next »

[aysecik]

So I had an interview last week. It seemed to go well (but then again, it could go great for everybody else - so who knows? But I digress...). During dinner, one of the committee members said that my seminar gave the appearance that all was too easy. He said a seminar should have something for everybody and something for nobody. Mine had everything for everybody. When I answered the questions (many of which were from students, which is good) you could tell that there was more to it. But I made it too easy.

It got me thinking a lot (mainly with the objective of editing it for the upcoming other interviews)... What do you think?

I always try to make what I describe clear. I use analogies, I try to define all terms that someone from my general field but a completely different sub-field would not know right away, and repeatedly. I am animated and I describe processes involved for each experiment. I do my best to make things clear, and had a lot of experience doing that, explaining my research even to people with no science background (fund-raising for my start-up, so many MBAs with short attention spans). I believe that should be what seminars should be about. But now... I don't know what to do, how to out in a few things that are "for nobody". I tried to put information in there that is very applied and more fundamental, so maybe I should go into more mechanistic detail verbally? Make it complicated? It seems soooo wrong! But then again, I see what he meant: It makes it look like I did something easy (even though I start with saying the seminar is about only part of my doctoral work, etc).

Any comments? Advice?

Thanks

[lackademia]

Could you explain what "something for nobody" means?  I don't think this phrase makes sense without more context.  Maybe a specific example from your demo?

[aysecik]

That is I guess part of the issue... I think the saying was by a famous scientist describing what you should have in a presentation. The point is, as I understand, in your presentation there should be some things that everybody should be able to understand, but also something that "only you really understand"... I guess to show you are the expert, to show your value? To show the depth of your knowledge? I work hard to make my work easy to understand and conceptualize, and keep my presentation lively and easy to follow. But the issue is, apparently, when people see it, it all looks obvious to them. So what did I really do?

It s hard to give an example for me, because I apparently lack it - and for that matter, I always hate it when presenters have that type of attitude. Maybe it needs to be some sort of mathematical model... Maybe it needs to be a description of something mechanistic/detailed that is not obvious (which I ended up going into during questions). Does that make any sense?

[turing_complete]

"Something for nobody", if literally taken, seems like a bad idea to me.  I would definitely agree that an interview talk should have lots of stuff that anyone in the audience could understand, but also some stuff that only the other people in the subfield you're being hired into would understand.  They will tell the search committee that you know what you're talking about (or hopefully there's such a person on the SC already).  But if really no one in the room other than you understands what you're saying, that seems like a fail to me.

[infopri]

"Something for nobody", if literally taken, seems like a bad idea to me.  I would definitely agree that an interview talk should have lots of stuff that anyone in the audience could understand, but also some stuff that only the other people in the subfield you're being hired into would understand.  They will tell the search committee that you know what you're talking about (or hopefully there's such a person on the SC already).  But if really no one in the room other than you understands what you're saying, that seems like a fail to me.

Yeah, I'm with turing on this.  The "something for nobody" strikes the cynic in me as a nugget you put in there just to show off that this is Hard Stuff and that You Are Smart.  I've heard of this approach and reject it.  I much prefer your way of presenting (and what turing describes, putting in a taste of the more sophisticated material for fellow experts, but only if there are some in your audience).  The closest I'd feel comfortable going to this "something for nobody" idea is, if there is something particularly complicated, nuanced, difficult, or whatever--but important--I might mention it as an aside with a promise to discuss it further afterward if anyone is interested, and then I'd say that for now I'd rather focus on <blah blah, "easy" stuff that you've already worked hard to translate for your audience> and get back to spoonfeeding.

Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with making it all look easy.  That's part of the talent.  If you have any doubt, just watch a world-class performance of figure skating, gymnastics, ballet, or any of dozens of other physical activities that take years and years of brutally long daily practice.  Making it all look easy is part of what makes you good. 

[drnobody]

My $.02 is that I think it says more about the SC than you. Professors who did that when I was in school didn't help me learn, but I knew how much they knew. I agree with the others so far who say that's part of the art of teaching.

[polly_mer]

The closest I'd feel comfortable going to this "something for nobody" idea is, if there is something particularly complicated, nuanced, difficult, or whatever--but important--I might mention it as an aside with a promise to discuss it further afterward if anyone is interested, and then I'd say that for now I'd rather focus on <blah blah, "easy" stuff that you've already worked hard to translate for your audience> and get back to spoonfeeding.

Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with making it all look easy.  That's part of the talent.  If you have any doubt, just watch a world-class performance of figure skating, gymnastics, ballet, or any of dozens of other physical activities that take years and years of brutally long daily practice.  Making it all look easy is part of what makes you good.  

This.  Anyone can give a talk that is too hard and/or incomprehensible for the audience; I think "lazy" or possibly "not terribly bright" when I see a talk like that.  After all, I see dozens of student talks a year that fall into the "only you know what you are saying and possibly not even you on a few of those slides" category.  That's not impressive, unlike someone who says, "I'm giving you the general audience version.  I have more details for those who love the squishiness."

The master makes the audience feel like they know a lot after hearing the talk.  It's only later that people realize that they followed the talk so well because the speaker knew so much.

[readandwept]

I agree with infopri and polly, but maybe a more charitable interpretation of the SC member is that he thought the talk should explain some of the big questions and dilemmas left hanging. I think this can be important for students, in giving them a sense of what it is that they don't know and motivating the most interested ones to want to find out. That's a different experience from a talk that seems to resolve everything in an area (not because it really does, but because novice listeners, or those unfamiliar with the area, can't imagine what else is out there to be a problem).

[infopri]

I agree with infopri and polly, but maybe a more charitable interpretation of the SC member is that he thought the talk should explain some of the big questions and dilemmas left hanging. I think this can be important for students, in giving them a sense of what it is that they don't know and motivating the most interested ones to want to find out. That's a different experience from a talk that seems to resolve everything in an area (not because it really does, but because novice listeners, or those unfamiliar with the area, can't imagine what else is out there to be a problem).

I agree that the element I boldfaced above is important, but I don't think that (necessarily) qualifies as "something for nobody."  In fact, I'll bet the OP does this very thing toward the end of the presentation, and in very clear terms.  The "something for nobody" notion is that you talk about something that's incomprehensible to your audience (or that you talk about something comprehensible in an incomprehensible fashion), rather than talking (comprehensibly) about something that's simply an still-unresolved "unknown" in the current body of knowledge.

[erzuliefreda]

The "something for nobody" idea is bad teaching. But a research seminar job talk is not a teaching demonstration like the ones we do at my school, and is an entirely different kind of performance. At my unranked university, we love folks who make everything clear, because we think that means you will be able to explain things to our underprepared students.

But in the research university where I did doctoral work, that's not how successful candidates presented themselves. Indeed, they were never "too animated," or "too facile." Mostly the successful candidates there reeked of money and the Ivy League, and had that certain air of "if you have to ask then you are the stupid one" during the Q&A. Frankly, I thought they were all jerks, but they, in turn, found me crude, obvious, and none too bright. So I do think there are many different cultures at play.

[username2]

It sounds to me like you did a great job and perhaps this SC member thought you weren't nervous enough? You can add some of the continuing big questions as suggested, but I would only worry if you hear that comment again from a different school, which means you are perhaps too glib?

You can ask some friends or people from your home institution, but if they do not agree, it could have been that s/he was having a bad day, or maybe professor brilliant's favored candidate stumbled through the talk in comparison to you, and s/he was being a little snarky with you for it.

[spork]

[. . .]

Any comments? Advice?

Thanks

The guy who said this is a jackass who is disliked by most of the department.

[glowdart]

The only thing I can think is that was he trying to say that you pitched it to the undergrads but needed to pitch it to grad students and profs, too.  And if that doesn't match what happened/who was in the room, then I've got no idea. 

[infopri]

The only thing I can think is that was he trying to say that you pitched it to the undergrads but needed to pitch it to grad students and profs, too.  And if that doesn't match what happened/who was in the room, then I've got no idea. 

You are being too generous, I think.  The commitee member said "something for nobody," not something for the more sophisticated audience members.  S/he also seemed not to like that the OP's presentation had "everything for everybody" instead of "something for everybody."  The OP made his or her presentation fully accessible to the entire audience.  The committee member seems to think that the best way to go is that everyone should understand some (but not all) of the presentation, and that there should be some piece of the presentation that no one understands.  What a jerk.

I think spork probably has it right.  One thing I know for sure is that I likely would not get much out of this jerk's presentations--which seems to be his or her goal. 

[glowdart]

The only thing I can think is that was he trying to say that you pitched it to the undergrads but needed to pitch it to grad students and profs, too.  And if that doesn't match what happened/who was in the room, then I've got no idea. 

You are being too generous, I think. [...] I think spork probably has it right.  

Ha!  Yes, I suspect so, too, on both accounts.     


(I'm trying this new thing called "resisting the cynicism," but I don't quite have the hang of it, obviously.)