Feedback2014
This page contains notes from a meeting where we get feedback for the past year and discuss election procedures. One of the PhD council seminars.
Agenda:
1. Ph.D. council in the previous year
- Social events
- BBQ (September)
- After work in Lindholmen (November)
- Lasertag & dinner (January)
- Seminars
- Talk by Torborg Arvidsson from FeelGood (October)
- Talk by Olaf Landsiedel about how to become a better teacher (December)
- Internships and Research visits (March)
- Feedback and information session about Ph.D. council (April)
- A workshop on how to write good CVs by Sally McKee (TBD)
- Other tasks
- Ph.D. leaflet
- Ombudsman
- PhD. council Insidan page & Wiki?
- Electing Angelos Arelakis as our representative in the committee for selecting the head of department
- Electing Grischa Liebel as our representative in the doctoral education committee
2. Election procedure
- How does the current procedure work
- Suggestions about the procedure (will be considered by the next Ph.D. council board)
3. Any other suggestions
- Courses?
- Seminars?
- Social events?
Minutes of meeting
1. Ph.D. council in the previous year
- Other tasks
- Suggestion: Representative for doctoral education committee should inform other PhD students more actively about what is going on in the meetings
2. Election procedure
- How does the current procedure work
- Suggestions about the procedure (will be considered by the next Ph.D. council board)
- Would prefer voting: better representation of the opinion of PhD students, not just the neutral party
- Voting would make more sense if there were multiple candidates; usually PhD council board is chosen from very few people
- Voting might discourage people from nominating themselves; voting has overhead and takes time
- Theoretically there's a possibility to complain about the decision, but it's a stronger position to oppose someone who is already nominated, vs. just not voting for someone (and voting for someone else instead)
- Neutral person can take input from all students when selecting the members of board, so they are not alone in making the decision
- Interviews made by the neutral person make the selection more in-depth; whereas with voting, you'd vote those you know
- -> Publish the interviews so that all students can see them, and vote with more information
- Change neutral person as a recruiter who encourages people to nominate themselves; then everyone votes
- New rules are formulated for voting and in case of having the majority votes, they will be implemented when selecting PhD council 2016-2017.