EBEC KICK-OFF MEETING 2014 DAY 5

Contact first line Contact Second line Tel: + xxx xx xx xx xxx Contact@BEST.eu.org

Report of Day 5: [Structure of NRR]

Author: [Jrgen Ltte, LBG Tallinn, EEC Coordinator]

Participants: Mariana Silva (EBEC Project coordinator, LBG Aveiro), Felipe Alfonso

Vieira (EBEC Final MO, LBG Porto), Yasemin Baran (PR & MKT responsible, LBG

Istanbul), Andr Calatr (FR responsible, LBG Aveiro), Vincenzo Verrone (NRR support,

LBG Naples), Katrna Onzule (Secretary, LBG Rga), Vctor Aguilar (Topic group

responsible, LBG Barcelona), Harsha Cheemakurthy (EBEC Nordic Coordinator, LBG

Stockholm), Richard Gazik (EBEC Central Coordinator, LBG Bratislava), Joanna

Domzalska (EBEC Poland Coordinator, LBG Warsaw), Valentin Moens (EBEC Benelux

Coordinator, LBG Louvain-la-Neuve)

Aim of the Session:

The aim of the session was to introduce the work done on EEC SM and get input whether

the defined ideal structure for NRRs was valid.

During Session:

There was a presentation about what happened on EEC SM, as well as the common

problems for each rounds were introduced that were already identified from HEM. After

that we followed to analyse the proposed structure.

Outcomes:

The feedback for the points were as following:

To have a common PR and FR, but the implementation of this is highly dependent

on the situation of different LBGs

Having a revolving host in the region is doable only if common PR and FR exist

throughout the region.

Make NRR as external event was found extremely motivating for LBGs

Length of NRR should be as long as necessary to get ECTS credits from the region

university is situated

Having travel refunds as mandatory was considered to be not possible since it

would be something depending on external factors.

To have English as mandatory language could solve many problems

EBEC KICK-OFF MEETING 2014 DAY 5

Contact first line Contact Second line Tel: + xxx xx xx xx xxx Contact@BEST.eu.org

There was a thought that regulating the amount of organisers or jury

representatives is not necessary as it depends on each situation.

There was no way to define the difficulty of a task

Having 2 cs and 2 td could overload the LBGs and lead to depletion of resources

The participants responsibilities should be defined and regulated.

Note to the future:

Even though there was presentation about the problems before, it seemed like it touched a

lot of issues and these kind of discussions should be done before the goal setting to keep

awareness of what kind of problems are we facing today.