|
|
Evaluation
of the 2000 Montreal Conference
|
|
|
|
1. Within which NAFSA region
does your institution reside?
|
|
Region I (AK, WA, OR, ID)
|
5 %
|
Region II (MT, WY, UT, CO, AZ,
NM, NE, KS)
|
1%
|
Region III (TX, OK, AR, LA)
|
3%
|
Region IV (ND, SD, MN, IA, MO)
|
8%
|
Region V (WI, MI, IL)
|
6%
|
Region VI (IN, OH, KY)
|
5%
|
Region VII (TN, NC, SC, MS, AL,
GA, FL, PR, VI)
|
9%
|
Region VIII (DC, MD, VA, PA, DE,
WV)
|
15%
|
Region X (NY, NJ)
|
10%
|
Region XI (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI,
CT)
|
12%
|
Region XII (HI, NV, CA)
|
5%
|
Non-US
|
19%
|
|
|
2. What is your current position?
|
|
College/university Dean/President
|
11%
|
College/university Faculty
|
9%
|
College/university International
Education Administrator
|
50%
|
Association representative
|
4%
|
Business representative
|
8%
|
Student
|
3%
|
Other
|
15%
|
|
|
3. Why did you attend this Council
conference?
|
|
Sessions
|
91%
|
Interact with colleagues
|
85%
|
Meet Council Staff
|
55%
|
Location
|
26%
|
Other
|
14%
|
|
|
4. Overall quality of the conference:
|
|
Excellent
|
38%
|
Good
|
51%
|
Average
|
5%
|
Fair
|
1%
|
No Comment
|
5%
|
|
|
5. Overall organization of the
conference:
|
|
Excellent
|
55%
|
Good
|
36%
|
Average
|
3%
|
Fair
|
0%
|
No Comment
|
6%
|
|
|
6. Concurrent Sessions:
|
|
|
Excellent
|
20%
|
|
Good
|
59%
|
|
Average
|
14%
|
|
Fair
|
0%
|
|
No Comment
|
7%
|
|
|
|
|
7. Opportunity to Interact with
Colleagues:
|
|
|
Excellent
|
40%
|
|
Good
|
46%
|
|
Average
|
8%
|
|
Fair
|
3%
|
|
No Comment
|
3%
|
|
|
|
|
8. Opening Plenary
|
|
|
Excellent
|
18%
|
|
Good
|
24%
|
|
Average
|
10%
|
|
Fair
|
1%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
44%
|
|
No Comment
|
3%
|
|
|
|
|
9. Opening Reception
|
|
|
Excellent
|
10%
|
|
Good
|
47%
|
|
Average
|
4%
|
|
Fair
|
1%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
32%
|
|
No Comment
|
5%
|
|
|
|
|
10. Off-Site Reception (McGill
University Faculty Club)
|
|
|
Excellent
|
40%
|
|
Good
|
28%
|
|
Average
|
5%
|
|
Fair
|
0%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
27%
|
|
|
|
|
11. Annual Luncheon
|
|
|
Excellent
|
19%
|
|
Good
|
49%
|
|
Average
|
15%
|
|
Fair
|
8%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
9%
|
|
|
|
|
12. Featured Plenary:
|
|
|
Excellent
|
21%
|
|
Good
|
29%
|
|
Average
|
13%
|
|
Fair
|
0%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
32%
|
|
No Comment
|
5%
|
|
|
|
|
13. Breakfast Plenary: (sponsored
by the AC)
|
|
|
Excellent
|
28%
|
|
Good
|
24%
|
|
Average
|
12%
|
|
Fair
|
1%
|
|
Did Not Attend
|
29%
|
|
No Comment
|
6%
|
|
|
|
|
14. To what degree did you benefit
from attending?
|
|
|
Excellent
|
34%
|
|
Good
|
51%
|
|
Average
|
9%
|
|
Fair
|
1%
|
|
No Comment
|
5%
|
|
|
|
|
15. Future Conference Session
Topics:
|
|
|
Study Abroad
|
72%
|
|
Underrepresented Groups in International
Education
|
45%
|
|
Safety, Health, Legal and Insurance
Issues
|
44%
|
|
Internships and International Work
Programs
|
41%
|
|
Professional Exchanges
|
38%
|
|
Government Policy
|
37%
|
|
Language Learning
|
36%
|
|
World Events
|
35%
|
|
International and U.N. Agencies
|
35%
|
|
Technology
|
35%
|
|
Curriculum Reform
|
33%
|
|
Funding/Development
|
32%
|
|
International Communication
|
31%
|
|
International Volunteerism
|
26%
|
|
International Consortia
|
26%
|
|
Public/Private Partnerships
|
19%
|
|
Graduate School Programs
|
15%
|
|
Regional/national focus
|
13%
|
|
Other
|
8%
|
|
|