I agree with Tony, with one caveat--don't waste anyone's time. Posters are better than podium presentations for work in progress-- folks aren't stuck in a hot/cold/noisy room for 10-15 min if they realize after 2 minutes they're not interested. On the other hand, all you need is one person visiting your poster to give you a key idea (or v.v.). Posters are great for feedback but may not reach the right people, so when your work is "ripe", a podium presentation in a well-composed session may bring you to the attention of someone there to hear someone else--or there to give their own talk on a related subject. I have to say I often sit through a whole oral session rather than trying to dash from one place to another, and I'm more likely to see your poster/hear your talk if it's in a group of ones I'm interested in.
I particularly resent faculty who want to get brownie points at home institution by having undergrads present research in an oral session when the student doesn't know the larger context, etc. Not only can they not answer questions as well, but the presentation itself is often less informative, no matter how much it's practiced (or maybe because it's too practiced!). I'm not talking about the rare undergrads who have a great research idea, know the field well, have "ownership" of the work, and had all the breaks fall their way so they actually got results--more about ones who did what they were told and may not know why. For you I'd say the only danger is embarrassing yourself---otherwise you have everything to gain. Again, poster good--someone not interested just walks on by, instead of spending 10-15 min saying "I'd never offer that person a job!" DO spend time on design of poster--make sure title is legible from a distance (and informative--to catch eye of the person who can give you feedback), use lots of graphics and few words, have handouts with more info for those who are really interested and/or in a hurry, remember that it's VERY hard to concentrate in the atmosphere of a poster session---so make your points clearly, succinctly, visually. No need for full sentences, let alone paragraphs! Hardest part is making clear you're available for questions but not hovering. Be ready to hit the high points verbally (walking someone through a poster) if asked. talking with neighboring poster presenters can be great, but make sure you can be found--maybe a photo near author line to provide search image? A big advantage of presenting is getting in the program, so someone who might like to talk with you knows you're at the meeting. But do consider where your current advisor's "coming from"--get other opinions on the quality of the work from people in your lab/program. Maybe it isn't ready to fly! Another possibility--could your advisor be afraid of being embarrassed for some reason? A stretch, but worth thinking about. My 2 cents! Julie On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Mathew Tony wrote: > Anonymous, > > Your work cannot and will not get any worse by yours making > presentations. > > The chances of you getting some useful feedback, meeting someone > who has a different perspective of looking at a problem similar to > yours, listening to scientists or simple watching the build-up of a > new stream of thought towards solving a long drawn out problem > (believe me, this is beautiful :) ) are all the more higher if you > attend conferences and make presentations. > > It will definitely be time well spent. All the more if you are > doing a PhD. I presentation per year is the most modest target. > > My view! > > Tony > > ________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf > of anonymous > Sent: Fri 02/03/2007 06:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Presenting at scientific meetings > > > > I'd like to hear your opinions on the following. > > My previous advisor (Master's degree) believed that scientific > meetings are > for presenting work in progress, asking for critiques, looking for > collaborators, and networking. Therefore, he encouraged students > to submit > work that was not necessarily ready for journal submission, but > ready for > discussion. The more meetings, the better. > > So, I've presented my thesis work and some subsequent professional > work at > several meetings. > > I'm now in a PhD program, with some interesting results from year 1 > research. Adviser says not to present, that my work isn't quite > "ripe" yet, > that I'm at least a year away from being able to present. I figure > that it > is my job to present, that I'm doing myself a huge disservice by not > presenting, both in terms of getting my name out there, as well as > getting > some honest feedback from my peers. > > Shouldn't the abstract review process catch work that isn't "ripe" for > presentation (ie results will be discussed vs preliminary data show > that ___ > and that __ should be incorporated to refine the model)? > > How often/when do ecologgers present at scientific meetings? > Shouldn't I > aim for at least 1 meeting/yr? > > > > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment > may still contain software viruses, which could damage your > computer system: > you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications > with the > University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK > legislation. On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Mathew Tony wrote: > Anonymous, > > Your work cannot and will not get any worse by yours making > presentations. > > The chances of you getting some useful feedback, meeting someone > who has a different perspective of looking at a problem similar to > yours, listening to scientists or simple watching the build-up of a > new stream of thought towards solving a long drawn out problem > (believe me, this is beautiful :) ) are all the more higher if you > attend conferences and make presentations. > > It will definitely be time well spent. All the more if you are > doing a PhD. I presentation per year is the most modest target. > > My view! > > Tony > > ________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf > of anonymous > Sent: Fri 02/03/2007 06:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Presenting at scientific meetings > > > > I'd like to hear your opinions on the following. > > My previous advisor (Master's degree) believed that scientific > meetings are > for presenting work in progress, asking for critiques, looking for > collaborators, and networking. Therefore, he encouraged students > to submit > work that was not necessarily ready for journal submission, but > ready for > discussion. The more meetings, the better. > > So, I've presented my thesis work and some subsequent professional > work at > several meetings. > > I'm now in a PhD program, with some interesting results from year 1 > research. Adviser says not to present, that my work isn't quite > "ripe" yet, > that I'm at least a year away from being able to present. I figure > that it > is my job to present, that I'm doing myself a huge disservice by not > presenting, both in terms of getting my name out there, as well as > getting > some honest feedback from my peers. > > Shouldn't the abstract review process catch work that isn't "ripe" for > presentation (ie results will be discussed vs preliminary data show > that ___ > and that __ should be incorporated to refine the model)? > > How often/when do ecologgers present at scientific meetings? > Shouldn't I > aim for at least 1 meeting/yr? > > > > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an > attachment > may still contain software viruses, which could damage your > computer system: > you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications > with the > University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK > legislation.
