Signup date: 01 Jan 2012 at 4:07am
Last login: 10 Nov 2013 at 5:58pm
Post count: 359
======= Date Modified 27 Jun 2012 17:33:23 =======
======= Date Modified 27 Jun 2012 17:26:31 =======
So today, I presented my work in front of these 3 examiners using Powerpoint slides.
On the first slide, I presented the overview of the concept that I was working on. Suddenly, one of the examiners quickly wanted to see my references, which of course would be on the last slides, so I had to scroll down to the last slides and show them the references. After they were happy with that, I went up back to slide 1 and proceeded to explain my outline, definitions and problem statements on slides 2-4. Once I reached slide 4, one of the examiners wanted to know subtopic X, which was on slide 9 (very eager to know subtopic X I guess). But in order to explain X, I needed to go through slides 5-8 first, if not the flow of the presentation would be disconnected. Since they were so eager to know subtopic X, I skipped slides 5-8 and jumped to slide 9. Some valuable information and findings were lost because I skipped slides 5-8. When they asked me questions on some topics, I needed to show them slides 5-8 which were skipped because one of them were so eager to see subtopic X on slide 9.
At the end of the presentation, one of the examiners said that my presentation was not organized and I didn't define the concept and the concept should be defined first.
The heck? :/
I've already defined that on the 2-4 slides and since they kept on asking me to jump here and there, of course it would look disorganized.
Am I in the wrong here?
*If I'm not clear, I'm really sorry. A bit tired really from all the work done :/
======= Date Modified 18 Mar 2012 18:45:00 =======
======= Date Modified 18 Mar 2012 18:42:20 =======
I mean constructively argue? If you were to be sent to a class to attend, would you argue with the lecturer if you found some of the facts are wrong and need to be addressed? Same goes with the supervisor?
If lets say that during a presentation, the person who's asking is insisting a question that is obviously wrong to be answered, what would you do?
I will be doing a PhD soon with an SV that has a different field then what I'm going to work with, would that be advisable?
The PhD that I'm working is something related to education and the SV has almost 2 decades worth of teaching experience so I might find his input valuable. The only concern that I have is that his PhD is in an unrelated field, and his research interest would be different as well, but his willing to supervise me. Would the be ok or advisable?
Has anyone done their PhD with an SV that has a PhD unrelated to your own research interest?
Has anyone ever been criticized with the above? Your research proposal is not 'Sciencey' enough? I'm doing Computing and I just heard that my research is not Computing Sciencey enough.
I think that's the most ridiculous thing that I could ever heard. What defines something to be 'Sciencey'? Or "Engineery" lol
Could someone help me understand?
I just finished defending a research proposal and some of the questions that the panel asked (even the way they asked) left me wondering:
What would you do if the panel is wrong when questioning you, such as:
1)definitions that you wrote on the research e.g. technique vs. method
2)not giving a sound reason why they disagree on certain things, to the point that it annoys you - just disagreeing because of a reason and they couldn't expand further.
Would you mention that they are wrong? - How would you approach this? Would you ask for a source? Would you argue back if the source is wrong or bias?
Would you question them directly to defend yourself? - e.g. "The reason you mentioned is not clear and somewhat inaccurate because..."
Lets say one of the Profs is basing the criticism on his own opinion(s) with no strong supporting facts or evidence to validate his criticism, to the point he's dismissing your own thoughts with no evidence whatsoever. Could one say something like this?,
"Well this is Science and we shouldn't based it on opinion(s), it could be biased and it could also have no supporting evidence, I could say that a horse is better pink because in my opinion, it's going to make the horse faster, stronger and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. But this is an opinion. It could be wrong!".
I don't know if it's a good idea or not to do such things, but the person, I think, would really need to defend their work or risk being label as not being able to do so.
I sincerely believe that I would need defend the work as best that I can and I might use sarcasm to make a point, especially to those who stubbornly refused to hear a valid argument like the one above.
Opinions are greatly appreciated =>
*I'm sorry if I didn't structure this post greatly. I'm a bit tired after defending my own research proposal lol =/
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest