The Center for quality assessment in higher education conducted an external expert evaluation of the physical geography program at Vilnius University, covering first-cycle programs (Geography, Cartography and geographic information systems, and Climatology and Hydrology) and second-cycle programs (Cartography and Climate System Studies). We are pleased that the physical geography program has been accredited for the maximum period of seven years.
This international evaluation confirms that the physical geography program meets the highest quality standards, and that study aims, learning outcomes and curriculum are relevant and valuable. The highest rating provides a guarantee of quality for prospective students and indicates that the knowledge and skills acquired during their studies will be relevant and applicable in today’s job market.
The external study program evaluation group consisted of faculty members from foreign higher education institutions with experience in higher education management, a social partner, and a student representative. The program was evaluated by analyzing various aspects of its implementation – study aims, learning outcomes and curriculum, links between scientific research and higher education, student admission and support, teaching and learning, student assessment and graduate employability, teaching staff, learning facilities and resources, as well as quality assurance and public information.
Summary of the external evaluation findings:
VU offers Study Programmes which comply with the descriptors for the study field of Physical Geography. The programmes are well aligned with the mission and strategy of the University. The curriculum, particularly in the second-cycle, is well structured. The learning outcomes within modules align with the programme learning outcomes, which in turn align with the competences required for the field of study. The programmes complement each other well and produce graduates who are well regarded and sought after in a wide variety of enterprise. It is noteworthy that student numbers in the first-cycle have risen over the past number of years – this will be very beneficial for the team and should reinvigorate the discipline. Some attention needs to be paid to the alignment of assessments, and assessment weightings within and across modules.
The Physical Geography study field at VU demonstrates a strong and coherent integration of research and teaching, with significant strengths across the evaluated areas. The field benefits from excellent instruction by active researchers, ensuring the curriculum is informed by current scientific work in climate, hydrology, and cartography. Programmes are structured to progressively build student competencies in modern methods and technologies, supported by authentic research experience through theses and practical activities connected to ongoing projects. At the same time, publication output is uneven, with limited high-impact (Q1–Q2) papers, and the small number of full-time research positions constrains research capacity and international competitiveness; participation in major international projects is low, with only one Horizon Europe project, and these constraints particularly affect the first-cycle, where students reported weaker research integration and uneven didactic quality. Areas identified for further development include strengthening the documentation and visibility of student involvement in research outputs, ensuring a more systematic review process for integrating research results into course updates, and increasing interdisciplinary integration within the curriculum. Additionally, fostering scientific collaboration and student exchange opportunities with related programmes at other national universities is recommended for future enhancement.
University ensures clear and transparent admission procedures in the Physical Geography field, with competitive scores and recognition of foreign qualifications and prior learning aligned to the intended learning outcomes and sufficient demand and entrance scores to sustain both first- and second-cycle programmes. Students have access to a broad system of academic, financial, social, psychological and personal support, an extensive network of international mobility agreements and structured induction and counselling throughout their studies. However, student feedback indicates that mobility opportunities are not always easy to use in practice, institutional support for finding and arranging mandatory internships is limited, and communication about specific procedures, available support measures and the use of student feedback is not always sufficiently clear or visible, with some students perceiving a distance in communication with staff. Overall, student admission and support can be evaluated as good for both cycles, but with notable shortcomings in the implementation and accessibility of mobility, support and counselling that should be addressed.
The Faculty on the Physical Geography area of study are generally enthusiastic about the commitment to teaching the next generation of geographers. Its social partners are also very supportive of the study field. There are very good policies in place for academic integrity, tolerance and non-discrimination. However, there appear to be differences in the experience of students within the first-cycle, depending on which of the study programmes they are undertaking. It would be helpful to ensure that there is a wider group of students involved in curriculum design and review, and that the students know what has happened because of their feedback. It will be important to review the teaching materials and assessment across the three study programmes in the first-cycle to ensure relevance. It is also important to provide clear and relevant guidance on the permitted use of Gen-AI.
The teaching staff of the Physical Geography field at VU is sufficient in number and formally well qualified to deliver both first- and second-cycle programmes. The majority hold doctoral degrees, and the second-cycle programme benefits from a strong proportion of professors and active researchers. The staff covers all key subfields of physical geography, ensuring subject-matter competence across the curriculum. However, the overall research performance of the field remains modest.
Opportunities for mobility and professional development exist through Erasmus+, Nordplus, and internal training, but participation is inconsistent and largely dependent on individual initiative. Long-term mobility and pedagogical development require stronger institutional support. Students noted variability in teaching quality and outdated materials in some courses, indicating the need for more systematic pedagogical modernisation. Furthermore, the age structure shows limited renewal of younger academics, posing risks to long-term sustainability.
Overall, the teaching staff meets the requirements for programme delivery, but shortcomings in research capacity, pedagogical consistency, internationalisation, and generational renewal remain. These issues are more pronounced in the first-cycle, while the second-cycle benefits from stronger research integration, more experienced lecturers, and greater alignment between staff competence and study outcomes.
One can see renovated laboratories and auditoriums; moreover, there are positive signs regarding the acquisition of modern equipment, which is ready for installation. Nevertheless, the factual situation reveals weaknesses in the continuous updating of learning facilities and resources. One of the reasons may be the long-term public procurement process. The VU library meets all the necessary requirements for high-quality studies and full fills students’ needs, it operates round the clock, every day of the week.
VU has a comprehensive internal quality assurance (QA) system aligned with the European Standards and Guidelines, covering all key stages of programme monitoring, data collection, and review. The Study Programme Committees operates regularly and includes students and an external social partner, ensuring formally compliant stakeholder participation. The University collects extensive quantitative and qualitative data through module surveys, semester evaluations, and targeted surveys of different student groups, and uses these data in annual programme reviews and staff evaluations. Despite this well-established structure, the practical effectiveness of QA in the Physical Geography field is uneven. Students report recurring issues related to outdated materials, inconsistent communication, and limited follow-up on feedback. Although employers contribute to internships and thesis defences, their involvement in programme development remains narrow and dependent on individual contacts. Alumni engagement lacks structured mechanisms. Public-facing information on programme quality, improvement actions, and outcome indicators is fragmented and insufficiently accessible, limiting transparency for external stakeholders. QA processes are clearly defined and functional, but their impact on teaching quality and programme improvement is inconsistent. Strengthening communication of results, broadening stakeholder engagement, and shifting towards outcome-oriented monitoring are essential to increase the effectiveness of the QA system.