I've been told today my style is 'unprofessional for academia' by a soon-to-be-faculty-mentor at my new school. My thought is the point of presenting the work is to get the point across to as many people as possible. Or sometimes just the important ones. The presentation I gave when I was interviewing was a healthy mix of slides and talking-style geared towards undergrad, grads, and faculty depending on the section and depth. Everyone said they understood it well.
My advisor loved recording my talks because of how easy things were to understand. And a committee member told me that my defense was the most lively one he's ever been apart of in the 30 years he's been advising. I started presenting this way early in grad school when I realized that unenthusiastic talks put everyone asleep, and the point of a talk is to get your point across....can't do that if everyone is asleep. There's a second point to this too: it's unresponsible science to not disseminate your results (usually paid by the public) to the public. I want to see at least a little effort to keep the audience engaged. I go the extra mile making my slides and speech great. A friend thinks people think it's unprofessional because it looks like I'm trying really hard and appear too approachable. That I need to appear at least a little unapproachable and put in the bare minimum of work.
I may be misinterpreting this, but when I see a drab talk, I immediately think either a) they don't give good talks, b) they don't care that other people are bored, or c) they're unpassionate about their work. I love seeing a speaker that loves their work, and loves to show it. I'm going to try a find a safe point between talking passionately about my work and trying to get people engaged through humor and the lifeless talks that I've come to expect at most conferences and seminars. Actually...screw that. I'm going to present the way I want. If people are 'too engaged' or 'too entertained' then that's their problem!
My advisor loved recording my talks because of how easy things were to understand. And a committee member told me that my defense was the most lively one he's ever been apart of in the 30 years he's been advising. I started presenting this way early in grad school when I realized that unenthusiastic talks put everyone asleep, and the point of a talk is to get your point across....can't do that if everyone is asleep. There's a second point to this too: it's unresponsible science to not disseminate your results (usually paid by the public) to the public. I want to see at least a little effort to keep the audience engaged. I go the extra mile making my slides and speech great. A friend thinks people think it's unprofessional because it looks like I'm trying really hard and appear too approachable. That I need to appear at least a little unapproachable and put in the bare minimum of work.
I may be misinterpreting this, but when I see a drab talk, I immediately think either a) they don't give good talks, b) they don't care that other people are bored, or c) they're unpassionate about their work. I love seeing a speaker that loves their work, and loves to show it. I'm going to try a find a safe point between talking passionately about my work and trying to get people engaged through humor and the lifeless talks that I've come to expect at most conferences and seminars. Actually...screw that. I'm going to present the way I want. If people are 'too engaged' or 'too entertained' then that's their problem!
