-
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
(0) Before the thesis is submitted, the supervisor suggests 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, oe). 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 should seeks to confirm that the reviewers are willing to participate in the committee.
(1) The I:SK programme directory (currently jan tore) approves the proposed commitee; the group manager (currently oe) coordinates the allocation of internal reviewers among group members.
(2) Once approved, the supervisor schedules emails the committee details to the study adminstration; see:
(3) 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.
(4) 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 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.
(5) The internal reviewer acts as the secretary of the committee, i.e. fills in the two forms (a grading summary and 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.
Home | Forum | Discussions | Events