Comment Summary

Which topics were given exaggerated importance?
#	Response Date	Response Text
1	Jun 13, 2009 9:24 AM	personal scientific interests of the speakers
2	Jun 13, 2009 9:31 AM	a bit too much organic/biological accent
3	Jun 13, 2009 9:54 AM	applications of high pressure to biological materials
4	Jun 13, 2009 10:43 AM	Personal research of the lecturers - these should have been used solely as examples under instructive contexts, not the school used for a forum for many lecturers to show how wonderful their research was. There were several stand out lecturers who did conform to the ideals of teaching though which was very refreshing.
5	Jun 13, 2009 12:53 PM	to much attention was paid to the individual scientific interests of the lecturers
6	Jun 13, 2009 1:56 PM	too many research talks
7	Jun 13, 2009 2:05 PM	Lecturers' own research
8	Jun 13, 2009 2:23 PM	Crystal phase transitions under HP
9	Jun 13, 2009 2:30 PM	New materials/phases
10	Jun 13, 2009 3:44 PM	mineralogy
11	Jun 13, 2009 6:30 PM	Some talks were just research talks - which is wrong for a School
12	Jun 13, 2009 9:21 PM	i think every topic was given a fair chance.
13	Jun 15, 2009 9:21 AM	There was too much time spent on instrumentation etc and not enough on why one would use these facilities to obtain useful results.
14	Jun 15, 2009 11:56 AM	Personal results from lecturers
15	Jun 16, 2009 6:53 AM	none
16	Jun 19, 2009 7:23 AM	Equal importance given to all topics
17	Jun 19, 2009 5:58 PM	Topics were balanced, but there was one big problem: N. Dubrovinskaia gave a talk that was not on her topic (Structure-property relations), but on a completely different topic - "Superhard materials", and this topic fully overlapped with the topic of Prof. V. Solozhenko, the real expert in this field.
18	Jun 23, 2009 10:22 PM	molecules
19	Jun 27, 2009 8:38 PM	None