Faculty of Technology, University in Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Positive: Most professors do their jobs conscientiously and professionally; Of course, there are exceptions to any other institution of this type. Assistants are committed and strive to transfer knowledge (again, this is true of the vast majority), especially in the first and second years. Classes (lectures, exercises, laboratories) are held on a regular basis and there is a tendency to fulfill the plan and cover the intended material. Negative: The organization of study programs is poor. A new direction has been opened trying to "sell the story" about the nutritional aspect of food, forcing freshmen to think that the direction is intended for future nutritionists - this is not the case (it is enough to look at the plan and program and see that there are no crucial subjects such as e.g., human physiology and similar subjects belonging to the medical profession). Currently, B.Sc. eng. technologies must complete a master's and specialization (unavailable at UNIBL) in nutrition to be called nutritionist (this again means nothing because in hospitals, spas, etc., this job is done by medical doctors who have a specific specialization, not technology engineers!) Some senior-grade professors "robotically" replicate material from literature written in the 1980s (some basics are understood to be valid at all times, but there are also advances in science and engineering that professors are either unaware of or lack interest in transmitting. to students). Study visits to specific plants are referred to as "professional practice" (in fact, just going and visiting certain manufacturing facilities in the environment). At senior years, there is a great focus on different methods of analyzing different products (especially nutrition - honoring the exceptions, or rather the exception, which I will not mention) instead of pilot plants or mini-projects that teach how different products are obtained. The purpose of the study programs (I guess ?!) is to educate engineers who will solve problems within a plant (and in order to do this, they need to know how a product becomes a product from raw material, what are the process parameters, etc.), not technicians who perform routine analyzes on illicit substances. The subject of Food Analysis is precisely to learn the basic methods of analysis for different foods, so why in year 4, from almost all subjects, repeat most of the analysis learned in year 3? Also, many analyzes are outdated and are not used at all in modern laboratories (and facilities) (in the form taught in college). Again in senior years, there is a shortage of teaching assistants (there are only one assistant in the nutrition-specific subjects at age 3 and 4 ?!) - the vast majority of subjects are held by professors or do services to one another (one professor in another professor holds lab work ). The problem seems to be that there are too many PhDs and too few subjects (to fill the norm), and again we go back to the story of a new direction with some subjects being added to try to redistribute the subjects so that every PhD can that it has several of its objects. Little bar, lots of crocodiles.

Reply to 'owner' response (Google does not allow replicas, so I'm writing a new review): The specific information in the original text on the subject related to physiology is incorrect (that particular subject exists), but if you read the original text carefully, you may find that the criticism is on the direction (and usefulness of the same) and not solely on one subject that exists or not exists. Your sentence: "Students who complete the course Nutritional Quality of Food will be competent and qualified to make recommendations and plan the diet of the population ..." is (probably) true in theory, however, the claim in the oral review still holds: there is no work place for dipl. eng. teh. who has completed several nutrition science courses (and at the end of his studies, it matters if a graduate student can get a job in the profession, right?). Hospitals (public and private), spas, as well as various clinics specializing in proper nutrition employ either medical doctors, or mag. pharmacy, and never an engineer. technologies (this can be easily verified by searching for terms such as "nutritionist Banja Luka" in a Google search engine or by visiting several institutions of this type); therefore, young accomplished engineers in your new direction remain self-employed in this field as the only option for work in the profession. Your assertion: "Study visits ... are by no means 'professional practice' ..." (quoted only because the full paragraph was used for incidental and somewhat insidious self-promotion) may be true, but the original review stated: "Study visits to certain drives are called "professional practice" ... "(emphasis on the word" name ") - this is also true, because on your Faculty's page, in the News section, it says:" PROFESSIONAL VISIT TO FOOD COMPANIES IN PRIJEDORSKA AND MODRICA REGIONS (Posted Dec 23, 2019) "- So, as a source for the original hard it was used in the review by the faculty site. Comment on the paragraph about professors, assistants, associates (paragraph beginning with "On the study program ...") - the point of the original review was again missed. The criticism in the original review was about the lack of assistants, not the lack of associates and lab technicians. The position of an assistant exists for a reason - it should serve as an entry into the world of scientific research and open the door to further education with the ultimate goal of entering the academic community (Ph.D. - Assistant Professor). It is true that under the Law on Higher Education, the position of assistant falls within the associate title (Article 76, paragraph 4), but the Law on the Salaries of Employees in the Field of Higher Education and the Student Standard of the Republika Srpska distinguishes between an associate (Article 9, paragraph 4) and assistant (Art. 9, para. 3). The problem is that faculty do not hire new assistants for years, while other faculties (PMF, ETF, as two prominent examples) receive several assistants each year. This claim is factual and will be supported by the evidence in the third review, if need be - it would take up too much space here. The picture that is being built is that if one wants to work as an assistant at TF BL, it will never happen (or will become an "associate"), so one should not hope for it. Furthermore, of course the professors are quite "competent" to perform the laboratory exercises, but again we return to the story of assistants whose role becomes unnecessary, as the professors do the work for them. This is the reason for claiming that there are too many professors; it seems that the new professors (young Ph.D.) have realized that the only way they can perform any or all of the important functions in college and even that of an assistant is to complete their doctoral studies. Despite all the criticisms, I argue that technology is extensive and often challenging, with many different chemistry, physics, mathematics, organizational, and specific engineering subjects, but it also lays an excellent foundation for understanding many processes in the industry as well as in nature; studying technology offers a vast breadth of knowledge and enables employment across a wide range of industries, which is more reason to enroll.

This is great!