements we consider to be potential threats to the master programme: the relatively high drop-out rate; the lack of an additional solid, foundational skills modules; the poor set of information on postgraduate destinations (eg employability and career); and the use of PhD candidates to teach master students who might need support in teaching and training. 5

76 76 Strengths The Programme The three key strengths of the programme are its multidisciplinary approach, its structure and its ability to draw an international and diverse cohort of students. A Multidisciplinary Programme The programme is clearly geared towards providing students with an overview of human rights issues, espousing a multidisciplinary approach. Indeed, the breadth of choices of modules is evidence to the dedication and willingness of the programme managers to offer students the opportunity to learn (more) about the legal, philosophical, sociological and political context in which human rights issues are raised. Modules are offered in a variety of fields such as law, philosophy, anthropology and social sciences. The modules in themselves offer a varied approach to specific topics (eg HUMR5702 Human Rights and Development: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Theory and Practices ) and this is notably made possible by the use of guest-speakers. Overall, there is enough depth and breadth in these modules to signpost them as multidisciplinary. In particular, the opportunity for students to take courses (sometimes after seeking approval) in other departments, faculties, and even universities (eg MSc in Human Rights and Multiculturalism at the University College of Southeast Norway in Drammen) shows that the flair of the programme is undoubtedly multidisciplinary. The eclectic range of dissertation topics is also testament to such an endeavour. The programme must be commended for espousing such an approach as most postgraduate studies offered in the field of human rights almost exclusively focus on the law relating to human rights. There is indeed a wealth of LLM programmes in human rights law offered in English language in various European countries. Only a few programmes offer an interdisciplinary approach, usually awarding a MA in Human Rights. The members of the Committee are not aware of any such programmes being embedded in a Law School/Faculty. This no doubt reveals the difficulty in crafting such a programme at the University of Oslo. Structure of the Programme The programme has been thoughtfully designed so as to impart the basics of human rights in the first two terms. It is indeed best that compulsory modules are scheduled early in the programme so as to set the overall tone and provide all the tools necessary for the students to perform well and fully enjoy the optional modules. The open structure of the programme is also another key strength. It needs to stay as it would otherwise affect the multidisciplinary approach of the programme and deny students the opportunity to focus at a later stage (in Terms 2 and 3) on a particular approach. Students can tailor their studies and choose options that are closely related to their areas of interest. It might also affect recruitment in the longer term as the great majority of master programmes offer optional modules. An International and Diverse Student Cohort The well-balanced composition of the student cohort seems to be the result of two important factors. First, the programme, its structure and content, attracts an international and diverse 6

77 77 student cohort. Second, a careful and well-crafted recruitment process (with points allocated for motivation and experience, leading to a ranking system) allows the programme managers to select students who are not only of high academic standard but also who are motivated and have prior, relevant experience in the field. This blend of students is beneficial inasmuch as students who have just finished their undergraduate studies can assist students who have left university a while ago in improving on academic skills they might have used less in their jobs. Likewise students with field experience tend to share such experience with those who have just graduated, providing them with a more practice-based approach to human rights. Such a combination is also likely to work well in a seminar setting where students exchange ideas and opinions on issues raised by the lecturer. Moreover, the programme selection process allows for individuals with varied academic backgrounds to join the programme: The balance between international and national students is appropriate as well as is the balance between students with a social sciences background and those with another background such as law. This again reinforces the multidisciplinary approach of the programme. Learning and Teaching In terms of Learning and Teaching the two strong points of the programme are its teaching staff and the diversity of methods of assessments. Teaching Staff There is no doubt that students are taught by well qualified and experienced members of staff. Moreover the modules are taught by staff members and/or PhD candidates who are experts in their (research) fields and thus best placed to offer deeper insights into particular topics. Being taught by competent PhD candidates may also enamour students on the programme to later enrol on a PhD programme at the NHRC or the University of Oslo more generally. The use of guest speakers, be they from other departments or faculties or from other institutions, not only enriches the module by bringing in a diversity of opinions and experiences but also supports the multidisciplinary character of the programme. Assessments Whilst a 4-hour examination enables students to demonstrate academic knowledge and rigour in the presentation of arguments it does not give students the chance to display other skills such as oral presentation or research skills. The diversity of the assessment types in the programme is therefore welcome. In particular the oral debate in HUMR5132 ( Human Rights Law in Context ), a compulsory module, will offer all students an opportunity to develop their oral and argumentative skills. These are skills that are particularly useful for human rights advocates and thus should be a part of an assessment in a compulsory module. Providing feedback mid-term is important (see HUMR5140, HUMR5131, HUMR5702, HUMR5133) as it not only allows students to verify that they have understood the relevant concepts and principles and have acquired the skills required to write a good written piece but also staff members to gauge the level of the students and, accordingly, if necessary, adapt the content of the following sessions, leading up to the final paper, to the needs and level of the students. 7

78 78 Practice and Research The ability of the programme to offer students an insight into practice as well as research, whilst also providing a linkage between them, is a positive feature of the programme. HUMR4505 Human Rights in Practice Probably one of the highlights of the programme is the opportunity for students to undertake an internship. First, the internship is embedded in a module, thereby incentivising (and not obliging as students can choose not to undertake an internship) students to seek an internship and do well in it as this will be reflected in their report. Moreover, as the module is compulsory, the internship forms an integral part of the learning process of students. This module offers students the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills acquired and improved upon in the various modules undertaken at the NHRC and other departments, faculties and universities to real, concrete situations. The assistance provided by the programme managers in finding suitable internships (14 internships are pre-arranged) must be commended too. Research The opportunity for students to share the preliminary results of their research with the Centre s research group provides them with a platform to submit their ideas and opinions to the scrutiny of fellow students but also more experienced academics. As a result, students taste what academic life can be like. It might also encourage them to opt to write a longer thesis and eventually apply for a PhD at the University of Oslo. Student Environment and Facilities A friendly environment, conducive to studying and enabling students to forge bonds between them is a key positive feature of the programme. For example the managers organise an away day when a new cohort of student join the programme. Further, student representatives (two for each cohort) help organising get-togethers for the students. There are also a number of opportunities offered by the university to socialise, especially at the beginning of the year with an introductory week. Likewise students have access to good facilities such as the library of the NCHR and the University of Oslo more generally. In particular an introductory session on library and research skills is arranged for the students. This is all the more important as students come from diverse backgrounds, some of which might have not used such research facilities for a while if they have considerable work experience. A good drop in system to assist students as well as friendly staff are undoubtedly a positive aspect to ensure that students feel supported in their studies. Further, we understand that great attention is paid to students needs and interests. Also student representatives attend the meetings of the Education Committee. This all provides students with an educational environment where their voices are heard and concerns shared with the management and the staff of the programme. 8

79 79 Management of the Programme The programme seems to be very well-developed, managed and run efficiently. The evaluations from the students and the external examiners demonstrate that the management is attentive to quality control and student feedback. For example, participation of students in the Education Committee meetings is helpful for the management to ensure that the programme meets the demands of the students (and thus attracts further students) whilst maintaining high academic standards. Weaknesses The Programme Overall, the number of students on the course appears to be rather small. Given that there is a large choice of modules students can attend this appears at first sight rather surprising. That being said, this choice of limiting the number to 30 students might be due to the fact that the compulsory modules are only running once and teaching a group of 30 students at master level where discussions and interactions are a necessary component of the teaching and learning process may not be particularly welcome. We however understand that there are practical considerations that may hinder the increase in the number of students taken onto the programme. At first sight, the programme seems to be heavily focused on the legal perspective to human rights. This is probably due to the fact that two of the compulsory modules contain the word law and that the majority of the optional modules available are offered by the Law Faculty (14 according to the website) and the programme is part of the Law Faculty. In contrast, the NHRC only offers 7 non-law modules and 4 other such modules are offered in other departments. Yet, looking at the programme in more details it is technically possible to graduate with only one law module (HUMR5140 Introduction to Human Rights Law ) though the students would not have as much choice in terms of optional modules as other students. There seems to be a divide between the legal on the one hand and the social, historical, political and philosophical approaches on the other. The distinction between the various approaches in social sciences seems to go amiss as they appear to be bundled up (at least in the presentation of the internal evaluation). The dichotomy law and social sciences appears unsatisfactory as it conveys the impression that all social sciences adopt similar positions and approaches and require the same set of skills. Learning and Teaching With regard to Learning and Teaching a number of issues relating to specific modules, teaching and assignments and feedback need to be mentioned. Modules Bearing in mind that we have not all seen the syllabus and the teaching materials of the modules (as this is an external evaluation of the programme rather than of the specific modules) our comments 9

