Dana Meadows student award is fantastic, but the "way" we apply it is problematic. GIVEN the fact that the SD society has no funds to (even partially) support the attendance of low income students, the DM prize is strongly biased toward USA and other "North" country students, since the rule says "you have to attend the conference to be eligible." I think this is a wrong rule in the given circumstances. The probability that many good students from South can attend the conference without "some" financial support is very slim. (Few rich students can of course attend without any support, which would be another bias). THE QUALITY of the paper (NOT the student's ability to attend.) should be the only determinant of the award. There are (at least) two solutions:

1. The Society decides about (say) 6-8 finalists 1 month before the conference and then if there are any low income students in these finalists, then they are supported by the society for attendance and presentation.
2. Like the regular JWF prize: the award decision is made PRIOR the conference based on papers, the the winner and the two runners up learn about the award and can use this info to seek some travel grants. If they can not, then the Society supports them.

These two have different advantages.

• results in more student interaction at the conference.
• costs potentially less to the Society.

Both are much more objective and fair than the current version.

I am not attending the conference this year. So I wonder if somebody at the PC can move to discuss these two alternatives and choose one (or some variant).

best to all

Yaman Barlas