The AUTM Annual Meeting (AM) Program Committee is responsible for lining up all of the educational content at the AM—we chose the plenary speakers as well as select the workshop, educational track (ed track) and special interest group (SIG) sessions that will be presented at the AM. In addition, the committee is responsible for coordinating various special events that will be run at the annual meeting (such as the venture forum, the Texas Hold 'em poker tournament, fireside chat, partnering activities, etc.). The 20 or so members of the committee are tasked with choosing a balanced mix of beginner, intermediate and advanced-level sessions on timely and appealing topics that are of interest to large segments of our community; we also aim to select workshops that are appropriate for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit. The committee meets regularly on a year-round basis since the planning for the next AM begins soon after the current year’s meeting has ended.
Here is a list of the most common reasons why a given proposal was rejected by the AM program committee:
7. Proposal appears to be an infomercial/commercial pitch for a particular company, product or service. Attendees come to the AM primarily to learn and to network with peers. Companies interested in promoting their products or services should consider securing a booth in the Exhibit Hall or serving as an AM sponsor.
6. Many similar proposals were submitted and we only needed one workshop on the topic. For example this year we received many, many proposals on recently decided court cases (Bilski, Stanford v. Roche, etc.).
5. Competition. In each of the past several years we have received in more than 200 proposals; in 2011 we have received in 230 proposals; AUTM only runs approximately 55-65 separate workshops, ed tracks and SIG sessions at each annual meeting (and some of these are repeated). The venue is smaller for the upcoming 2012 AM so there were fewer slots open this year.
4. Too narrow a topic or a topic that would likely only appeal to a few attendees. For example the AM program committee would not give a thumbs up to a proposal that was limited to describing a specific marketing strategy or a new startup funding program that is run at one university; however, a proposal that was broader in scope and included information on several innovative marketing initiatives or several novel funding options and had a diverse lineup of speakers might well get accepted. Also it is important to have a diverse lineup of speakers (e.g., three speakers all working for the same university or for the same law firm is a bad idea).
3. This particular session and/or one or more of the speakers has received low scores in previous post-meeting evaluation surveys.
2. A poorly written and/or incomplete submission. Some submissions don’t include a proposed title or even a brief description of the session; some contain numerous grammatical and spelling errors. A polished proposal with a catchy title and a well written description with all of the relevant details (including a proposed moderator and speakers if known) is a must. Committee members have to read more than 200 proposals—if yours is hard to understand or lacks important details then it likely won’t be chosen.
1. Proposal was submitted AFTER the Call for Topics deadline passed. The submission deadline for the 2012 AM was April 30—this was only 2 months after the 2011 AM ended. The program committee usually meets sometime in mid to late May to review and select proposals. A proposal submitted after the deadline has almost no chance of making it onto the agenda.