The self-evaluation processes are conducted according to a standardised protocol of the University of Primorska that has been put into effect in 2018. However, the self-evaluation reports we have inspected vary in length, number of participants in surveys and focus groups, as well as in the depth of interpretation. The overarching impression when reading the reports is that they comply with the formal demands of self-evaluation processes. However, descriptive data, opinions and remarks are only rarely interpreted. Also, in the process of updating the programs, the stakeholders of the study process were not equally involved. The mechanism for involving students, representatives of both student and professional community in the development of the curriculum and review of the programmes needs to be further developed and formally better structured. Moreover, there is a lack of action-planning and result tracking, or rather the action plans are poorly written (they need an analysis of causes, actions, responsibilities and deadlines). Besides, there is a need for better-defined procedures in order to keep track of vertical and horizontal connectivity between subjects when updating the study programs and syllabi. The updated programs exchange the term "general competences" with the term "learning outcomes". The reasons for this swap are not explained in any of the documents. Nevertheless, the updating of teaching methods was well presented in the interview with the teaching staff. Many of them are dedicated to exploring new methods of teaching; they emphasise blended learning as a strong point. FM has developed its own, adapted survey questionnaires for different stakeholders to determine the adequacy of study activities and student's work. However, the problems in study-year completion rates are not improving despite the adoption of the quartal system. Teachers believe that the faculty has limited impact on this. In the case of shortening the time it takes the average student to complete the study program, they have had more success. Formally, all the criteria for informing the stakeholders and the public about the study processes of the faculty are met. The study process is well organised and is progressing without interruptions in all three stages. The teachers are qualified and have the correct competencies for leading the study process. Where implemented, practical work is well organised and is completing set goals. There is a possibility for further improvement regarding developing efforts to involve better students in research work.