I. Schmid, HR-RFA – ATC 19 January 2006

SUMMER STUDENT PROGRAMME 2005

• Overview

• Feedback on the Programme• Student Questionnaire• Supervisor Questionnaire

• Feeback on the Lecture Programme

Overview

( ) = Year 20041

Valid applications: 778 (697)

Appointed students: 147 (161)

Refused offers: 12 - 3 GB, 4 FR, 1GR, 1PL, 1FI, 1DE, 1NO=> refusal rate of 8 % (5%)

Reasons: 7 gave preference to another offer, 2 private reasons, 1 already accepted another offer, 1 gave preference to a longer placement, 1 project not accepted by university.

Nationality distribution: 124 MS students, 23 NMS students (Australia, Croatia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, US)

Students by department

Male/Female No PercentageFemale 44 30%Male 103 70%

Department TotalAB 6ETT 3IT 12PH 121SC 1TS 4Grand Total 147

Discipline

Engineering12% (10%)

Computing20% (17%)

Physics68% (73%)

Students by field of study

Male/Female Distribution

26

6 8

20

13

83

14

21

90

32

2

72

10 10 10

29

54 3 2 2

20

6 73

13

3 2

138

26

38

2

47

13

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK ES FI FR GB GR HU IT NL NO PL PT SE SK

MS BNat.

N.

127107

732 Applications from Member States 46 Applications from Non-Member States:

Armenia, Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Ecuador, Kroatia, Ireland, Israel, India, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Thailand, Tunesia, Turkey, US, South Africa.

Total Applications and Appointed Students

= Total Applications

= Appointed Students

Overview (2)

24% 5% 12%

14%

18%

= Selection rate

9%

12%

100%

2

27%

Overall selection rate: ~19%

Appointed Summer Students 2005 by Budget Nationality

Countries

N

= CERN funded

= Outside funded

4 3 2 2 2

20

4

7

3

13 13

31 2 1

13

1

42

6

3 3 2 11

2

1 4 3

4 5 10

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

AT AU BE BG CH CZ DE DK ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IL IT JP MX NL NO PL PT SE SK TR US

N.Overview (3)

3

Total outside financed students 32 (42)

Total CERN financed students 115 (119)

( ) = Year 2004

Overall satisfaction with the Studentship

Total Replies: 108 out of 147 => Response rate: 73 % (61 %)

98 % very positive about the programme

( ) = Year 2004

Feedback on the ProgrammeStudent Questionnaire

Work ProjectYes No Partially Don't know

69% (61%) 6% (6%) 20% (31%) 5% (2%)

73% (74%) 3% (7%) 23% (19%) 1% (0%)4% (4%) 89% (86%) 6% (4%) 1% (0%)

85% (85%) 3% (3%) 12% (12%) 0% (0%)

85% (89%) 0% (10%) 15% (0%) 0% (1%)The work project helped me deepen my understanding of my field of study

The workload was much to heavy for meThe work made me learn new things

Evaluation of work project

For the most part, the work project met my expectationsThe job was adapted to my level of knowledge and experience

70% (57%)

28% (39%)

1% (4%) 1% (0%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%

Excellent Good fair Poor

Rating

4

Supervisor

Recommendation of Supervisor

( ) = Year 2004

Yes No No reply

54% (48%) 46% (46%) 0% (1%)

83% (83%) 17% (17%) 0% (0%)

97% (95%) 3% (5%) 0% (0%)88% (95%) 12% (5%) 0% (0%)

85% (82%) 14% (18%) 1% (0%)

87% (89%) 13% (11%) 0% (0%)

I was introduced to the other members of the groupI did receive clear instructions about the work projectMy supervisor talked to me regularly about the progress of my work

Evaluation of Supervisor

My supervisor contacted me before I came to CERNI contacted my supervisor myself before coming to CERNOn arrival in the department, I was welcomed by my supervisor or another member of the group

2% (0%)

2% (1%)

3% (4%)

5% (7%)

34% (37%)

54% (51%)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No reply

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Good

excellent

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Rating

5

Feedback on the ProgrammeStudent Questionnaire (2)

( ) = Year 2004

Feedback on the ProgrammeSupervisor Questionnaire

Supervisor: Yes No PartiallyDon’t' know

The student worked according to my expectations 68% (60%) 1% (1%) 28% (36%) 3% (3%)

