May 13, 2008
Batting Order for Conference Presentations
A reader asks the Undercover Economist, Tim Harford at the Financial Times, what the optimal time is to give a presentation at a conference.
The columnist cites research on TV talent shows like American Idol by a husband and wife team, the economist Lionel Page and the psychologist Katie Page. Harford explains:
The Pages were able to measure whether it was an advantage to appear first or last, or immediately after a flop or a show-stopper. Because most singers appeared several times, the Pages could take account of the fact that the show’s producers might deliberately open and close with strong performers. In effect, they looked at what happened to the same contestant when they appeared earlier or later.
The bottom line is that it’s OK to go first but better to go last. A partial explanation is that these acts are easier to remember.Alex Kafka | Posted on Tuesday May 13, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Previous: Explaining the Lack of Economic Diversity on Campus
Next: Carbon Trading: McCain vs. Obama (With Mankiw as Ref)
Hmm, there’s a difference though between a conference and American Idol. The final presenters at many conferences are likely to face a largely empty room, because many attendees have already left by then.
— mkt May 13, 04:43 PM #
I find that as the conference day progresses, my mind begins to overload. I prefer earlier.
— Ray Petty May 13, 05:50 PM #
Perhaps if conference presentations were awarded scores with winners anounced, and trophies given, a little more personality and presentation skill would be added. The worst presenter would have to sit out the next year’s conference. Benching boring presenters…hmmm.
Oh, wait, that wouldn’t work. I have a colleague who would present wearing a very revealing swimsuit to gain everyone’s attention. He’s too hairy for that. Let’s just keep things like they are for awhile. Wait…what was the question?
— Mike McFitzhugh May 14, 12:25 PM #
Funny, the last 5 conferences I attended I found that all the presentations, without exception, were worthless pieces of…..stuff. Making distinctions between “good” pompous narrow A and “better” pompous narrow B may be fun for researchers but it does not have much practical value. All you have to do to shine in academic conference contexts is have a brain and publish anything that takes over 2 years to develop—those together make you appear Einstein-like among the babble of pettiness of topic and anality of treatment of topic, by all those scurrying to “get funding” or “get published” or “get anything at all”. Get get get—ism!!!
— Richard Tabor Greene May 15, 10:23 AM #
Conference level work generally reflects a sincere effort on the part of a colleague to investigate something of interest to them or to examine something of concern. It appears that from the comments above that some of our colleagues have adopted the same attitude that a growing number of our students have…if a presentation is not earthshatteringly interesting, entertaining, and thrilling, then they feel they shouldn’t be bothered having to sit through it.
From my own experience, the value in conference presentations is in what the listener puts into absorbing and assessing the concepts, applying them to their situation, and finding guidance or at least a different perspective on issues of interest to you.
I suspect the most bored people at conferences don’t want to be there at all…save us the bother…stay home.— David V. Rudd May 16, 10:21 AM #