-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
LtgOslo_MSc
For all students on ‘our’ programme (Informatics: Language and Communication), the following courses are obligatory: INF4820, INF5820, and INF5830; all run in the fall, with INF5820 and INF5830 alternating from year to year. For students following the ‘standard’ progression, this means that they need to select one additional course in their first (fall) semester, and another two in their second (spring) semester. Typically, students pick courses for their first semester without consultation with candidate supervisors, but during this semester (while selecting an area of specialization and supervisor(s)) they should decide on remaining course work for their degree _in agreement_ with their supervisor(s).
For students who have not taken INF4800 before (e.g. as INF3800 in their BSc studies), this seems like a plausible recommendation. Furthermore, we have at times suggested the following courses at our own department:
-
INF4580: Semantic Technologies
-
INF3490: Biologically-Inspired Computing
All active MSc students should be subscribed to the mailing list [email protected] throughout the duration of their studies. It is the responsibility of the supervisor(s) to add student emails (preferably using their official UiO address) to the mailing list, and to unsubscribe students when they complete their degree or otherwise are no longer supervised at the group.
As students enter their second MSc semester, i.e. once they start work on their scientific essay (see below), they are more than welcome to participate in the LTG research seminar. Even though there will always be some presentations (or maybe even most, in some semesters) that will be difficult for MSc students to relate to in full depth, the exposure to research presentations by itself will often have a beneficial, ‘horizon-widening’ effect. The supervisor(s) gauge the expected benefits of seminar participation and encourage students to engage as they fit.
Before the thesis is submitted, the supervisor(s) suggest(s) a reviewing commitee, comprised of one external and one internal reviewer. The external must be from outside UiO and can be from outside Norway, but preferably not outside Europe (or more specifically the ‘Bologna area’). Ideally, the external reviewer should have some experience in MSc-level thesis (supervision and) reviewing. The internal reviewer should typically be chosen from the faculty members of our group (Erik, Jan Tore, Lilja, Stephan). Neither reviewer needs to be specialized in the exact topic area of the MSc thesis, but both they should be able to judge the work, scholarly, technically, and practically; it may make sense to have the external and internal reviewers complement each other. Prior to the proposal, the supervisor(s) should seeks to confirm that the reviewers are willing to participate in the committee.
The director of the I:SK Programme Board (currently Jan Tore) approves the proposed commitee; the group manager (currently Stephan) coordinates the allocation of internal reviewers among group members (aiming to load-balance over time). Once approved, the supervisor emails the committee details to the study adminstration.
From there on, the study administration is responsible to send an appointment letter and the thesis to the external reviewer; however, the supervisor should make sure that both the external and internal reviewers receive the thesis as quickly as possible. Often, it may be good to send an electronic advance copy, for example. Additionally, the supervisor(s) should make sure that the committee is aware of the ‘new’ faculty-wide procedures for grade usage:
Well in advance of the period allocated for oral presentations, the supervisor schedules the time for the presentation in agreement with the reviewers, supervisor(s), and maybe even the candidate. A common procedure is to allow one hour for committee-internal discussion of the thesis, about one hour for the presentation by the candidate and discussion, and at least another half hour for final committee deliberation and paperwork.
The internal reviewer acts as the secretary of the committee, i.e. fills in the official ‘exam’ report) that the study administration provides (typically via the supervisor). The supervisor sees to it that these reports are signed and returned to the study administration in a timely manner.
The standard schedule for reviews is as follows:
- the reviewing committee meets for one hour, to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis and set a grade; the supervisor(s) participate in this meeting initially, to provide background information on the genesis of the thesis, but then leaves the room to let the reviewers discuss among themselves;
- the candidate, supervisor(s), and public audience join the reviewing committee; the candidate provides an oral summary of the main research results in the thesis of between 30 and 45 minutes; afterwards, the reviewers engage the candidate in a scientific discussion of the research, typically for around at least another half hour;
- upon completion of the presentation and discusssion, the reviewing committee deliberates in private on the grade for the oral presentation and then inform the candidate, including brief oral feedback on the thesis and presentation.
Home | Forum | Discussions | Events