The student was fully integrated in the work of the Group

58% (46%) 1% (1%) 38% (51%) 3% (2%)

The student worked independently 46% (46%) 2% (2%) 50% (52%) 2% (0%)

The student showed initiative 56% (48%) 2% (1%) 39% (50%) 3% (1%)

The student was very motivated 69% (58%) 1% (1%) 26% (38%) 4% (3%)

The student often required help for problems that s/he should have been able to solve him/herself

3% (2%) 43% (30%) 53% (66%) 1% (2%)

68% (57%)

23% (32%)

2% (9%)

3% (3%)

4% (1%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

excellent

good

fair

poor

don’t know

120 out of 147 supervisors completed the questionnaire => response rate 82% (64%)

Supervisor arrangements: yes nono

replyDo you feel the organised activities take to much of the student's working time?

32% (45%)

68% (54%)

0% (1%)

With regard to your own workload did you have enough time to supervise your summer student?

87% (88%)

12% (9%)

1% (3%)

If the student was to apply for a Technical/Doctoral Student or Fellow, as a candidate I would consider him as:

6

Lecture Programme and Activities

New Chairman: Fabio Cerutti

Committee Members:

7

Monica Pepe-Altarelli

Head HR-RFA

Mike Seymour

Theoretical Physicist

Andreas Schopper

Research Physicist LHCb

Jurgen Knobloch

LHC Computing Grid Management

Francesco Ruggiero

Applied Physicist

Ingrid Schmid

Programme Coordinator

Changes in 2005

Discussion sessions – differently organized this year - scheduled everyday at noon for ½ hour

- all lecturers present to reply to the questions- positive reactions of students

More workshops offered (“Madgraph” and “Status of CERN Accelerators” offering an extra ~100 places)

Feedback on the Lecture Programme

1454

582 549679

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Y 2002 Y 2003 Y 2004 Y 2005

Year

En

trie

s Impressive feedback given by the students on the lectures

103 students replied and we could count 1454 entries – (the entries have more than doubled compared to last year)

8

Lecturers received individual feedback (comments from students to their lectures) as well as the following 3 tables:

Table:

Count of entries between 2002 - 2005

5 very interesting4 interesting3 of some interest2 uninteresting1 completely uninteresting

Lecture Content: Average Score by Lecturer

( ) = average 2004

Feedback on the Lecture Programme

3.54

4.424.33

3.773.86 3.89

3.98

3.69

4.05

3.49

4.04

3.14

3.80

4.00

4.22

3.65

4.14

4.63

3.85

3.50

4.17

3.67

4.19

4.47

4.24

3.173.03

3.38

4.164.27

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Lecturer

Av

era

ge

Average: 3.92 (3.97)

Below average

Above average9

Lecture Level: Average Score by Lecturer

( ) = average 2004

5 much too high4 too high

2 too low1 much too low

3 just right

Feedback on the Lecture Programme (2)

3.36

2.692.78

2.94

3.14

2.79

2.60 2.63

3.00

3.40

3.00

3.60

2.93

3.14

3.37

2.88

3.21 3.22

2.80 2.79 2.78 2.74

3.23

2.85

3.02

3.23

2.92

2.70

3.56

2.84

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Lecturer

Av

era

ge

Average: 3.01 (3.02)

10

Lecture Presentation: Average Score by Lecturer

5 excellent4 good3 fair2 poor1 very poor ( ) = average 2004

Feedback on the Lecture Programme (3)

3.38

3.82

4.29

3.80

4.024.15 4.13

3.74

4.27

2.70

4.06

3.09

3.70

4.124.02

3.683.86

4.70

3.28

3.52

4.21

3.74

3.06

4.65

4.05

3.00 3.05

3.24

3.97

4.31

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Lecturer

Av

era

ge

Average: 3.83 (3.83)

Below average

Above average11

CONCLUSION

Feedback we received confirms a successful programme and an optimized lecture programme

Feedback has been analyzed and action will be taken to try and improve the programme and lecture programme for next year

The 2006 programme is in preparation:

We received some 400 valid applications so far, another 500 are in the process of applying

the project proposal submission has been launched

Lecture Programme committee is discussing the new lecture programme – it will start on July 5, 2006 with an introduction given by J. Engelen.

12