University of Zagreb

VR.06 Form for formal evaluation of the doctoral study programme proposal

CLASS:
NUMBER:
VR.06 –FORM FOR FORMAL EVALUATION OF THE DOCTORAL STUDY PROGRAMME PROPOSAL
Rapporteur information
First name and last name, title / Institution
Rapporteur:
  1. General information[1]

1.1.Name of the proposed study programme
1.2.Study programme provider
1.3.Implementer(s) of the programme
1.4. Partner institution(s)
1.5.Scientific or artistic field
1.6. Scientific or artistic area
1.7. Scientific or artistic branch (if the doctoral study is conducted in a branch)
1.8.Scheduled duration of study
1.9.Number of required courses/modules
1.10.Number of elective courses/modules in the study programme
1.11. Academic degree earned
1.12. The minimum number of doctoral students enrolled set by the programme / 1.13. The maximum number of doctoral students enrolled set by the programme
2. Introduction – general information on the study programme
2.1. Does the study programme proposal clearly define the programme admission requirements? / YESNO
2.2. Does the study programme proposal define the criteria and selection procedures of applicants in a transparent manner, if it is necessary to make the choice among the applicants because of the enrolment quota? / YESNO
2.3. Does the admission procedure involve an interview with the applicant? / YESNO
2.4. Are the names of the accepted applicants published (e. g. on the internet page of the study programme)? / YESNO
2.5. Is the proposed organization of the doctoral study programme functional (institutional management of the doctoral study programme)? / YESNO
3. Curriculum of the doctoral study programme
3.1. Are the requirements for students’ advancing to the subsequent year of the studyconstructed well and explained? / YESNO
3.2. Are the requirements for approving the topic of the doctoral dissertation constructed and described well? / YESNO
3.3. Is a list of required courses or modules with the number of instruction hours required? / YESNO
3.4. Is a list of elective courses or modules with the number of instruction hours proposed? / YESNO
3.5. Do conditions exist for implementation of the proposed doctoral study programme in English (or some other foreign) language and does a list of courses or modules that can be conducted in English (or some other foreign) language exist in: / the entire programme / YESNO
a part of the programme / YESNO
3.6. Is there a similar doctoral study programme in the scientific/artistic field in which the proposed doctoral study programme is planned at: / the University of Zagreb / YESNO
outside of the University of Zagreb / YESNO
3.7. Does the description of courses and modules contain: / a content outline / YESNO
description of instruction formats / YESNO
list of required and additional literature / YESNO
description of the manner of monitoring teaching quality and success of teaching performance / YESNO
3.8. Does teaching in the lecture format exceed 30% of the total load defined by the proposed programme? / YESNO
3.9.Is the doctoral student assigned a study advisor at admission? / YESNO
3.10. Does the proposed study programme clearly define the rights and obligations of the doctoral students? / YESNO
3.11.Are courses at the proposed doctoral study programme open to all doctoral students at the University of Zagreb? / YESNO
4. Teaching, scientific and artistic conditions of the implementation of the study programme
4.1. Has the proof been attached of the appropriate number of permanently employed (work contracts) concluded with research-and-teaching and/or art-and-teaching staff? (At least 50% of the total number of teachers needed?) / YESNO
4.2. Does the doctoral study programme proposal include a proposed list of possible mentors? / YESNO
4.3. Does the doctoral study programme proposal include a proposed list of teachers and their courses? / YESNO
4.4. Does the programme proposal include information on each teacher, and possible mentor (in the same form should be indicated whether a person is a teacher, a possible mentor, or both) including: / name of the institution of employment / YESNO
biography / YESNO
a list of selected published work that qualify him/her for implementation of the program, or that are relevant to the area of the doctoral program / YESNO
a list of selected published work in the last 5 years / YESNO
a list of scientific/artistic projects on which he/she worked and that are relevant to the area of the doctoral programme: / YESNO
a list of scientific/artistic projects on which he/she worked in the last 5 years: / YESNO
date of appointment to research-and-teachingor art-and-teaching rank / YESNO
4.5. Are the criteria for measuring the scientific/artistic qualifications of the mentor stated (Mostly, the criteria for election to scientific degrees in the field)? / YESNO
4.6. Is the proposed number of doctoral students in proportion to the available capacities of the study programme provider, according to: / number of mentors (3:1) / YESNO
research conditions that can be provided / YESNO not applicable
4.7. Does the programme proposal include a list of scientific/artistic and developmental topics on which the doctoral study programme is based or the specific areas that includes? / YESNO not applicable
4.8. Is the following attached: / Cost estimation with the projection of costs necessary for implementation of the proposed doctoral study programme? / YESNO
Proof of funding secured in keeping with the cost estimate / YESNO not applicable
4.9. Has the document been attached of accreditation of the graduate, i.e. integrated undergraduate and graduate study programme at the institution of study programme provider in the scientific or artistic field in which the doctoral programme is being started(unless it be an interdisciplinary field of science or the arts)? / YESNO
5. Monitoring the quality of the doctoral study programme
5.1. Are quality indicators related to improvement of the quality of the study programme clearly defined? / YESNO
5.2. Is it going to be possible for doctoral students to take part in the student evaluation of the study programme? / YESNO
5.3. Is the regular self-evaluation of the study programme planned? / YESNO
5.4. Is the annual report of the doctoral student planned? / YESNO
5.5. Is a regular review of the study programme in accordance with results of quality monitoring planned? / YESNO
5.6. Is it intended for the results of doctoral student reports to be considered in improving the doctoral study programme? / YESNO
Concluding recommendation of the rapporteur[2]
Accept the proposed study programme without additional changes.
Explanation
Accept the proposed study programme with minor changes recommended by the rapporteur.
Minor changes required:
The proposed study programme may be reconsidered after major changes have been made meeting objections by the rapporteur.
Minor changes required:
The proposed study programme is to be rejected.
Reasons for rejecting the proposed study programme
Note (as needed)
PLACE, DATE AND SIGNATURE OF RAPPORTEUR
Place and date:First name and last name of rapporteur:
______

VR.O6 Form for formal evaluation of the doctoral study programme proposal—to be filled in by rapporteur

University of Zagreb, Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, Zagreb; Tel: 4564-111, Fax: 4830-602, Web:

[1]Lines 1-7 of this form are filled in by the Office for doctoral studies and programmes of the University of Zagreb

[2]Filled in by rapporteur