4 Assessment of the quality of aspects
of the program based on UNIGE evaluation
criteria
\label{assessment-of-the-quality-of-aspects-of-the-program-based-on-unige-evaluation-criteria}
4.1 Do the descriptions and conclusions of the
self-evaluation report correspond with the facts observed during the
on-site
visit?
\label{do-the-descriptions-and-conclusions-of-the-self-evaluation-report-correspond-with-the-facts-observed-during-the-on-site-visit}
Yes, the review board comes basically to the same conclusions. There are
only some points (see recommendations) which have not been mentioned in
the self-report. We will come to these points in more detail in the
“recommendation section”:
4.2 Are the criteria justifiably seen as having been
“fulfilled” or “to be
improved”?
\label{are-the-criteria-justifiably-seen-as-having-been-fulfilled-or-to-be-improved}
Most of the criteria raised in the self-report have been evaluated as
“fulfilled”. Only a few (n=6) have been labeled as “to be improved”.
We fully concur with this evaluation. Those criteria, which have been
labeled as “to be improved” are listed below:
-
4.1.1 Learning objectives are defined for the program, modules and
courses. They are formulated in terms of knowledge and personal and
professional skills, and aligned with the descriptors of the National
Qualifications Framework for the area of the Swiss Universities
(nqf.ch-HS).
-
4.2.2. The training units (courses, workshops etc.) are organized in a
logical progression towards the achievement of training objectives.
-
5.2.1. The evaluation of learning outcomes takes place along several
scales, is distributed over time, relevant to the training objectives
and aligned with the teaching methods and activities.
-
7.1.1. Contracts of employment and/or the work duty specifications of
the academic staff as well as the administrative and technical staff
specify their tasks in the areas of teaching, research, services and
administration.
-
7.1.2. The weighting of teaching and research activities of teachers
in the program corresponds to that stated in the contract of
employment and / or work duty specifications.
-
8.1. Processes, decision-making competences and responsibilities are
determined and communicated to all persons concerned.
The review board is in line with the self-evaluation committee in terms
of these points. There are indeed some opportunities to improve these
points. But we would like to emphasize that the identified opportunities
to improve the program should not be taken as a strong critic or as
indicators of a failure of the program. They should rather be taken as
possibilities and leverages for improvement.
4.3 Based on the documents from the self-evaluation process
and your on-site visit, what conclusions do you draw as to the quality
of each aspect of the
program?
\label{based-on-the-documents-from-the-self-evaluation-process-and-your-on-site-visit-what-conclusions-do-you-draw-as-to-the-quality-of-each-aspect-of-the-program}
The self-evaluation contains a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats), which we mostly agree with. In their
analysis they evaluated several points where they are pretty sure that
the criteria for success have been achieved. These points
(strength) are the following:
-
Interdisciplinarity: We fully agree. This program is an
excellent example for an interdisciplinary PH.D. program! The program
covers many aspect of the neuroscience discipline, in accordance with
internationally recognized standards. This program offers the
opportunity to learn different scientific methods and guarantees the
integration of scientific knowledge. To the best of our knowledge
there are only a few Ph.D. programs worldwide offering such a broad
spectrum of neuroscientific information and training possibilities.
-
Networking possibilities between labs and differing fields of
neuroscience; discoveries of synergies and collaborations: We also
fully agree. There are ample opportunities for collaboration. We
learned from our discussions with students, alumni, and PIs that there
are many opportunities for networking. Animal researchers do have the
opportunity to learn something about human oriented cognitive
neuroscience and vice versa. In addition, there is a strong pillar in
clinical neurosciences, which can be used as a kind of anchor point
for the basic research.
-
Diversity in course topics and the high quality of training
activities: We also fully agree. Due to the fact that many
neuroscience disciplines are involved in this Ph.D. program, there are
many topics which he student can chose for their education.
-
Program management: We also agree. The program management is
enthusiastic, highly motivated and well organized. They regularly
update the program, keep close contact to the students and PIs. A very
positive aspect of the project management is that the UNIGE and UNIL
representatives closely cooperate. we never had the impression that
their could be a kind of friction between both universities. We also
did not identify frictions between the different faculties (e.g.,
medical and psychological faculty). We rather experienced a specific
spirit to further the scientific work and the academic career of the
students.
The self-evaluation comes to the conclusion that there are some aspects
which offer the possibility for improvement (weaknesses):
-
Thesis project evaluation and monitoring occurs at a
relatively late phase of the student’s program, and is performed by a
non-specialized, ad-hoc established committee (cf. subdimension
5.2.1.): This is indeed the case. We propose to form for each student
a doctoral thesis committee right from the beginning. The thesis
committee should comprise the main supervisor and at least two
additional scientists from the neuroscience community (either from
UNIGE and UNIL or from abroad). This committee should sign a Ph.D.
contract with the students and also should define “landmarks” of the
Ph.D. work which can be evaluated on a regular basis. For example, the
candidate should report every 6 months about his/her progress either
by oral presentation or via a written short progress report send to
the thesis committee for review.
-
Networking is restricted to academia; there is not enough
interfacing with the private sector to support broad career
trajectories (cf. subdimension 3.4.): Yes we agree. This could become
an important issue for the candidates when they are on the job market.
