AAPT meeting

[Fran Poodry <FPoodry@AOL.COM>]

In a message dated 6/18/01 11:40:44 PM, LISTSERV@lists.nau.edu writes:

> It's
> hard to tell how interesting the sessions are likely to be, or how much
> this is just a schmooze-fest.

I think it really depends on what YOU are interested in.  Whenever I go to a
meeting, I read ALL the abstracts in the Announcer carefully, to see what is
relevant a)to my teaching now; b)to my future teaching (i.e. one year I was
expecting to be teaching Astronomy the next year); and c) to my personal
interests.  Then where there are conflicting sessions, I prioritize.  The
abstracts are usually a good guide, though if a session is canceled or a
particular talk in a session is canceled, you can wind up wasting your time.
Do note: contributed papers only get 15 minutes each, so the authors do have
to give you the substantive information/results right off the bat.
With the short time limit, talks are usually not long-winded or full of
irrelevant details. Schmoozing does NOT happen IN sessions, and the
timekeepers are usually strict enough.

Of course, if after reading all the abstracts in the announcer you find that
there is only one or two of interest to you on each day, you may decide it is
not worth staying for the whole meeting.

Personally, I like the schmoozing as much as the sessions. ;-)  I have been
to a few workshops that have drawn people from across the country, and it is
fun to see a few of them again at national meetings.

Have fun in Rochester!
(I won't be there...I would have gone if it had been in August, but I will
still be at my summer job at the National Youth Science Camp in West Virginia
in July.)
Don't forget the 2002 Winter Meeting in Philadelphia!

-Fran Poodry