80 80 on the modules might not provide a full, correct picture. Yet, we believe that enough information has been provided to impart some comments. It appears that the distinction between modules is not always clear-cut. Whilst we acknowledge that overlaps cannot be avoided and in fact are often not only necessary but also vital to stress and reinforce (especially if used in a different context) certain concepts and principles of human rights, we believe that three of the five core modules overlap to a certain extent. These are HUMR5131 ( Introduction to the History, Philosophy and Politics of Human Rights ), HUMR5132 ( Human Rights Law in Context ) and HUMR5140 ( Introduction to Human Rights Law ). In this order, the modules almost feel like a gradation, from the less to the more (socio)-legal, from the more contextual to the more technical. If such a gradation is indeed the aim, students will not realise it as they are all taught concurrently in Term 1. The fact that additional seminars for four of the compulsory modules (see page 5 of the Q&A document) need to be run shows that too much information is crammed into these modules. It is thus suggested that the content of these modules be rethought and redrafted. As some modules (eg HUMR5134 The Right to Peace ) are only offered on specific semesters and years some students might not be able to choose them. The lack of a module that offers a regional, comparative perspective on human rights has also been noted as a weakness of the programme. Whilst we understand that the module on human rights in Asia is offered in relation to the three international programmes (Vietnam, Indonesia and China) we would recommend a module on human rights in Europe, where about half of the students are from, to be offered. It is suggested that some of the titles of the modules be amended to better reflect the content of the modules. What is more there seems to be little training in research methods that includes empirical research skills such as interviewing skills, use of statistics, use of survey, research ethics, etc. A solid research methods module appears to be necessary for the completion of a research master dissertation and, possibly, further academic work. Also it would enable an increased dialogue between the laworiented study of human rights and the quantitative literature on human rights that is mostly found in political science. Teaching Whilst attendance of compulsory modules is generally quite high that of electives appears lower. Attendance in class is likely to have some bearing on the discussions in the class and, of course, the atmosphere in class. Some modules appear to lack internal coherence mainly due to the use of internal and external guest speakers. That up to 7 lecturers can be involved in the delivery of a module is rather concerning as it is extremely difficult for the module leader to coordinate them and ensure that the module appears coherent to the students. Unless links are properly established between the various sessions and the speakers students are likely to view these sessions as disparate elements and might then pick and choose to attend some rather than other sessions. It is recommended that the links between the sessions be spelled out to the students and that the recurring and overarching themes be reiterated, using different examples, perspectives, etc. This issue has already been noted in the internal evaluation report. Whilst we understand that it is the responsibility of the module leader to ensure the coherence of the course and the avoidance of unnecessary overlap (as explained on page 6 of the Q&A document) the programme managers should cast a second eye on modules that are highlighted by students as being a patchwork of perspectives. 10

81 81 Assignments and Feedback The feedback provided by lecturers seems to be of varied quality. The external examiner has on numerous occasions explained that it was difficult to understand how marks had been allocated. Surely, this should not be the case. Practice and Research More attention could be paid to supporting the students looking for internships. This includes identifying appropriate and relevant internships, applying for such internships and being prepared for interviews for such internships. The members of the Committee however understand the challenges involved in ensuring there are enough internships for all students. In particular the Committee acknowledges that obtaining internships is a highly competitive process and that students on the programme are in fact looking for internships available to students from all around the world. It is thus recommended that the managers of the programme try to have more institutional agreements to ease the process. Also it is recommended that the workings of the module be explained to the students at an early stage of the programme so that students are not anxious about the completion of the module. The lack of a field trip to link the classroom to the real world is also a weakness of the programme. We however understand that this is due to financial constraints. Yet, we wonder whether time and resource could be diverted from other activities in planning towards such a field trip. From personal experience such trips have contributed vastly both to the learning outcome of the difference courses as well as to the camaraderie and sense of belonging. Student Environment and Facilities There appears to be some problems with space in the sense that either there are not enough available rooms for students to study or the rooms are not spacious enough. We however understand that from 2016 onwards elective courses will be taught in larger rooms (see page 5 of the Q&A document) and welcome this change. The lack of podcasts and generally the lack of use of modern technology in applied teaching can be seen as a weakness in a world where students are constantly surrounded by such technology. Podcasts allow students to go over concepts and principles they might have not well understood in the lecture. It also acts as a comfort blanket for many students when they prepare for the examinations. It is good to know that from 2016 onwards as classes of optional modules will be moved to larger rooms there will be a possibility to record the lectures and that the Asbjørn Eide Seminar Room will be upgraded to maybe enable podcasts (depending on financial means available). A note of caution must be sounded with regard to recordings of lectures by individual students who share them through Fronter. If the lectures are interactive and thus students can be heard on the recordings there might be some issue with data protection and students consent. 11

82 82 Opportunities General It would be good if students were told that should they be interested to visit The Hague, Strasbourg or Geneva in order to not only bridge the gap between the classroom and the real world but also to improve social relations among themselves, the managers are happy to support them with recommendations and contacts. Students could maybe attend a trial, a committee session, etc. We understand that there are indubitably costs involved in such a trip and that these cannot be covered by programme funding. Yet, the programme management might assist in organising such a trip, should the students be interested. Recruitment and Expansion With regard to the recruitment of students we are pleased to know that the level of English proficiency has increased. Students with better English language skills tend to perform better as they will better understand the exam and coursework questions and be able to undertake research in a wider array of topics. Given the quality of the master programme and the number of students applying for it we would ideally recommend the managers to increase the number of students enrolled on the programme students appear to be a small cohort especially as the programme offers a wide range of optional modules and could thus cater for more students. Moreover the enlargement of the cohort will lead to a wider pool of alumni who will be able to spread word about the quality of the programme and thus encourage further excellent candidates to apply as well as assist current students in finding internships and eventually jobs in the field of human rights. The impact of such an expansion would however be felt on the compulsory modules and undoubtedly on all types of resources deployed in this programme. Under these circumstances, three of the compulsory modules would need to run twice as the students would have to be divided into two smaller groups. Running interactive sessions with over 30 students in a room is tricky. Also this would take more of the staff s time, both in the lectures and outside as they will be meeting more students. Facilities would have to improve too all the more as issues have already surfaced with regard to the inadequacy of some lecture and study rooms. Certainly, any decision on increasing the number of students must be carefully planned and budgeted. The practicalities of this are however beyond the mandate of this Committee and as a result this is only a suggestion, rather than a recommendation. Likewise, the suggestion to create and offer new modules as mentioned on page 23 of the internal evaluation report must be thoroughly thought through. An increased number of modules means that less students will opt for optional modules that might have been successful in the past. Any new module created will impact on the more established modules. With only 30 students per year and the de minimis rule of 10 students on average to keep a module the programme managers might be left in a position where a number of modules will fail to retain enough students to be kept on offer. However if the number of students on the programme were increased this problem is unlikely to emerge. It might also be that some modules are not fashionable anymore and will die off on their own to be later replaced by new ones. 12

83 83 As mentioned on page 22 of the internal evaluation report, establishing joint degrees with other institutions or exchange is an excellent idea but it comes with a note of caution as it might be difficult to run them in practice if compulsory modules are spread over several terms, thereby preventing students from moving institutions. This could be avoided if the same or equivalent compulsory modules were available and recognised at a partner university. Bearing in mind the flexibility shown by the programme managers in allowing students to undertake modules in other universities, this should nevertheless be feasible. Programme The programme would benefit from highlighting more effectively its interdisciplinary features as well as from being better structured and monitored. Interdisciplinary Programme The general feeling is that the programme is multi-, rather than interdisciplinary. Whilst a multidisciplinary approach is to be welcome as it enables students to understand the various aspects of human rights, a broader, more interdisciplinary approach might be warranted. The fact that separate committees are deployed to mark papers because they deal with different disciplines is testament to this lack of interdisciplinary. In the instance where the module leader is unable to provide expert knowledge and skills in all disciplines the programme managers might consider appointing a second-marker. Ideally, to ensure interdisciplinary the managers might want to appoint two markers per module where such modules are earmarked as multi-/interdisciplinary. In fact the presence of two staff members in the room might assist the students in understanding the various perspectives on human rights issues, deploying different disciplines skills and knowledge. It might indeed not be cost-effective in terms of the time of the staff involved but such sessions could be run only twice or three times per module on specific topic/issues where students need to better grasp the multi- and interdisciplinary aspects of the question. Also it would provide students with the opportunity to apply discreet sets of skills, peculiar to each discipline. For the modules offered in the Law Faculty it might be appropriate to involve a practitioner in the drafting and delivery of the module. Whilst it might not reduce the legal perspective adopted by the module it will make it more palpable for students with no or little background in law. Likewise law students taking this module should gain from the presence of a practitioner in terms of knowledge and skills. To foster a more interdisciplinary approach the programme managers could help organise brown bags around topics that can be viewed from a variety of disciplines. Such informal seminars would work as a platform not only to exchange ideas but also learn from other disciplines and share good practice as well as relevant skills. The informal setting would thus be more conducive to question tools used in specific disciplines and allow students to ask questions that they might find silly to ask in an assessed module. They might further stimulate a pattern of social interaction that appears to be missing at times and reduce insecurity amongst students. Such brown bags sessions could be kicked off by a panel of staff members talking about the same topic but from different disciplines, eg migration crisis in Europe or by a film that triggers a discussion (various lists of international law movies have been compiled and are available on the internet, see eg ). 13

84 84 Structure of the Programme There is a general understanding that the research methods module (HUMR5191: Human Rights Methodology: Research, Analysis and Thesis ) assists students in formulating their research proposal for the master thesis. As this module works as support for the master thesis, encouraging students to plan the thesis in advance and focusing their minds on it at an early stage, it ought to be placed closer to the master thesis. It might be more judicious to insert it as a compulsory module in Term 3 so as to make this link between the thesis and the research methods course stronger. It might also incidentally ensure that students still view themselves as the same cohort that started with Term 1 as they would have a common module in Term 3 rather than only optional modules. The programme would then run in the following manner: 4. semester HUMR Thesis in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights 3. semester HUMR Human Rights Methodology: Research, Analysis and Thesis Elective course Elective course 2. semester HUMR Human Rights in Practice Elective course Elective course 1. semester HUMR Introduction to Human Rights Law HUMR Introduction to the History, Philosophy and Politics of Human Rights HUMR Human Rights Law in Context 10 ECTS credits 10 ECTS credits 10 ECTS credits Monitoring of the Programme We recommend the programme managers to organise an away day for staff members, as mentioned on page 23 of the internal evaluation report, to discuss and revise the programme in light of changes in the education business and trends in human rights. These meetings are likely to give staff the opportunity to discuss feedback, alternative teaching methods such as flipped classrooms and the use of modern technology, etc. Owing to the two-year structure of the programme it is imperative to take stock at least every second year. Learning and Teaching There are a number of opportunities in relation to learning and teaching, mostly focused on specific modules and, to a lesser extent, on assessments and feedback. Modules We recommend that all optional modules be offered at all times. There are two issues with regard to the modules offered on the programme that could be improved. The first one relates to the previously noted overlap of content in the compulsory modules taught in 14

85 85 Term 1 and the second relates to the module HUMR5191 ( Human Rights Methodology: Research, Analysis, and Thesis ). The module HUMR5131 ( Introduction to the History, Philosophy and Politics of Human Rights ) should remain the same as it imparts an essential overview of human rights and is therefore a necessary and excellent introduction to a master programme in human rights. However, the two other modules appear to have considerable overlap. It is consequently suggested that one focuses on what human rights are and another on how human rights are protected. The first module could focus on the substantive rights but also discuss universalism v regionalism, individual and collective rights, generations and interrelationship of rights, human rights duties, etc. It could pick on some rights such as minority rights, principle of non-discrimination, etc. The second module would be more looking at the various systems of protection of human rights, on the national, regional and international levels. The focus would be on the mechanisms which would include not only human rights law but also international humanitarian law and international criminal law systems as well as the work of the United Nations via the Security Council, the Special Rapporteurs, the Human Rights Council, etc. In terms of skills, this module could act as a vector for conveying legal skills. At the same time as it would slowly introduce legal skills in the programme it might inspire students who have not studied law before to take one of the modules offered by the Law Faculty. As explained before, a number of elements that one would expect to be covered in a research methods module are missing. It is thus suggested that either the module be more focused on research methods and act less as a support for the thesis or an advanced research skills module be offered. In the case of the former, this change in focus and thus negative impact on the thesis preparation might be mitigated by a dissertation module that runs a couple of lectures in Term 3, focusing on topics for research, research skills, literature review, bibliography, etc. Students could also be asked to submit in preparation of their thesis a set of documents such as a research question, a literature review, a bibliography, etc. to demonstrate that they are on track with the thesis. Alternatively, the current module could be clearly earmarked as a platform for thesis preparation and an additional module on research methods created. Such a module would be particularly useful to students who wish to carry out empirical research for the thesis, write a longer thesis or later apply for a PhD. The module HUMR5145 Human Rights in Asia offers a regional approach. However, given that the programme is offered in Europe, a Human Rights in Europe module might be more appropriate unless the reason for the existence of this module is that it prepares students for some of the internships offered by the NHRC. The programme managers might consider creating a comparative and interdisciplinary regional human rights theory, law and mechanisms module. It would be the platform for a solid discussion on universalism v regionalism, individual v collective rights, etc. as well as regional idiosyncrasies in the mechanisms of protection of human rights. HUMR4504 Human Rights in Practice As much as this module is the highlight of the programme it also suffers from a number of flaws that however can be remedied. First, the programme might want to continue its excellent work in officialising more internship opportunities with partner institutions, NGOs, law firms or companies (all the more as it offers module HUMR5133 Business and Human Rights ). Maybe the AHRI network 15

86 86 could be used with this aim. Students with poor time management skills are likely to miss the deadlines with human rights institutions and might thus need to be reminded of such deadlines. Others will not be able to secure an internship for the required period of time or for the appropriate length of time. In this respect, we welcome the inclusion of the NCHR amicus curiae team within the module which can provide research assistance to organisations and persons who are working in the field of human rights. Attendance To improve the attendance rate the programme managers might consider a range of options so as to involve the students even further in the delivery of the modules. Given the fact that compulsory attendance of courses at the University of Oslo might be quite difficult to enforce we suggest that the programme explores the following possibilities: - to oblige students to attend a certain percentage of classes to take the exam. It goes without saying that exceptional circumstances such as bereavement must be taken into consideration when assessing whether a student has attended enough classes to sit the exam. - to introduce an element of attendance in the assignment by requiring students to write a reflective log on their experience in one of the sessions, to submit a document that was started as part of a group exercise in the class, to do a group presentation (that is assessed) at one of the sessions, etc. - to link the final assessment to the work carried out in the sessions. Students are informed at the beginning of each session that it is relevant for a particular part of the coursework. This works particularly well when the assessment is in the form of a problem-question with each question dealing with a separate issue. This has proved successful at the University of the West of England. - to let the students own the session in the sense that students are asked each week to make a short presentation on an issue that happened that week and which is of relevance to the module. It is not assessed. At the University of Middlesex it has been rather successful in bringing more people in. It is also possible to use simulations in classes such as the simulation of a real world debate for which students need to prepare in advance as this is done at the University College London. Another way to engage the student is to give them in the seminar a task that is related to the assessment (eg researching the primary and secondary sources relevant for the coursework) as it is done at the University of the West of England. Assessments and Feedback Whilst we acknowledge that academic rigour must be demonstrated and this is probably best done by way of examinations, though not exclusively, students are also required to demonstrate research skills at master level. We understand that the assessment methods in the Faculty of Law cannot be revised by the programme managers and thus would recommend that they turn their attention to the assessments of the modules offered by the NHRC. As the master programme aims to impart knowledge in the field of human rights as well as enable students to work in this area the programme managers might consider examining whether the assessments also reflect this approach. 16

