Studies management review
The review of studies management within the MIN Faculty was completed in the winter semester 2013–14. Users expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the academic offices’ work across all departments. This not only applies for the different departments, but also for the different user groups—for both students and teachers, and particularly for functionaries, such as the examinations board chairpersons, studies and teaching representatives, and degree program representatives. The academic offices clearly meet the management requirements of the new university structures and degree programs. All user groups and functionaries emphasized in the interviews that the academic offices were closely involved with the individual subjects on the departmental level and familiar with their respective service requirements. Personal contact was established with teaching staff and students alike, and the academic offices were not excessively bureaucratic. The functionaries and user groups believe the academic offices’ endeavors greatly facilitate their own work.
Overall, the review of the MIN academic offices revealed that the concept of the academic office has proven successful. The quality of service is rated as extremely good by students and teaching staff alike. Central development of the academic offices include:
- defining core tasks and qualitative minimum standards for the academic offices.
- standardizing academic office procedures.
- creating specific further training measures for academic office staff.
- reinforcing the dean’s role.
The review was conducted by Rambøll Management Consulting (RMC). For information on the review, please contact Kai Siemonsen
Planning studies individually – Bologna 2.0
After identifying shortcomings in our existing study system in 2010, we continued to pursue reforms with greater intensity in 2011 and 2012. Increasingly, the prevailing belief is that students must be able to plan their own studies.
Time-frames for study: A key reform issue was abolishing module deadlines and offering two alternative dates for all examinations.
Content of studies: Several modules were reclassified as required electives rather than required subjects to ensure greater individual flexibility.
Transitions: First-semester examination results do not necessarily flow into final grades.
Restrictions: Several smaller measures facilitate studies, e.g., less stringent requirements for medical certificates or a more flexible approach to cases of hardship.