Dear Jean , You have suggested we compare the Shanghai Congress with Quebec in 2000, and comment on the 2004 Annual General Meeting among any other comments about Shanghai.

One cannot fault the Chinese dedication and application.The excellent closing performance, the young volunteers, the venue (although a few workshops were overcrowded), the coffee, lunch, banquet and transport arrangements, the translation equipment and actual translators were all to be admired. A real highlight of the workshops was the afternoon spent in the two Shanghai U3As. They were really something and told us a great deal about U3A in China even though they were obviously the very elite campuses. The Chinese workshops on painting, calligraphy, knot tying, etc. provided an opportunity as a compensation for what we saw as an otherwise limited workshop learning program.

We were impressed by some keynote speeches and the few workshops covering basic U3A developments and learning. We could not participate in the solely Chinese/French workshops because of our minimal French so our learning opportunities suffered.

We found the subject matter of the Congress to be less informative and limited in the detail provided as compared with the Canadian experience. We are working with the abstracts to attempt to remedy that deficiency. Perhaps it was because we were young in U3A and attending our first Congress in Quebec but we felt we learnt a lot less during these 2004 proceedings.

In Quebec it was made clear that membership did not depend on being computer competent - we well know a small percentage of members will never be. Shanghai seemed to be saying technology (innovation) is more or less essential and U3A is moving to conduct itself this way. In fact China did this totally in the lead up to the Congress with much pain to some intending attendees. There has to be an ongoing place in U3A for at least some computer illiteracy.

Impressions of the A.G,.M.
"Whither goest the world U3A movement" could well have been a banner on the wall over the President's chair. We totally support the principles and activities of U3A. As founders of a U3A group in a geographical region which had two 350 membership U3As in 1997 and today has five U3As with double the 1997 total membership, we know the value of U3A. We also well recognise the extreme limitations that cost and distance place on its world membership. Australia is not a member because of this and despite having a thriving U3A movement. So we understand the basic obstructions to establishing U3As in Asian and other countries apart altogether from the cultural and language difficulties.

U3A in China is fortunate in having strong government financial and organisational support. This type of support is perhaps necessary in other developing third world countries for U3A to become established. China exemplifies how the type of U3A is moulded by the interests and attitudes of its citizens. Other countries will be similarly different. We can well observe the differences in U3As in ourown region of Australia. Some are housed in and closely associated with universities, others (such as our own U3A) are in a more remote area with different interests but do include academic subjects in their courses.

There is a need to provide learning opportunities to intelligent retired people in developing countries. How to do it is far from clear. Although the A.G.M. canvassed the subject we felt it was only sowing a seed of an idea. How the Board can and hopefully will approach the future is unclear. We are sure growth for growth's sake will not be the objective despite the creditable 20 new countries recently recruited. We already have a massive U3A in China and perhaps it could help countries in its region. Similarly, as we assume happened historically U3A countries can help their neightbouring lands to establish U3As

Perhaps the idea of Online development offers a good avenue, if a person or persons of U3A background and residual energy can be found in a new country.
We found the A.G.M to be a little disappointing in its inconclusiveness and reflected the generally disjointed nature of the Congress proceedings - perhaps U3A is simply too autonomous for its own good.

We totally agree that U3A must first establish a clearer understanding of its future objectives and determine how it might proceed to achieve them.

Best regards, Ron and Jean Westrup