87 87 For example, the students could be ask to write a national human rights programme, a NGO submission to the Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review, etc. or do an oral presentation. The programme managers might want to investigate the possibility to set up group presentations or group work where marks are allocated as a group and as individuals. This would again foster closer bonds between the students whilst making them understand that they can play to their strengths whilst learning from each other (all the more as the programme is multidisciplinary). We understand that the marking criteria are included in all course webpages and available on the website. Yet, we believe that in order to ensure that students are aware against which criteria their work is marked and are thus less likely to seek further feedback or raise issues with their marks the criteria could be spelled out in the module handbook and maybe be part of a discussion in the class. For example students could be provided with the work of a former student and asked to peer-review it, using the marking criteria. Likewise students could be asked to comment on a mock presentation made by or a piece of coursework drafted by the lecturer. Carefully crafted such a presentation or piece of coursework could highlight some of the common issues such as lack of references, poor argumentative skills, lack of clear structure, lack of a solid introduction, plagiarism, etc. Further, the way feedback is given as well as communicated to students appears to be inconsistent. First, students only receive feedback if they ask for it. Second, whilst we understand that staff make themselves available to students to provide feedback, this also means that feedback can take various forms: oral and written feedback and be done via , on phone or by appointment. As feedback is essential for students to improve upon their knowledge of human rights issues and their skills it ought to be standardised and detailed, in a single feedback sheet template. We acknowledge that detailed feedback cannot be provided on examination papers. However, for pieces of coursework, especially for mid-term papers, it is suggested that the students receive a copy of their work, annotated and with a form not only specifying the criteria but also in which regard the student has or not fulfilled them. This would also meet the demands of some students for the feedback to be given anonymously as pieces of coursework would only refer to the student s registration number. This system would also relieve staff of having to arrange for meetings with students and provide oral feedback, unless, it goes without saying, the student wishes that feedback be clarified or expanded upon. This system would also help the external examiner determine whether the marks have been appropriately awarded. There are several suggestions for feedback form: Proposal 1: presentation, bibliography and referencing; structure and research question; content and quality of research; English language and style; additional comments and suggestions for improvement; Proposal 2: Ability to identify key concepts and legal issues relevant to the question; Understanding and accuracy of legal content; Critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis; Originality and creativity; Research process and presentation (including bibliography). (See Annex 1) 17

88 88 Threats There are four elements we consider to be potential threats to the master programme: the relatively high drop-out rate, the lack of an additional solid, foundational skills modules, the lack of information on postgraduate destinations and the use of PhD candidates to teach master students who might need support in teaching and training. Recruitment and Drop-Out Rates The relatively high number of drop outs for such a selective course (on page 15 of the internal evaluation report) is concerning though we understand that it is not linked to the programme management at all. 20% of students appears to be a significant number of students. As there is already a high number of applicants to the programme (about 700 per year over the last few years) and only are accepted, there is certainly room for offering more spaces, at least on a waiting list. Knowing that about 20% of those offered spaces will not pursue their studies to the end, the programme managers might want to offer for examples 35 spaces with the aim of filling in in concrete terms 30 of them. This 20% drop-out rate should be considered in any recruitment process. In any case it must be established why such a high number of students is dropping out. If most of them drop out even before they are enrolled on the programme then there is no cause of concern. However, if such a drop out occurs after the student have formally registered with the retention this is more problematic. The retention rate is usually around 90% at master level. Have such students been met with the programme managers to discuss alternative arrangements? Have such students been offered to continue their studies on a part-time basis? Have such students been informed that they can suspend their studies for up to two terms to come back later? Skills Courses A recurrent issue in the feedback provided by the students as well as a point identified by all members of the Committee is the need to enhance and develop skills modules on the master programme. As the programme is multidisciplinary and recruits students with diverse academic backgrounds it is recommended that the programme ensures that all students are given the chance to learn or improve upon skills that are specific to some disciplines. Since we understand that a pure skills module might not feasible from a staff perspective and not welcome by all students as being too technical and maybe boring we would recommend that crash courses be offered at the beginning of the programme. Such courses might form part of a welcome week where students are introduced to the NHRC, the library and its database, etc. They do not need to be long but could take the form of a two-hour introduction to a specific skill. For example, students could be given a couple of court cases and the lecturer could show how the judgment is structured, what dissenting opinions are, where the relevant information is located in the judgment, etc. As a result of this lack of skill courses the students are likely to stay in their comfort zone and opt for modules that are in the same discipline as their undergraduate studies. This is missing the point of a multidisciplinary programme which should encourage students to espouse a broader view of human rights issues. For those students who are interested in developing the relevant skills for employability purposes, the programme management might wish to indicate that such modules are available in other departments and faculties of the University and can be chosen after having sought approval from the programme management. 18

89 89 Employability On page 23 of the internal evaluation report the programme managers mention the need to acquire more information on graduate career trajectory. This kind of information is indeed vital to gather because it will help advertise and eventually sell the programme to a wider audience. We thus welcome the fact that the programme managers have set up a Facebook page and are currently looking into setting up an official LinkedIn account for the alumni and monitoring more closely their career path. The reason why this discussion is placed in the Threats rather than Opportunities section is because a growing number of master programmes are advertising their employability rate (in addition to the odd description of a former student who acts as a showcase on the website of the programme) and this needs to be borne in mind when advertising the programme to international students in particular. The higher the chances to be in employment after studying on the master programme the more likely students are going to apply for it. Though it might not be a threat at this stage as the programme is attracting an extremely healthy number of potential candidates it might in the long term if employability rates are more widely advertised by master programmes around the world. PhD Candidates as Teaching Staff We note that there has been an increased tendency in the last years to involve more PhD candidates at the Centre in the teaching process (page 11 of the internal evaluation report). As acknowledged earlier, the involvement of PhD candidates in the teaching of modules on the programme can be beneficial. However, we would recommend that they be properly trained in Teaching and Learning skills. It is unclear to the members of the Committee whether they have received such training, whether their teaching is monitored (whilst they are in the room, teaching), whether they receive feedback on their teaching and thus can improve upon their performance or whether they can be removed from teaching should they fail to deliver competent lectures. Students attending the master programme are likely to have chosen it because of its reputation and the quality of its staff and thus high standards have to be maintained at all times. Some students might also feel that they did not choose to pursue a postgraduate education to be taught by other postgraduate students. 19

90 90 Annex 1 LLM: MARKING AND FEEDBACK SHEET FOR COURSEWORK MODULE TITLE: CANDIDATE NUMBER: Grading Scale: Distinction 70% Merit 60% Pass 50% 1. Ability to identify key concepts and legal issues relevant to the question For example, recognition of the parameters of the task (the legal and contextual issues), rationale for the prioritisation of certain issues, clear and logical structure to the response and close correlation between question and response. (Fulfilment of these criteria will usually be evidenced in the introduction). First Marker s comments Second Marker s comments 2. Understanding and accuracy of legal content For example, relevant primary and secondary legal sources identified accurately, ability to summarise and explain the law and communicate doctrinal arguments succinctly rather than by extensive quotation from statutes or cases. First Marker s comments Second Marker s comments 3. Critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis For example, evidences a capacity to identify complexity and uncertainty in the law, to examine and appraise the comparative merits of different legal arguments advanced by others (evidence of wider reading) assess proposals for reform, and to recognise contextual arguments relevant to the question, to reach conclusions that are summative, logical and persuasive (i.e. based on the analysis and evaluation presented). First Marker s comments Second Marker s comments 4. Originality and creativity For example, evidences an ability to independently appraise the knowledge base in order to identify new problems or areas for investigation, develop new perspectives or solutions for existing legal 20

91 91 problems. First Marker s comments Second Marker s comments 5. Research process and presentation For example, clarity of expression, syntax, spelling, ability to follow legal conventions for citation and referencing of sources, and a complete bibliography and table of cases/statutory instruments. First Marker s comments Second Marker s comments Marks Overall Mark: Date: First Marker Second Marker 21

92 Faculty of Law University of Oslo 92 Memo To: PMR Date: Periodic evaluation of the course MARLTHESIS Master thesis in Maritime Law, autumn 2015 I. Introduction/background This periodic evaluation is the first evaluation of this course after the reform of the Norwegian Master in Law programme in The master thesis in the Maritime Law programme consists of 30 ECTS. The writing of the master is mandatory for all students enrolled in the Maritime Law programme. Other students cannot register for this course. The thesis is an independent work, and the topic is of the student's own choice (but must have connection to maritime law). It is not taught as a standard course at the Faculty of Law with regular lectures/seminar groups throughout the semester. There are instead offered a few introductory seminars on thesis writing; covering topics such as how to outline the structure, how to best use the library, and how to engage in the writing process. A supervisor is appointed to each student based on topic, the students wishes and available supervisors. As an essential part of the LLM programme in Maritime Law it is the Head of Programme who is responsible teacher and has the responsibility to supervise that the Master thesis course is run in accordance with the aims of the programme s learning outcome/achievement requirements. This evaluation report is based on an evaluation survey the Faculty Administration sent to all the students registered for the MARLTHESIS course autumn Of the 17 registered students, there were only four responses which is a rather small number to base the report on. There has also not been carried out any reports from a Supervising Examiner since The report is therefore in addition to the survey, based on experiences from and feed-back given to the Head of Programme, the Student advisor at the Institute and some of the teachers that is regularly used as supervisors. There was sent a similar survey to the students writing their master thesis on the LLM in Information and Communication Technology Law (ICTL programme) autumn There were also only four responses to that survey. The writing of the master thesis at the ICTL-programme Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law Visiting addr.: Karl Johans gate 47, Domus Media, 1 etg. Phone: (+47) postmottak@jus.uio.no

