On Academic Talks: Memory and Fear | Hacker News Reader

On Academic Talks: Memory and Fear

cscs.umich.edu

In my (admittedly much shorter) career, I've found that there are essentially 2 axioms to giving good academic talks, and everything else can be derived from them:

1. Your talk is an advertisement for your work, not the work itself. Your only goal is to convince people to read your paper. Once you realize that this is what you're doing, you can derive several more specific rules like "not too much math", "skip the details", "visual slides are better", "make sure there's enough motivation for them to care", "make sure non-experts can follow along", etc. As an advertiser, you are fighting for people's attention, not their full acceptance (yet).

2. Most people respond best to (and remember) stories, so make your talk into a linear story. From this, you get rules like "every slide should follow logically from the previous", "there should be a strong motivation for why you're doing something", "omit boring stuff", "punchlines and surprise can really help if used well", "building suspense is also useful for some talks", etc. Note that the traditional "here are 3 ways our method is better than previous methods" is definitely not a story.

I recently went to my first academic conference, which was in Japan, and consisted primarily of an international audience. I found that an accurate indicator for the quality of presentations was whether the presenter was from the US. Generally, speakers from the US were excited and able to explain their work clearly. The speakers from other countries tended to mumble, not make their point clear, and were downright boring. Part of the disparity might have been the language barrier (international speakers tended to have thick accents), but I wonder whether part of the difference is cultural (i.e. US speakers prepare for presentations more and are taught on how to give good presentations).

It probably is part of the USA-ian culture to present and sell your self or your work. It works great to present your work succinctly. I like listening to poster presentations given by USA-ians. Or very introductory talks about upcoming research projects.

However, once these talks are longer than, say, 15 minutes, I often feel that it is too exaggerated, too much focused on selling rather than trying to convey a deeper understanding of their research. I don't feel taken seriously as a listener; I feel as if the whole talk becomes an argument of authority. Then again, it is mostly a feeling and, when talking to the presenters afterwards, they are nice and knowledgeable and uncertain and all that. It seems more of a cultural difference really. In that respect I prefer listening to English (Great-Brittanish to count in those from Ireland, Sctoland) speakers. As a European, I feel I better connect with their stories than with those of USA-ians.

Still, presenting in English is hard for most of us who don't speak that language fluently. Speaking in public is hard in itself, but trying to convey your message in a tongue that isn't your own is frustratingly difficult. Personally I lack a basic English vocabulary as I learned the language later in life focusing on scientific and professional literature. I often find myself able to string more difficult words into a reasonable English sentence, whereas I am unable to explain it in plain words. Especially when talking or making conversation. Writing is easier in this respect: I have time to think and to look up words if needed.

The cultural difference lies in that US academics are more used to selling (or if you'd like it a little less harsh: advertising) themselves.

Let me illustrate:

A big British university that offers a variety of funding, two of the funding schemes are US-backed/US-based.

British: "Awards are made based on academic excellence and potential across all subject areas...". They don't care if you are social, if you do things outside university, what your family does etc etc. You need a research proposal, your CV and 3 recommendation letters from former professors. They focus purely on academic merit and don't care whether you are outgoing or an introvert shut-in.

US #1: We "aim to nurture leaders for the world's future who are committed to service, and to promote international understanding and peace." You have to have good marks (of course), but do tell us about how many kittens, children and people you save in your free time (while being academically excellent), how many NGOs you help out, what your hobbies are, what your family is like and how many wars you have prevented. This scholarship needs you to portray yourself not just as a potentially brilliant researcher or scholar, it wants you to be a leader.

US #2: The other scholarship asked you: "Please explain how the degree for which you have applied will prepare you to make a contribution to society." Again of course they require academic excellence, but they want to know how your research "makes a contribution to society". This is a scholarship for the Humanities only. The usual answer is always: It won't. However, please do make up some moderately respectable reason why your highly specific research will have an effect on society as a whole...

I am by no means saying Americans are academically inferior, but you can see in these hand-picked examples a certain strive for grandeur, it's not enough to be an outstanding scholar, you need to be a leader, you need to change society, at the very least. Truth is, most people's research will never, ever have a profound effect on society as such. What this line of inquiry conditions you to do though is to always make yourself appear larger than life. Your research is of course groundbreaking, you are a leader, the best of the best, you know everything, cannot fail and you have to convey that with every fiber of your being.

---- The above is spiked with hyperbole, but the core remains true. Many other countries don't have a culture where you advertise yourself and where everything you have to do has to be perceived as earthshattering. And that is the point really, it's about perception. The question here would be, were they also actually better, or did they just portray themselves better?

It's the same mentality that you can see on Hacker News every day: "THIS PRODUCT WILL CHANGE YOUR WORLD!!!". "WE WILL REVOLUTIONISE THE WAY YOU THINK/TALK/ACT/TYPE/SLEEP!!!".

Wow, that is a brilliant description of the difference. Hell, it's a brilliant description of what has always intimidated me about life in America: the constant demand that I put myself among the class of the new, or else be classified as unworthy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com