Znanosti o okolju

The study program Environmental Sciences is a well-run PhD study program, which is research oriented. Organized lectures are kept to the minimum defined by the Higher education act, the rest of the time is devoted to research work, which is performed in research labs on several locations, also in renowned research institutes in Slovenia and abroad. Students can choose their elective courses at other faculties at UNG, at other universities and also abroad. This is enabling a true student-centered approach to the studies. Mentors are in a direct, informal, communication with students, practically on a daily basis, which is enabled by a low number of students. In addition, they might have structured meetings with the head of the lab on a weekly basis. Both students and higher education teachers express great satisfaction with the study program and the scientific research work that is a part of the study program. Students have no problems in finding relevant research literature and they have access to scientific bases and licensed software. Students are attending several international research conferences and workshops, which are in line with their research study. However, participation in the mobility programs is rather scarce. Collaboration among different research labs is very active, the use of equipment in other labs is actually going on and is free of charge, which is really a very positive point. Within different research projects, research equipment at foreign labs is also used. However, there is practically no connection among the PhD students. Thus, there is a need for activities that will connect students at different study stages of this study program and also at other PhD study programs. The quality of the study program is seen also through the high quality of the PhD theses. The quality of the research work is examined by two foreign experts, not related to the student or supervisor. The latter is not written in any act, but the faculty management says that it goes without saying that the examiners should be independent. Students are extremely satisfied with the support they receive from offices from the preenrolment on and during the studies. From the description of work covered by only one or two persons in certain offices and from the discussion with the professional staff, the group 30 of experts finds that the administrative staff is really overloaded, thus some care is needed in this respect. The academic staff is satisfied with their working environment and the possibilities for professional development. They think that there are enough possibilities to “climb up the career ladder” and it is only up to them if they use them or not. However, supervisors of young researchers would like to have more autonomy regarding the spending of money for necessary costs regarding the research work, which might be considered by new regulations. The group of experts also suggests that the university encourages sabbatical leave, because it is very important for the personal development and development of the scientific field. The weakest part of the study program is the self-evaluation process. Because the program is very individually oriented and students are in a constant contact with supervisors, the group of experts did not notice any serious issues that would require immediate intervention. Nevertheless, a proper self-evaluation can make the performance even better. Several suggestions for improvement in this respect are given in this report, the major ones being: i) Self-evaluation reports should be prepared for one study program only to allow for a critical assessment of specific areas, identification of problems and challenges, and discussion on possible measures. ii) Self-evaluation reports should shift from a description of the study program to evaluation of the performance of the study program during the year for which the self-evaluation report is written. iii) All the stakeholders should be included in the self-evaluation process and the results of the selfevaluation should be disseminated in various ways, not only through the published report. iv) The research activity of the academic staff and (potential) supervisors should be evaluated periodically (e.g., every 5 years) specifically for this study program. In such a way potential deficiencies can be identified, and advantages can be highlighted.