93 93 2 follow almost the same pattern as the MARLTHESIS and this survey is therefore also used for comparison and back ground material for the report. II. Content Reading material: There is no mandatory reading material listed for the MARLTHESIS course. The writing of the thesis is based on the students own gathering of reading material. Teaching: A. Supervision The MARLTHESIS course consists mainly of individual supervision of each student and independent work from the side of the student. The supervision offered is 15 hours that includes all forms of contact between the student and the supervisor like; meetings face to face, s, phone contact, reading of drafts, commenting on drafts with more. For 80-90% of the students it is the Institute (Head of Programme/ Study Advisor) who finds the supervisor. It is usually few students who search for and approach a possible supervisor themselves. In the survey the feed-back on the supervision varies a lot among the four who have answered. It varies from Satisfied to Unsatisfied. The four who answered the ICTL survey were in general more satisfied. Two MARL students answer that they had not sufficient contact with their supervisor. One commented that the supervisor was absent, the other one writes that he/she thought he/she could manage to write the thesis on his/her own, but regretted later that he/she had not made more use of the supervisor. The Institute stresses early in the spring semester that it is important that the students make use of their supervisor and that they contact them early in the process and that the student and supervisor make a plan together for handing in of drafts, schedule meetings with more. This is encouraged repeatedly throughout the semesters and on all meetings. Even so the Institute does experience that many students do not make contact with the appointed supervisor at all or only very late in the process, often just before the deadline. This is very unfortunate. Several supervisors do comment that they could have helped the students raising their grade one or two levels if they only had made contact and sent drafts earlier. The Institute is trying to find ways to improve the use of supervisors. The latest class ( ) that will deliver their thesis autumn 2016 (and did not take part in the survey) have been much more active in finding and approaching supervisors themselves. It is maybe a good idea to leave the search for supervisors more to the students because then they own the process of choosing the supervisor themselves and will maybe be using the supervisor more actively.

94 94 3 Outside the survey there have been few students who comment on the supervision to the Study advisor or other staff. There is always one or two who report that they are extremely satisfied and one or two who are not so satisfied each year. The Institute had therefore hoped that more students had answered the survey to get more insight into how they experience the supervision. Often the ones who do answer surveys are the ones who are either very satisfied or very unsatisfied and those who are in general satisfied do not bother. The experience/feed-back on supervision is, on the one hand, that occasionally supervisors may be too slow in responding to drafts sent to them by students while, on the other hand, students are often too passive in making use of the service and skills of supervisors, typically resulting in drafts being submitted so late in the process that there is limited scope to achieve those improvements which potentially could be made. In this respect supervisor of the LLM programme often serve as supervisors for ordinary Norwegian master students writing their master thesis in the elective course of Maritime Law, and there is no marked difference in experience as to how the two student groups make use of the service of supervisors. B. Lectures/meetings on how to write a master thesis In addition to the supervision the students has been offered one introductory lecture early in the spring semester on how to write a master thesis at the Faculty of Law by staff at the Institute. They are also given the possibility to discuss choice of topics with the Head of Programme or other staff before they hand in their choice of topic. They are further offered one more following up meeting before summer where the students present their topics and how far they have come in the process with their thesis. In the final autumn semester the students are offered one following-up meeting in early September where status and progress is checked and the students have the possibility to ask questions and to raise problems and challenges in the writing process. They are offered to send in written questions / issues to be dealt with before the meeting. In early October the students are offered another similar meeting where the students can seek advice, but focus is mainly on how to deliver the thesis in Fronter and DUO, Requirements and so on. For the summer meeting and the two meetings in the autumn semester the Head of Programme and Student Advisor is present and in charge of these meetings. There is a high percentage of the class that meets for the introductory lecture on how to write a master thesis at the Faculty of Law (70-90%). The Institute staff usually receives positive responses to the lecture. This is also shown in the survey where 70% is satisfied with the lecture. For the meeting before summer vacation the attendance is also usually rather high; approximately 60-70%.

95 95 4 There are often a lot fewer students who meet for the master meetings in the autumn semester. One reason for this is that several students travel back to their home countries during summer and stay there also in the autumn semester. Supervision can be done online ( , sometimes phone) and after the delivery of the master theses became completely online based two years ago, it has become even more convenient to stay at home the last semester. For students with family and family obligations this is a good solution. Another reason that few meet can be that they are busy with writing and don t want to spend time in meetings, some have also written master theses before and feel they do not need more support. There can also be that the students are unsure of the use of these meetings. Based on the experience/ feed-back from those who do come for the meetings the ones who meet seem to be glad for the opportunity to ask questions and the opportunity to get some support/help in the writing process. Another general feed-back on the meetings offered is that some think it can be a bit tedious to sit and listen to other students projects and progress. But from the point of the Institute it is very useful to get the students together and get an overview of the projects and a status of how far they have come. In the survey there were unfortunately no questions about these writing-support meetings so there was no comments about these. Else, every year there is common that students report to staff at the Institute that they struggle with the writing process and struggles with choosing a topic. Conclusion: How well the supervision works varies. The Institute would like that the students should make use of their supervisor earlier in the process and use them more actively. It also varies how well the master meetings in the writing process works and there should possibly be offered more efficient/useful activities. There could also be offered more support and knowledge on how to choose a topic for the master thesis. Resources and infrastructure (teaching rooms, audiovisual support, library etc) The lecture on how to write a master thesis and the meetings is mainly held in the meeting rooms at the Institute. The survey shows that the students are % satisfied with the teaching rooms. Neither students nor the teachers have reported any need for more specialized audiovisual teaching tools. In the survey there was asked questions where the students use to work with their thesis. Of the eight students who answered both the ICTL and MARL survey, show that it varies where they choose to study. 25% use the law library or reading halls at the Faculty, 15% used reading halls at Blindern Campus, 60% chose to study elsewhere (home, cabins etc). Impressions from

96 96 5 conversations with the students about where they like to work with their theses are that the pattern shown in the survey is giving a true picture of the situation. Most of the students the Institute have talked with say they study at home/other places than the Faculty. That they do choose to study at home doesn t mean that they are not happy with the study facilities at the Faculty, when asked they say the Faculty facilities are fine, and have no suggestions for improvement. They just prefer to study at home. Those who do choose to work with their thesis at the Faculty report they are very satisfied with the study environment. Conclusion: The resources and infrastructure offered works in general well for when writing the master thesis. Exam (form of exam, form of assessment): The form of exam is a written thesis. The substantive portion of the thesis should be no more than 18,000 words, footnotes included (table of content, acknowledgements, bibliography, tables and registers not included). The thesis is graded by the grading scale A-F, where F = Fail. The students cannot hand in a new thesis or improved version of their thesis if they are receiving a passing grade. The thesis is examined by the supervisor and an additional appointed examiner. In 2014 there was written new joint guidelines for the master theses for the four master degrees in English at the Faculty. Then it was discussed if the examining of the thesis should be changed so that the supervisor is no longer a part of the exam commission, like it has been changed for the 5 year Norwegian Master in Law programme. Maritime Law is a somewhat esoteric subject and at the Institute it s been evaluated that it will be difficult and rather resource demanding to find enough examiners. This has an aspect also towards achieving a fair and consistent grading of candidates; although challenging for the supervisor to also appear as marker, it is a balancing act towards risking having markers with no sufficient knowledge of the topics. It has therefore been concluded that the old exam system should be retained. In the Faculty survey there was unfortunately no questions about the form of exam/ assessment of the thesis. The experience of the Institute is that few students have comments on the grading scale used or the form of the assessment. Conclusion: The form of assessment for the master thesis seems to work fine. Learning outcome (does the text on the course s web-page give a good description of the students competence after examination?) The learning outcome is described as The objective is for a student to engage in research work. The student will learn how to find relevant material, analyze the material and make a systematic presentation, which will be evaluated.

