The feedback questionnaire related to FYSFC2018 event by the Finnish Catalysis Society, shared in Katse 1/2018 (link) with the goal to develop the event further for next year, received fifteen responses. Warmest thanks for everyone who responded! Summary of the feedback is shown below and to be shared in Katse 2/2018.
What did you like? (as provided)
- The event was very well organized. Speeches stayed on schedule.
- Erittäin hyvin järjestetty tapahtuma. Erityisesti plerary oli ajatuksia herättävä. Erittäin hyvä, että opiskelijoille tarjotaan mahdollisuutta harjoitella suullisten esitysten pitämistä. Ruoka oli hyvää ja sopivasti ajoitettu.
- The plenary lecture was of a high-quality. It was nice to connect and network.
- Plenary talk was excellent. Event was planned and organized very well.
- Especially impressed by how well the schedule was adhered to.
- The plenary lectures were very interesting and height level
- It went smoothly. I did learn new and useful things.
- Aikataulu oli tiukka, joten oli hyvä, että sovituista ajoista pidettiin kiinni. Foorumi pidettiin todella kauniissa ympäristössä!
- The event had clear structure, the timing of presentations was well kept, information before the event was sufficient, possibility to network
Development ideas (merged)
- Poster session was organized for the first time in 2018. Numeric feedback on it was overall positive, taking into account this was the first time a poster session was organized. As development ideas, more time would be needed overall to have a look at the posters. Also, it was suggested that for each poster, an oral pitch would be included.
- As usual, people call for time to mingle around during coffee brake(s).
- One view: “Even though this is young scientist forum, I would really wish to have senior scientist forum as well. Not so much about specific studies, but more about what our catalyst experts who have more than 30 years of experience each could teach us about process development, business development, creating consortiums, networking, project proposals etc. and of course some practical “post mortem” studies: what we did right, what was not so successful.”