SIAM/DS `Snowbird’ conference 2011: formal report

By Jens Rademacher
Print

Assembled by Jens Rademacher

Many thanks to the co-chairs Vivien Kirk and Jonathan Dawes for their great job in organising the conference!


Conference co-chairs Vivien Kirk and Jonathan Dawes

Here is an overview of the conference history.


A few numbers:

An accomodation size breaking 837 total attendance (521 from USA) from 31 countries, 143 Minisymposia, 55 contributed sessions, 64 posters, 9 plenary talks.

 

Taken from part of SIAM's final report on the conference.

 

 

 

Summary of the survey form results (268 responses)

More than 90% agree (36% strongly) that the technical program was excellent, more than 80% agreed (21% strongly) that the plenary talks were interesting/well presented. Over 95% agree (33% strongly) that the session were interesting/well-focussed, and more than 94% agree (41% strongly) that they aquired information that will be useful in research/job responsibilities.

The second set of questions concerned the management of the size of the upcoming meetings. While 57% agree (18% strongly) to have much smaller number of minisymposia, which will be solicited and managed, 20% disagree (and 17% have no opinion). Similarly, concerning an additional poster session, 58% agree (21% strongly), but 18% disagree (21% have no opinion). The result is also similar on the question of using full five days for the conference: 54% agree (20% strongly), but 17% disagree (and 25% have no opinion). And the same for having more free time for interaction: 54% agree (20% strongly), but 19% disagree (26% have no opinion). Slightly less agreement has the suggestion to encourage faculty to submit CP or Posters is agreed upon by 49% (15% strongly), while 14% disagree (and 35% have no opinion).
Last but not least, a clear majority supports the shortened IP's: 88% agree (50.2% strongly).

Should alternatives to Snowbird be investigated, suggestions?

Of the 68 responses, 21 prefer to keep it at Snowbird, 8 suggest US East Coast, 6 suggest Europe, 5 Chicago, 3 Vancouver (plus 2 Banff) and 2 persons suggest Hawaii (sic!).

 

Suggestions for technical program:

Several people remark that there were parallel session with similar topics, and then periods with `nothing to attend'. A few feel that minisymposia could have been unified, and some suggest a two stage process for acceptance: first round only for minisimpsium topics. Similarly, it is mentioned that the first talks often did not provide an introduction to the session, and it is suggested to have only one part per minisymposium.

Some people point out that more poster sessions could relief the scheduling problems, and that contributed talks or rejected minisymposium talks could be turned into posters.

While a few comments support the idea to shape the themes and select minisymposia accordingly, others strongly opposed the idea to manage the topics.

Suggestions for the contents are too numerous to mentioned in detail. They range from a desire for more rigorous or fundamental mathematics to plenaries from experimentalists. From data assimilation to networks, control and delay equations; from immunology to biophysics, finance and power systems.

 

Most and least important feature of conference:

Many people mention networking as the most important feature. The diversity of the meeting, in particular the minisymposia (and their quality) is mentioned as an important aspect, and that the conference covers a broad field. Some people remark the possibility to meet important people in their field. Also the poster session is hailed, and Jim Yorke is invited to present a poster next time!

 

`Did you learn anything useful?'

Responses are very positive. Two examples: `I got about three ideas for new research direction' and `I have met potential postdoc mentors'.

 

Comments/suggestions also concerning the web page:

Several people suggest to implement an online planner (such as APS apparently has), and to have a format for smart phones. The points mentioned above for the technical program appear similarly here, e.g., the issue of conflicting parallel sessions and whether or not to implement a stronger selection process.

 

Some criticism of the food options is repeatedly mention: pricy, poor selection, and there should be snacks in the coffee breaks. Also the hotel costs and registration fee are criticized a few times. One suggestion is to offer a discount for booking the entire conference duration (also as an incentive to stay).

 

 

What are your thoughts on the future of this conference?

 

Responses may be published in the next issue.

 

 

This summary has been derived from part of SIAM's final report on the conference.

 

 

 

From the DSWeb board meeting:

Special congratulations and a present is offered to Hinke Osinga for her extraordinary efforts on behalf of DSWeb as she took the lead in April of 2004 and shaped the portal into the success it has become.

Traffic throughout the website as a whole and within the various sections continues to climb steadily. Currently there are 2360 registered users of DSWeb from 89 countries.

The tutorial section editor Eric Shea-Brown and the new teaching material editor Anne Catlla propose to reorganize the tutorials into 3 subsections; research, outreach, and teaching. A subsection of aggregate links should be created along with a way to link the section to social media. A Google search feature, similar to that used on WhyDoMath, is requested for teaching materials. A new tutorial contest for 2013 with prizes will be launched.

The DSWeb Magazine editors desire to add the ability to receive feedback from readers. This fits very well with James Haines' announcement of a major initiative to move DSWeb to a new, modern platform, which would also facilitate the new developments in the Tutorials/Teaching material sections.

Documents to download

  • ma_ar_000002119(.pdf, 28.52 KB) - 3755 download(s) SIAM final report, conference categories
  • ma_ar_000002120(.pdf, 707.89 KB) - 3766 download(s) SIAM final report, survey forms
Tags:

Please login or register to post comments.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x