97 97 6 The Institute s experience is that the description of the learning outcome on the web-page, is ok and have never received any direct comments regarding this. The survey shows that the four students agreed above average that the learning objectives for the master thesis were fulfilled. A bit more than the students in the ICTL survey. Conclusion: The answers and feed-back to staff at the Institute indicates that most of the students don t find much discrepancy between what has been written on the web-page about learning outcome and what they felt they had learned after the course. III. Does the description of the course on web work in a satisfactory way? - Grades, withdrawals, formal complaints The MARLTHESIS, is as former mentioned mandatory for the LLM students enrolled in the Maritime Law programme and only open for registrations for these students. It is therefore very few who withdraw from the course unless they withdraw from the whole programme. But there have been an increasing number of students who do postpone the thesis registration from the autumn to the spring semester. According to general regulations at the University, students can be one semester delayed without any given reason. The percentage of students who complete the programme on time has usually been very high for the Maritime Law programme, but the last year there has been an increased number of students who are delayed in the delivering of their master thesis. There has not been any change in the teaching and there is no obvious explanation for the increased number of delayed thesis deliveries. From , of a student group between 16 and 20 students, the average delivered master thesis in the autumn semester is 14 and in the spring semester 4. In 2015 only 10 theses were delivered in autumn and 6 in spring. It will be interesting to see if this tendency continues or if 2015 was just a temporary change. Average grade is B for the theses delivered both in the autumn and in the spring. The grading scale in its full breadth is used. Students have received all from A to E on their theses. But the students usually receive grades on the upper end of the scale. In average there are 5 students of 14 who receive an A in the autumn semester. The last five years there have been one student who have sent a formal appeal regarding the result of the master thesis and appealed on the grounds of formal error. The student did not receive support for his appeal and the result was upheld. - Feedback in surveys, to teachers and administrative staff As mentioned above the survey shows that the students in general feel the learning objectives were fulfilled. Students often comment at the Diploma ceremony that the writing of the master thesis has been very tiring and stressful process, but that it at the same time has been the process they have learned the most throughout the master programme (together with the mock trial course).

98 98-7 Is the course placed on the right level/ right semester? Does it fit with the rest of the courses in the LLM programme The master thesis is scheduled as the final course of the master programme as it is for most master programmes around the world. It is placed in the end of the programme so the students can make use of all the former learned knowledge and demonstrate their legal writing skills. Clearly this is the appropriate way of organizing the course, as reflected also in how the regular Norwegian master students write their master thesis towards the end of the law studies. From the LLM programme s point of view the Master thesis is placed on the right level and in the right semester. We have received no negative comments from students about when this course is taught. - Is the course defined in accordance to the recommended prerequisite knowledge? It is recommended that the students have passed and completed all the mandatory courses and the two elective courses in the programme before the master thesis is handed in. It is the experience of the Institute that most students have completed all courses at the time they hand in their master thesis. The high percentage of students who pass the course indicates that the course is in accordance with the prerequisite knowledge. Conclusion: From the survey and the feed-back it seems like the description on the web-page is in accordance with the students expectations and experience. IV. Has there been any change since the last periodic evaluation? The MARLTHESIS course in its general form has not undergone any big changes since the LLM programme was established in There has not been any periodic evaluation of the course since the reform in 2011 and the current staff has also not found any periodic evaluation reports of the master thesis in the archives before the reform either. V. Suggestions for improvements When it comes to the teaching of this course there are on the basis of feed-back, experiences and findings in the survey reasons to suggest that there is room for improvement. The last five years there has been made a couple of attempts in dividing the master students into groups based on choice of topics and further that the students in these groups should present their topic/outline/chapters for each other. This has never worked out very well. It was usually difficult to make groups because the students choose very different topics. It also very much varied as to who met for the presentations and usually the students in the groups were in very different levels of the writing process. The organization of these groups and the presentation rounds were also very time consuming. Based on experiences and feed-back from the students the group project has been seen to be using too many resources and few positive results.

99 99 8 One of the feed-backs from the students is that it is difficult to find a topic and that several students do not know how to approach a thesis project. Another is that they are insecure on how to write a thesis at the Faculty. Communication with staff organizing the master theses for the other three master programmes in English at the Faculty, shows that the students on these three programmes are facing similar challenges. For spring 2016 it was therefore organized a joint pilot project for the initial phase of the master thesis course for the three LLM programmes. Since the challenges are similar for the three programmes the thought is to gather scarce resources into an improved up-start-phase. The idea is to give the students better tools and knowledge in how to organize and start their master thesis project. In cooperation with the librarian Bård Tuseth and based on the model on how information is given to the students on the Norwegian 5 year master programme the LLM students are offered two joint lectures in the spring semester. The first lecture is on project design and gives the students information on how to go about finding a suitable master thesis topic/ how to make a good choice for their master thesis. The lecture was held by Bård Tuseth and one of the Head of Programmes (this time Cecilia Bailliet) After this lecture the students were urged to contact relevant academic staff to try and test out their ideas and get advice. But they were asked to do some thinking, research and write down their ideas before approaching academic staff. About three weeks later the students should hand in their topic to their student advisor. The experience was that the students this year did decide a topic easier than the previous years and much more students than earlier did send in their topics within the deadline. Before the end of the spring semester, just after the exams of ordinary courses, there will be given another joint lecture for the three LLMs. This time the focus will be on writing a master thesis at the Faculty. The lecture will again be given by Bård Tuseth. The lecture is given this late so the students will have the information on writing fresh in mind when they are embarking on the last semester of thesis writing. In autumn 2016 there should be carried out an evaluation on how these new joint lectures are received and if this form of master-theses teaching should be continued. Another suggestion for improvement is of the supervision. As previously mentioned; it is an idea for the future to make the students more engaged in the finding of their own supervisor so that they feel that they own this process more and hopefully make more use of their supervisor.

100 100 9 Ida N. Stabrun Study advisor NIFS

101 Universitetet i Oslo 101 Notat Det juridiske fakultet Til: Programrådet for Master i rettsvitenskap Dato: 2. juni 2016 Studieinformasjon ved Det juridiske fakultet en oversikt Følgende notat gir en oversikt over hvilke kanaler fakultetsadministrasjonen bruker ved distribusjon av studieinformasjon, og hvilke retningslinjer og rammer som ligger til grunn i studieinformasjonsarbeidet. Notatet omfatter kun informasjon som gis til hele studentmassen eller grupper av studenter, ikke en-til-en kommunikasjon med enkeltstudenter. Oversikten er utarbeidet på forespørsel fra PMR, etter diskusjonssak i PMR 19. februar 2016, sak 2. Rammer for studieinformasjonsarbeidet Rammene er angitt i UiOs Serviceerklæring. Eksempelvis sies dette: «Universitetet føreset at du jamleg sjekkar nettsider om forhold som speler inn på studieløpet ditt, og at du, om du lurer på noko i den samanhengen, søkjer informasjon og rettleiing» [Fakultetet] «tilbyr korrekt, lett tilgjengeleg og oppdatert informasjon og svarer på spørsmål frå studentar på ein imøtekommande måte» Det er altså lagt opp til forpliktelser både for studenten og fakultetet. Serviceerklæringen sier ikke noe om hvordan fakultetene skal oppfylle sine forpliktelser. Serviceerklæringen er tilgjengelig på nett: Informasjonskanaler Web (uio.no) er UiOs foretrukne informasjonskanal. Informasjonen på nett er strukturert i kategorier som «Administrer dine studier», «Læringsressurser», «Emnebeskrivelser» osv. Fakultetsadministrasjonen (og faglærere) kan også kommunisere enveis med studentene via beskjedfelter på studieprogramsiden og semestersiden. Studentene har i utgangspunktet selv ansvaret for å oppsøke den informasjonen de trenger. Epost og SMS brukes som supplement til nettsider. Disse kanalene brukes gjerne når det ansees som særlig viktig at informasjonen når frem til studentene. Retningslinjer legger opp til begrenset bruk av epost, og særlig SMS. Epost sendes oftest med kopi til privat epostadresse, i tillegg til student-epostadresse.

