CSM Header
Office of Special Programs and Continuing Education
 
EMFI Header

Summer Field Program - August 9-14, 2004

Summary of Individual Program Critiques
for the 2004 EMFI Field Program
(based on 4.0-point scale)


I. Technical Content of the Field Experience

A. Content
B. Range of topics covered
C. Pace
D. Opportunity to acquire detailed information
E. Opportunity for discussion with speakers
F. Opportunity for interaction with participants

3.67
3.69
3.08
3.67
3.58
3.83

   

II. Field Guide

 

 

 

A. Content
B. Length
C. Illustrations
D. Clarity
E. Reference value

3.61
3.55
3.43
3.52
3.58
   

III. Logistics

 
   

A. Organization
B. Lodging
C. Food
D. Transportation

4.03
3.33
3.81
3.97
   
IV. EMFI Staff  
   

A. Helpful
B. Cooperative
C. Knowledgeable

3.94
3.94
4.03
   
V. Value of Field Experience  
   

A. Professional value
B. Educational value
C. Enjoyable

3.75
3.80
3.86
   
VI. Overall evaluation of the Field Program 3.88

Open-ended Questions

1) In your opinion, what were the most significant strengths of the Program?

  • Access to leaders and production facilities.
  • Hands-on experiences.
  • Opportunity to see the environmental context, including the geologic features of the area.
  • Diversity of background in participants.
  • Mix of participants.
  • Chance to interact with participants from other offices.
  • Finding out what other government agencies do.
  • Knowledge of the staff.
  • The knowledge and field experience of the EMFI staff who make this so much more than a "kick-the-tires and windshield" tour.
  • The range of issues and on-site experience was exceptional and views from the bus could not be better.

2) In your opinion, what were the most significant weaknesses of the Program?

  • Time was our enemy
  • Never seemed to be enough time.
  • A little rushed.
  • There was a time constraint, but this was to be expected.
  • Time between events was tight, the rush added to a sense of exhaustion towards the end of the day.
  • Need representation by opposing viewpoints.
  • Need to hear opposing viewpoints.
  • Lack of organized discussion on conservation as energy strategy.
  • Lack of discussion on long term supply demand in U.S. and world.
  • Lack of discussion about environmental controversies.
  • I can't find any - but maybe longer and include other subject areas.
  • More stops at scenic, cultural, and historic locations.
  • Just a bit too long.
  • Nothing that EMFI could control/improve.
  • Couldn't think of any major weaknesses.

3) Opportunities

  • EMFI may have opportunities fostering government-to-industry interaction.
  • EMFI could be a player in helping shape issues and solution regarding changes in mining law.
  • Have participants give presentations on their agencies and professional responsibilities.
  • Include environmental community spokespersons.
  • Eastern U.S. field tours.
  • Keep doing what you are doing.

4) Any additional comments?

  • This is a "must do" for any government technocrat whose work in the area of energy and natural resources affects public policy making!
  • I would hope you can secure funding from multiple sources to continue this valuable educational experience.
  • Great experience!
  • I want to thank the EMFI staff for all of the behind the scenes coordination and logistics.
  • Thanks!
  • Thanks so much.
  • Agencies need to think more about how they select participants.
  • Allow more opportunities for interaction among the participants as a whole, rather than relying on informal interactions.
  • Involvement of responsible critics - there's a sense that we're only getting one side of the story.
  • Agencies could arrange for speakers to complement the industry presentations.
  • Provide a bibliography of resources to read in preparation for the trip.

Back