Minutes/20120221
From TCS Group Internal Wiki
Contents |
Minutes from the computer science PhD programme council meeting February 21, 13.15-15
Present
- Pedro de Carvalho Gomes
- Mads Dam
- Erik Fransén
- Dilian Gurov
- Jeanette Hellgren-Kotaleski
- David House
- Patric Jensfelt
- Karl Palmskog
- David Silberstein
- Cenny Wenner
1. Agenda and minutes
Nothing was added to the agenda. Karl was assigned to writing minutes.
2. New program coordinator
It was announced that Dilian will take over as programme coordinator from Mads from March 15.
3. Report from the KTH doctoral programme meeting
Dilian and Erik gave an overview the presentations and discussions at the KTH-wide doctoral programme meeting that took place February 14-15. It was established that the CS programme enrollment (50 out of 65 students) is more than most other programmes.
Erik summarised a talk about laws and regulations governing doctoral studies, specifically goverment regulation via Högskoleförordningen, employment law and contract law. He noted that the study plans are part of goverment regulation and not contract law. However, the study plan is the only place where requirements on students can be formally noted. If requirements are not fulfilled, the school can take action by not prolonging appointments which come up for annual renewal.
Erik reported that Indek students have to give a seminar - in effect a rehearsal for their PhD defense - one year before they finish. Mads suggested requiring something similar for the CS programme, perhaps mandatory seminars tied to reaching another step in the doctoral ladder. David House warned about having too strict temporal requirements on seminars, since in his experience it can lead to scheduling issues for several parties, especially when a student is abroad. Jeanette noted that students who are not employed have no doctoral ladder, and thus separate seminar rules must be given for them.
Dilian agreed that it would be good if students gave seminars, but wanted to discuss the issue of if and how to enforce seminars separately. Mads suggested doing something lightweight first. Jeanette noted that having students writing a thesis proposal would be useful. Erik and Dilian undertook to discuss the issue and come up with a proposal on seminars.
David House and Patric noted that their respective groups already have various forms of requirements and feedback opportunities for students.
4. Programme workshop debriefing
Pedro reported about the results of the written evaluation after the programme workshop. Most participants enjoyed the workshop and would consider attending again, but it was often remarked that the schedule was too packed. Both Cenny and Pedro agreed that scheduling had been done too optimistically, leaving only small margins between talks and lunch. Mads considered this problem understandable. It was remarked that, on the other hand, the schedule left a sense of urgency during talks and discussions, which was positive in some cases. There was consensus that Cenny's insistence on soliciting (and then printing) posters from participants led to good poster sessions. However, participants described the poster sessions as too short.
Attendance was good among TCS students, but for e.g. CVAP, only new students attended. Pedro noted the effect of having two organisers within the TCS group led to greater enthusiasm for the workshop and thus endorsed having one organiser for the next workshop from each group.
Cenny brought up the issue of having clear strategic goals for the workshop - perhaps in terms of just socialisation or more concrete in terms of collaborations. Karl and Dilian noted the need for well-known speakers on general science subjects to attract students to the next workshop, and that the search for speakers must commence well ahead of the scheduled date.
It was decided that each student representative has the responsibility of finding a member of the organising committee for the next workshop.
Mads noted that the compensation to students from organising the workshop was still unclear. The initial plan was to give ECTS credits, but other senior faculty had objections to this. Patric noted that compensation in the form of department duty was not very attractive to CVAP students.
Time for the next workshop was discussed. David House noted that May-June is a very busy time in terms of conferences. In the end, the next programme workshop was proposed to take place in January 2013.
5. Other items, incl schedule for next meeting
Jeanette brought up the issue of courses and noted that students were asking for new courses but were unsure who to turn to.
Mads and Erik noted that money for courses beyond the first run could not be taken from the doctoral programme budget. Instead, this money must come from the group research budgets. Dilian noted the need to maintain a curriculum of doctoral-level courses. Mads suggested that each group should have one core course in such a curriculum.
Next meeting is planned to Tuesday April 17 13:15.