Several Ph.D. projects do have a relatively strong relation with
non-academic jobs (e.g. clinical, computer and engineering sciences).
In addition, the candidates acquire skills which are relatively
attractive for the non-academic market (writing, analytic thinking,
programming, statistics, partly engineering). Thus it could be very
helpful for the students and for the Ph.D. program if the program
organization build some links to the industry and other non-academic
institutions. It should be kept in mind that currently neuroscience
issues are becoming more and more attractive for the industry (see for
example the strong research branches from Google, IBM).
-
Networking between fundamental and cognitive neurosciences
needs to be improved (cf. subdimension 4.3.4.): Yes, we agree. We see
some extraordinary opportunities to link clinical sciences to basic
sciences. Clinical neurosciences if extremely strong in Geneva and
also in Lausanne. There are very few places in the world where
clinical neurosciences and basic neurosciences are so closely
intertwined. Thus, this Ph.D. program offers the opportunity to start
Ph.D. projects connecting these two branches.
-
Admission criteria differ between UNIGE faculties, causing
confusion to students and thesis directors (cf. responses to
subdimension 5.3 in annex 0-B): We agree. This could lead to
confusions, although we haven’t encountered any statement of confusion
yet. Not from the alumni nor from the current students. Maybe, the
students are aware (and accept) of the different bureaucratic
requirements present in the two universities.
-
Opportunities (external factors that could positively
contribute to the development of the program): We do not see any
problem here. However, the program committee is obviously aware of
these problems. For example, the it is not entirely clear how the
relation between Switzerland and the EU will develop in terms of
scientific relationship. In addition, the relation between the US, EU,
and Switzerland is also difficult to predict. However, the good part
of this is that the Swiss government is currently highly motivated to
invest into science. Anyway, these are issues, which cannot be
influenced by the program committee.
-
Installing an advisory board (cf. subdimension 8.1.): Yes,
this could be a good idea. However, we propose a kind of mentoring
program for particular students or student groups. This mentoring
program should help to guide the students through the program. Very
often the students do not really know which courses would be most
important and/or interesting for them. The mentors could help to
perfectly adjust the course program to the individual needs of the
students.
-
Increasing interaction with other PhD programs at UNIGE and
UNIL (e.g. exchanging course offers; cf. subdimension 4.3.2.): Yes,
we agree. However, we experienced generally satisfied students and
PIs. Thus, there is superficially no interaction problem between both
universities. Some students mentioned, however, that the travel
logistics are a bit incriminating for them (e.g., when traveling from
Geneva to Lausanne back and forth an entire day is necessary).
-
Adapting PhD admission procedures between UNIGE faculties by
increased interaction with the faculty study advisors and secretariats
(cf. subdimension 5.3.2.): Yes, we agree. It could be beneficial
especially for the advertising issue to homogenize the Ph.D. admission
for both schools.
-
Adapting end-of-thesis procedures between UNIGE faculties and
increasing local administrative support for UNIGE students: Yes, we
agree. Homogenization of this final Ph.D. part could enhance the
“esprit de corps” experience of this joint venture. However, we did
not experience an obvious “problem” caused by the diversity.
The self-evaluation committee also mentioned some so-called external
factors that could negatively affect the development of the program
(threats):
-
Lack of interest from prospective students and host labs
because of workload (cf. subdimension 3.3.): Yes we agree. This is
always an issue for all Ph.D. programs worldwide. It is always a
balance act between the needs/demands of a particular lab and the
motives and needs of a student to further his career.
-
Lack of support for postgraduate education from university
management (cf. subdimension 7.1.1.): Yes we agree. This is also an
ongoing issue for all Ph.D. programs. However, this point is difficult
to solve.
-
Restrained financial resources affecting course diversity and
program appeal (cf. subdimension 4.2.2.): Yes, but this is hardly to
change and manipulate. However, the funding is well and mostly
provided by the SNF and the European Union.
-
Changes in the political landscape as well of Switzerland’s
position in the context of European funding instruments (e.g. European
Research Council ERC) can negatively affect the availability of
financial resources and inhibit research labs to employ PhD
candidates. This may also affect the mobility of international PhD
students (cf. subdimension 3.2.): Yes, we fully agree. But these
political issues are difficult to foresee and to manage.
4.4 What conclusions do you draw as to the overall quality
of the program being
evaluated?
\label{what-conclusions-do-you-draw-as-to-the-overall-quality-of-the-program-being-evaluated}
There is no doubt that this PH.D. program is of high or even excellent
quality both in terms of organization and scientific content. In the
following we will evaluate this Ph.D. program according to eight main
areas (1: description and general condition, 2: positioning and
relevance, 3: students enrolled, 4: program design, 5: implementation
and functioning, 6: educational outcomes and impacts, 7: resources, and
8: educational outcomes and impacts).
-
Description and general condition: The program is offered on
a regular basis. In addition, the description and the general
conditions conform to the Qualifications Framework for the Swiss
Higher Education Area. Thus, with regard to this issue the program is
excellently situated.