102 102 2 Fakultetet deler også studiesaker på Facebook, men dette er ikke en formell/offisiell kanal for studieinformasjon. Andre avsendere av epost Studenter mottar også epost fra faglærere og sentraladministrasjonen ved UiO. Sentraladministrasjonen sender ved enkelte anledninger epost til samtlige studenter ved UiO, f. eks. ved rektorvalg. Faglærere har mulighet til å sende epost til kursgrupper etc. via Fronter. Retningslinjer for informasjonskanaler Fakultetsadministrasjonen har utarbeidet en egen veileder for bruk av informasjonskanaler, tilgjengelig her (se også vedlegg): I tillegg finnes det retningslinjer på UiOs For ansatte-sider om utsending av epost og SMS: Fakultetet har lagt opp til en mindre restriktiv bruk av SMS, etter forespørsel fra studentene/jsu, se veilederen for bruk av informasjonskanaler (ved endring i undervisning samme dag). Det er ikke laget retningslinjer for faglæreres bruk av epost eller andre informasjonskanaler. Hva fakultetet informerer om Utover informasjonen i den faste og statiske nettinformasjonen, vil det være behov for å informere om en rekke ting i løpet av et semester, enten via beskjedfeltene på emne- eller programsider eller pr epost. Typisk er dette beskjeder om omberamminger, informasjon om eksamen, endringer i studieløpet osv. I tillegg jobber fakultetsadministrasjonen med det man kan kalle «kampanjearbeid». Vi støtter opp under ledelsens strategier og satsinger, særlig arbeidet med studiekvalitet. Dette innebærer at vi jobber med å skape oppmerksomhet og engasjement rundt konkrete tiltak og aktiviteter, for eksempel spørretime, foreningsdag, utveksling m.m. Vi vurderer i slike saker hvordan vi skal informere og hvilke kanaler vi skal bruke. Ofte vil vi bruke flere kanaler, og i noen tilfeller avgjør vi at e-post er hensiktsmessig kanal. Hvor mye epost/sms mottar en student? Mengden epost eller SMS en student vil motta i løpet av et semester vil ha sammenheng med hvor man er i studieløpet. Oftest vil avsender av epost begrense utvalget av epostmottagere så langt det lar seg gjøre, slik at innholdet er mest mulig relevant for mottagerne.

103 103 3 Eksempel: en epost om endring i emnesammensetningen i 3. studieår vil normalt bli sendt til studenter på 2. studieår/2. semester, studentene på 3. studieår, og muligens til studenter på 4. studieår/1. semester (med tanke på gjentak av eksamen). Ved utsendelse av annen epost vil utvalget bestemmes av hvorvidt studentene er kvalifiserte til å benytte et tilbud (for eksempel utveksling etter 3. studieår) eller i hvilken grad det gir utbytte (jobbsøkerkurs for studenter i 4. og 5. studieår) I noen tilfeller vil målgruppen være relativt stor, og noen studenter vil motta informasjon om tilbud de ikke har interesse av eller ønsker å benytte seg av. Koordinering av studieinformasjonsarbeidet I etterkant av fakultetets studiekvalitetsprosjekt ( ), ble det opprettet et lokalt nettverk for koordinering av studieinformasjonsarbeidet (studieinfonettverket). Målet for nettverket er å sørge for god studieinformasjon og at den når ut til studentene. I nettverket planlegges og koordineres publisering av informasjon om blant annet tiltak knyttet til studiekvalitet og læringsmiljø og øvrige tilbud fakultetet ønsker å fremme. Sett i sammenheng med informasjonsbehovene rundt undervisning og eksamen, kan studentene i perioder motta mye og i andre perioder lite informasjon. Nettverket forsøker å koordinere de større informasjonssakene slik at det er god flyt i informasjonen og at den spres ut over semesteret. Med hilsen Christine Ødegaard Sten Teamleder for Infosenteret Egil Stabell Jahren Rådgiver i Kommunikasjonsseksjonen

104 104 4 Vedlegg: Veileder for bruk av informasjonskanaler Informasjonskanaler - veileder for administrativt ansatte Veilederen gir oversikt over alle informasjonskanaler vi i studieadministrasjonen kan bruke når vi skal informere (gi beskjeder til) grupper av studenter. Veilederen viser hvilke kanaler som egner seg best i ulike situasjoner. Selv om tilgang på noen kanaler er begrenset til bestemte roller eller stillinger, er i prinsippet alle kanaler tilgjengelig for alle i administrasjonen. (Venstre kolonne: Type informasjonskanal. Høyre kolonne: Hvordan og når kanalen kan brukes) Kanal Veiledning Målgruppe Studenter meldt til et bestemt emne Eksempel på informasjon: Semesterside (beskjedfeltet) Info om påmelding Avlysning og endring i tid/sted på undervisning Treffetider for sensor Tilgang: Emneansvarlig studie og eksamen Infosenteret Programansvarlige Merknad Info fra eksterne firmaer skal IKKE legges ut. Bruk SMS som tilleggskanal ved avlysning av nær forestående undervisning (samme dag). Beskjeder herfra feedes til Mine studier

105 105 Kanal 5 Veiledning Målgruppe Alle studenter med studierett til programmet Potensielle studenter Eksempel på informasjon Studieprogramsiden (beskjedfelt) Endringer i studieprogrammet Faglige tilbud, f. eks. relevant institutt-arrangement Relevante tilbud fra Karrieresenteret, SiO etc. Sosiale arrangement for og av programmet Praktikantstillinger fra relevante firmaer/institusjoner Tilgang Programansvarlige/programutvalgsektretærer Teamleder Infosenteret Emneansvarlig studie og eksamen Studiewebredaktør Avdeling for fagstøtte Merknad Info fra eksterne kan i noen tilfeller tillates, som det fremgår i eksemplene Ved enkelte anledninger feeder AF ut beskjeder som er aktuelle for alle studieprogram Beskjeder herfra feedes til Mine studier Målgruppe E-post (ved masseutsendelse) Studenter (utvalg kan i stor grad tilpasses) Eksempler Viktige frister (kurspåmelding, semesterregistrering, utveksling o.l.) Endringer i studieprogram eller emner (som berører studenter) Faglige tilbud (hvis særdeles relevant, vi må ikke spamme!)

106 106 Kanal 6 Veiledning Tilgang Alle med tilgang til FS (eventuelt Fronter) Merknad Innhold må være relevant for mottaker. For mye epost = lett oppfattes som spam. Avgrens utvalget så langt det lar seg gjøre. Ingen videresending av info fra eksterne. Flere enn 300 mottakere? Må avklares med Kommunikasjonsseksjonen eller seksjonsleder Ordgrense: 4000 tegn (lange eposter anbefales ikke). Målgruppe Studenter (utvalg kan i stor grad tilpasses) Eksempler SMS (ved masseutsendelse) Endring i / avlysning av undervisning samme dag Påminnelse om velkomstmøte for nye studenter Krisekommunikasjon Tilgang Alle med tilgang til FS Merknad All bruk skal avklares med kommunikasjonssjef, unntatt beskjed om omberamming og påminning om velkomstmøte. Antall ord i en tekstmelding er begrenset til 160 tegn (inkl. mellomrom). Lenk opp til nettside med mer informasjon, bruk gjerne kort-url. Målgruppe Aktuelt (på jus.uio.no/studier) Alle studenter på JUS Potensielle studenter

107 107 Kanal 7 Veiledning Publikum Eksempler Faglige tilbud til studenter (om utveksling, Karrieresenteret, relevante arrangement) "Gladsaker" fra/om fakultetet Endringer i åpningstider Studentpolitikk (JSU) Relevante stipend Stillingsutlysninger for studentstillinger Tilgang Teamleder og fast stilling ved Infosenteret Kommunikasjonsseksjonen Merknad Gode titler! Vises på en generell side om studier (ingen kommer dit med mål om å lese nyheter). Vurder alltid om artikler kan deles på Facebook. Finnes også aktuelt på engelske sider Målgruppe Arrangementer for studenter på JUS Eksempler Arrangementsoversikt (på jus.uio.no/studier) Spørretime for studenter Hjelpemiddel til eksamen-infomøte Arrangementer fra SiO/Karrieresenteret Fokusgruppemøter Allmøter mellom fakultetet og studenter Tilgang Teamleder og fast stilling ved Infosenteret

