Student review [#18322] for Computational Social Science
at Linköping University - LU

It seemed that the programme was not neatly organised. During the first course, the lecturer decided to change the passing criteria which left some students forced to re-do their entire work they have done so far. The second course was led by a different lecturer who was not consistent in the grading as some students received grades A-F for a particular exercise and others were graded with Pass or Fail. Furthermore, the students were told that there was a possibility of an exchange with another university or an internship instead of the third semester. However, neither of the students was able to satisfy the expectations of the lecturers who were in charge with regard to neither the internship nor the exchange. Finally, multiple students have struggled with the thesis seminar. In my case, I was assigned two thesis advisors. Their input to my thesis seemed to partially contradict each other. I have been receiving comments to my thesis with significant intervals which slowed down my progress. As the deadline approached, I was left with an impression that neither of my advisors knows what my thesis is about as i was receiving comments recommending measurements that were impossible to include while having the data that I was working with. What is more, shortly before the deadline (which was on Friday), I received comments on Monday. I was working with them, knowing that I have at most 4 days to implement the changes that were recommended. However, on Wednesday I was informed by one of my advisors that they will not have time to go through the changes that I have introduced, therefore delaying my presentation by 6 months. Throughout these 6 months, I have received 2 emails with comments in the span of a week. One of my advisors kept informing me that their comments will arrive shortly however, I have not received them until now that I have graduated. After the preliminary examination, I have received feedback from my examiner, which showed fundamental problems in my thesis. I wish I have known about these errors earlier however, I seemed to be unable to draw these conclusions from the feedback that I have been given.
In general, I do not recommend studying at the Institute of Analytical Sociology. The structure of this programme had to be accepted by a person in charge, however, it seemed that the course lacked organisation and the goodwill of some of the lecturers. I have experienced treatment that could be interpreted as malevolent and passively aggressive not only towards myself but towards my classmates as well. Multiple of my emails were left unanswered with me being blamed for using nonprofessional means of communication out of desperation for help. Having said that, most of the lecturers who I have encountered were very helpful together with the administrative employees.
Finally, the programme managers were assuring us of the usefulness of the tools we were taught. This is true to some extent however, drawbacks of some of the teaching methods were not mentioned while being undeniably vital to the perception of future career opportunities.