-
Positioning and relevance: The program is well integrated
into the national and international higher-education offers. In
addition, the program is developed in line with advances in the
neuroscience research disciplines and the needs of professionals
(medical doctors, engineers etc.), society, and individuals. In terms
of program positioning (e.g., advertisement) there are improvements
possible. In our view this excellent Ph.D. program deserves a broader
audience to increase competition amongst the candidates.
-
Students enrolled: The profile and numbers of the students
enrolled in the program are appropriate and fit to the program. In
total 162 students are currently participating in this program.
Fifty-six have completed the program so far. Thus, in terms of numbers
the program is pretty successful. We did not inspect all publications
originating from this Ph.D. program in detail, however, the
publication list of the involved PIs is pretty impressive. Thus, in
terms of scientific impact the Ph.D. program seems to be successful,
too. From our discussions with the students we had expression that it
is possible for the students to reconcile education, work, leisure and
family time successfully.
-
Program design - educational objectives: The learning
outcomes are set out for the curriculum, modules, and courses. The
students are mostly well aware of the educational objectives for their
courses.
-
Program design - structure: The program conforms with the
objectives of the Bologna Declaration and is based on a tiered system
and organized into modules or courses. Teaching is organized in such a
way as to make it possible to progress logically toward the final
educational objectives. In addition, the students’ workload is evenly
spread across the program period (e.g., semesters and years). The
program structure (e.g., course names, teachers in charge etc.) are
readily accessible.
-
Program design - content: The program is well designed around
main topics of modern neuroscience research. It covers many important
aspects of this discipline in accordance with internationally
standards. The program offers the students many opportunities to learn
scientific work methods from different neuroscience disciplines. Thus,
the students can integrate different information to develop a more
general and homogenous view on neurosciences. In addition, the program
is constantly updated according to the advances of the specific
research field. This issue is inherent to the fact that most PIs work
at the forefront of modern neurosciences. Thus, it is mandatory to
keep the teaching issue up-to-date.
-
Implementation and functioning - Teaching: The offered
courses, teaching methods, and resources clearly are adapted to the
educational objectives and as innovative as possible. From the
discussions with the students and PIs we learned that teaching is
centered on the student and encourages autonomy and active
participation. The student’s workload corresponds corresponds to the
workload set out in the course curriculum. The students mostly
evaluate the teaching positively and judge the courses as appropriate
for their Ph.D. education.
-
Implementation and functioning - Evaluation of learning:
Assessment of learning is appropriately spread over time, relevant to
the educational objectives and in keeping with the methods and
activities. Mostly, the students are aware of the possibilities of
formative assessment. They receive regular feedback on their
assessment results. Obviously, the assessment results are clearly
expressed and disclosed to students.
-
Implementation and functioning - Academic support for
students: In most cases students seem to receive satisfactory
academic support and advice from their supervisors. However, we
believe that some additional courses (e.g., statistics, programming
language etc.) could be helpful for the student’s career and Ph.D.
work.
-
Implementation and functioning - Academic mobility: Some
students are of non Swiss origin. Thus, the program obviously attracts
foreign students. Some students take part in international short term
exchanges, but generally they stay at their lab to finalize their
Ph.D. work. The students mostly take part at international conferences
to present their study results.
-
Educational outcomes and impact: Nearly all Ph.D. projects
progress within the expected timeframe. The majority of students
enrolled in the program obtain their degree. There is no doubt that
PIs and students are mainly satisfied with the outcome of the program.
For example, the alumni we interviewed unisono mentioned that they
would run this program again in case they would be younger. A specific
feature of this program is that is nearly entirely taught in English,
which the students really appreciate. They are aware of the fact that
English nowadays is the language of science and that they improve
their chances for postdoc positions when improving their English. The
relationship with alumni is not perfect since many alumni leave the
universities and do not have any contact to the new students. Some
alumni stay at the labs as postdocs and they often serve as
supervisors and partly as mentors.
-
Resources - Human Resources: The involved employees ensure
sufficient administrative, technical, and teaching support for the
students. The teaching staff is hired for relative long periods thus
teaching can be guaranteed for quite long periods without any breaks.
Most teachers in this program seemed to be didactically skilled
(although there are always quality differences as everywhere). What is
clear is the fact that the teachers are scientifically skilled. Since
all teachers are involved in forefront research activities it is more
or less guaranteed that they are involved in on-going training. In our
view the ”human resources” for teaching are not wasted and efficiently
used.
-
Resources - Financial and material resources: the programs
funding, equipment, teaching material, IT and other resources is
sufficient. We would even argue that these resources are excellent
compared to many Ph.D. programs we know. There is no doubt that all
students have access to all necessary (and even more) scientific
information.
-
Internal organization and quality management: The program is
well organized, which seems to be astonishing since two universities
and several faculties with different academic and organizational
”cultures” are involved. Despite these obstacles the program runs well
and procedures and responsibilities relating to advisory,
decision-making, and quality management processes are clearly defined
and disclosed to all individuals. The program organization committee
is actively involved in establishing, developing and managing the
quality of the program. A good example for this is the self-evaluation
committee which has conducted the self-evaluation report, which is a
major basis of this review.