108 108 Kanal 8 Veiledning Kommunikasjonsseksjonen Merknad Arrangementsmalen i Vortex må brukes Gode titler! Vis hvorfor arrangementet er relevant Vurder alltid om arrangementet skal deles på Facebook. Målgruppe Studenter Tidligere studenter? Medier, fagmiljøer, publikum? Eksempler Facebook Dele saker fra Aktuelt og Arrangementer Dele relevante saker fra endre medier Tilgang Teamleder Infosenteret Kommunikasjonsseksjonen Merknad Egnet for å spre artikler i rekrutteringsøyemed. "Byråkratisk" språk passer ikke helt... FB tilrettelegger for rask spredning og kommentering. Du kan miste kontroll over informasjonen. UiOs veiledning om sosiale medier Køsystem! Vær ute i god tid med å melde inn noe du ønsker delt. Målgruppe Fronter (oppslagsfunksjonen) Studenter påmeldt kurs/emner

109 109 Kanal 9 Veiledning Eksempler Beskjeder fra faglærer til studenter om faglige temaer Tilgang Faglærer Merknad Beskjeder vil ikke feedes til Mine studier Er lukket for alle andre en påmeldte til et kurs/emne. Anbefales normalt ikke brukt for andre enn faglærere Mine studier Det er bare beskjedfeltene på emnesidene og studieprogramsidene som feeder beskjeder inn til studentenes Mine studier. Bruke flere kanaler I noen tilfeller er det lurt at du bruker flere informasjonskanaler. Eksempler: Du har lagt ut en Aktuelt-artikkel om fristen for å søke utveksling. Denne kan gjerne deles på facebook eller lenkes opp fra aktuelle studieprogramsider. Fakultetet har vedtatt å endre på rekkefølgen i emner på jusstudiet. Her bør du både sende ut epost til berørte studenter, legge ut beskjed på studieprogramsiden og kanskje også på semestersiden til berørte emner. Hva studentene må lese Studentene forplikter seg til å holde seg oppdatert på informasjon, og å søke veiledning når de trenger informasjon. Dette er formalisert ved at studentene godtar betingelser i utdanningsplanen i Studentweb, og gjennom UiOs serviceerklæring: Utdanningsplanen generell del: Studieprogramside og e-post. Serviceerklæringen: Emneside og Administrer dine studier.

110 Hva er det studentene faktisk leser? Fra undersøkelser vet vi at studentene ofte sjekker emnesider, og at de fleste leser informasjon på epost. Innføringen av Mine studier kan føre til at studenter oftere vil lese beskjeder fra studieprogramsidene. Mobilvennlig innhold Statistikk viser at mellom 25-35% av alle web-trafikk kommer via mobil, men tallene varierer en del mellom forskjellige emner. I alle tilfelle bør du tilpasse innholdet ditt slik at det er lesevennlig på mobil: Skriv kort Poenget først (hvilken betydning har dette for studenten) Unngå fremmedord eller byråkratisk språk Se UiOs veileder for hvordan skrive for web

111 Det juridiske fakultet 111 Notat Universitetet i Oslo Til: Fakultetsstyret Møtedato: Møtenr: 2/2016 Sak i møtet: 4b skriftlig orientering Dato: J.nr.: 2016/ ORIENTERINGSSAK STUDENTSTATISTIKKER Notatet inneholder sentrale tall for fakultetets undervisningsvirksomhet, herunder utviklingen i resultatvariabler som studiepoeng og fullførte studieprogrammer. Videre vises studenttall, opptak og privatister, samt eksamensrelatert statistikk innen karakterer, stryk, gjentak og klager. Statistikkene er hentet fra Databasen for høyere utdanning (DBH, fra Universitetets egne statistikker og fra felles studentsystem (FS). Innledningsvis viser vi de seks indikatorene universitetet vurderer enhetene etter: Resultater 2009 Nye studiepoeng pr heltidsekvivalent Gj.snittlig gj.føringstid ph.d. Studentmob. - Andel studenter Publikasjonspoeng pr vit. årsverk EU-tildeling - volum NFR-tildeling - volum Ambisjon ,4 38,7 49,3 45,0 46,4 44,6 44,4 45,5 3,5 3,6 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,5 3,41 3,5 5,50 % 5,50 % 5,00 % 5,94 % 7,15 % 7,54 % 7,20 % 8,00 % 2,12 1,88 1,62 1,86 1,62 1,66 2, ,63 Følgende statistikker er vedlagt: Søknadsdata, karaktersnitt for søkere, opptakstall Registrerte studenter (og privatister) Studenter per faglige årsverk Innreisende studenter Utreisende studenter Studiepoeng per student Studiepoengproduksjon Kandidater (fullførte studieprogrammer) Karakterfordeling Strykprosent Gjentak Klager på sensur I det følgende vises grafer og noen kommentarer til de som er markert med gul farge (2, 3, 6, 7, 8 og 11). 1

112 112 2 Antall registrerte studenter - heltidsekvivalenter, egenfinansierte registrert i vårsemesteret jf vedlegg 2: Reduksjonen i antall registrerte studenter har sammenheng med reduksjonen i opptaksramme fra 595 i 2008 til 400 i 2009 (rammen er nå 430 per år). Det faktiske studenttallet har gått ned mindre enn reduksjonen i opptaksrammen skulle tilsi, dette grunnet relativ høy overbooking. Dekanatet vedtok å redusere overbookingen for studieåret H15/V16 og igjen ytterligere for studieåret H16/V17. Vi er overrasket over at studenttallet har økt fra 2015 til 2016 og har sett nærmere på årsaker til dette. 78 flere er registrert med opptak kun til masteroppgaven (de fleste privatister). 40 flere er registrert på de engelskspråklige mastergradene som følge av noe større overbooking i opptaket. 36 flere er registrert på juridiske valgemner lavere grad. Vi tror også at et dårligere arbeidsmarked kan medvirke til at studenter blir værende hos oss etter endt grad for å forbedre karakterer. Studenter per årsverk i faste vitenskapelige stillinger, jf vedlegg 3 De tre juridiske fakultetene: 2

113 113 3 Fakultetene ved UiO: Studieprogrammene ved vårt fakultet*: * Disse tallene er så godt det lar seg gjøre beregnet etter samme kriterier som foregående tall, men vi har brukt tall for tilsatte. Som det fremgår av vedlegg 3 har vi forbedret forholdstallet fra 61 til 43 siden Fakultetet skiller seg ut med å ha det svakeste forholdstallet ved UiO og arbeider videre for å forbedre dette. 3

114 114 4 Studiepoeng per student (heltidsekvivalent, DBH) jf vedlegg 6 Tallet studiepoengsproduksjon per student lå i perioden på ca. 40 stp på rettsvitenskap. Siden 2011 har dette økt til ca. 45 stp. Økningen kan kobles til bedret forholdstall student/lærer og ny studieordning fom Studiepoengsproduksjonen per rettsvitenskapsstudent er ca. 4% bedre i Bergen og Tromsø. Når en ser på dette tallet for hele UiO og sammenligner seg med Bergen og Tromsø er det en tydelig tendens at det er fakulteter med studiemodeller med kullundervisning, tett oppfølgning (klasseromsundervisning) og høy grad av obligatoriske elementer som peker seg ut med høye tall for studiepoengsproduksjon per student. Fakultetet har innført noen obligatoriske elementer og beveger seg således noe i retning studiemodeller hvor produksjonen er høyere. Imidlertid må innføringer av slike elementer alltid være faglig begrunnet. Fakultetet fortsetter sitt arbeid med økt studiekvalitet og tiltak knyttet til dette er beskrevet slik i ledelseskommentar sendt til UiO i mai 2016, (sitat fra vedlegg til sak 2 om regnskap): «Konkrete tiltak som er iverksatt i 2016 er utlysning av to universitetslektorstillinger, rettet mot master i rettsvitenskap, et utvidet ansvar for de studieårsansvarlige som legger opp til tettere oppfølgning av lærere gjennom medarbeidersamtaler ved instituttene. Fra høsten 2016 vil det bli lagt til rette for filming av forelesninger samt andre varianter av "flipped classroom", og det arbeides med å implementere digitale verktøy for å spisse og effektivisere evalueringen av lærerne. Videre fortsetter fokuset på "rødlistede" fag ifm. nyansettelser. Av andre tiltak nevnes en omlegging av basisgruppene på første studieår, slik at disse rettes mot metodeundervisning som legges til tre bolker i løpet av studieåret (implementeres H16). Endelig arbeides det med økt innslag av skriftlig og muntlig trening i studiet, bl.a. gjennom skriveopplæring integrert i kurs i kjøps- og avtalerett (1. semester), og semesteroppgave og muntlig presentasjon (4. og 5. semester). Det er grunn til å tro at disse tiltakene samlet sett vil bedre studiepoengsproduksjonen.» 4