europe's (torn?) identity - Projects - AEGEE Europe

of the conference. Outstanding level of English of this professor, nice way
of thinking, I consider this lecture quite inspiring; great style, very interesting,
easy to remember, but full of new information and ideas. The professor
presented the historical facts but also had a personal and interesting view.
Too bad we did not have more time to discuss after the lecture because there
were a lot provocative points raised. He was a little bit narcissistic even in
speaking.
Dr. Anton Gosar: “Europe of the regions”
Very informative; a boring topic well presented. He didn't impress me very
much, but the power point presentation was well done. Ok. Funny. Woke me
up. Too fast, therefore not understandable. A bit unclear. It seemed he couldn't
focus on any specific problem.
Dr. Maria Hadjipavlou: “Xenophobia in Europe”
Good job again, very interactive in any case, spoke about everyday problems
like xenophobia, which made Hadjipavlou's lectures very involving. No surprising
conclusions; didn't keep the debate in hand. What can also be said for
the previous lecture of the same professor is that it did not have a concept
behind it-seems to me that the purpose of it was for us to relate our own experience
which is not bad per se, but the professor should have come out with a
certain idea for us to grasp. Very similar to the other.
Igor Stamenkovi}, M.A.: “Negotiations between EU and SEE countries”
Concise and complete presentation of the SEE. Very good explanation and
management of the process. The simulation was a bit exhausting but it clarified
in practice how a decision process is conducted. Learned a lot about how
hard negotiations actually work; I never expected them to be like that. After
some embarrassment at the beginning, negotiation gave us the possibility to
discuss and interact with each other, and I think this is or should be the real
aim of a conference like this.
Dr. Mitja @agar: “Regional identity”
Very self-reflexive approach. The beginning was boring, but later got interesting,
especially the debate; unfortunately there wasn't enough time for that.
Critical and communicative with the audience. It was the lecture closest to the
topic of the event. I remember the following discussion that perhaps went a
bit off the point, but the lecture itself explained some subjects well.
Peter Stania, M.A.: “European identity and formal democracy”
Interesting subject, presented in a clear, colloquial way. Provided us with a
general and principal outlook to the European identity He encouraged discussion
and interventions from the "audience"... A very nice professor, knows
a lot, very nice talking to him! My favorite thing was when the professor
blended objectivity with personal feelings and experiences. Maybe his lecture
was too much idealistic. In reality, I didn't grasp his meaning of European
identity.
29