Next Tuesday, I have my last oral exam in form of a project presentation. So far so good. I want to make this perfect and in the past I managed my presentations super well.

This one will be my first presentation starting of with a quote. I showed this to my colleagues and some of them said, that I first have to welcome the watchers and then say and comment the quote.

I personally think, that it seems better, when I start with the quote and then say Hello an welcome to ….

Maybe you should know, that the quote hits the environment right into the eye and sums it up in an ironic and funny way.

In a paper I am presenting, a key equation contains the term \$1 / floor(n/k)\$, where n and k are some integers. This term is quite cumbersome, so I thought that, when I present my paper in a poster or slides, it can be better to present it approximately as just \$k/n\$.

My questions:

• Is it desirable to simplify equations in this way in slides or posters?
• What is a simple way to convey the message that the equation is not entirely accurate?

I am currently an undergraduate student in my last year at a Canadian university. Today, I gave a presentation about anti-censorship technology being developed at my institution. We were required to ask questions to the audience at the end of the presentation and one of mine was a multiple choice question that asked where the technology would not work, with answers that included “The People’s Republic of China” and “Republic of China” among others.

One of the students in the class who grew up in China asked a leading question about why I had two options, to which I responded: “there are two countries that call themselves China”. He became extremely aggressive at that point and stated that I shouldn’t be pushing my political beliefs on the class (the class was about technology and business), and yelled a standard Chinese political line about a united China in the middle of class. In the moment, I quickly just apologized that he was offended by it and somehow got the presentation back on track.

I spoke with the professor later in the day and he said the student came to him with a list of demands, which included, among other things, a public apology in class, alteration of my slide deck before posting it to the discussion board, and a meeting between him, the professor, and I.

I believe I am in the right when it comes to this topic and during my discussion with my professor, he agreed that students have a right to freedom of speech. He left it to me to decide what actions on the demands list, if any, I would be willing to do.

I feel some remorse, as I didn’t think that the question would be taken so violently by a member of the audience, but the level of intensity in my classmate is extreme. He stared at me consistently for the rest of class and, to be honest, made me somewhat uncomfortable.

I agreed to the meeting to start, but what else should I do? Disciplinary actions, like legal trials, tend to not always work out for the person who is in the right – there are many innocent people in jail. I want to stand up for freedom of speech, but don’t want to be crucified under a formal review because one of the reviewers may have also been indoctrinated by growing up in China and share the same views. I’m sure just like anything, if you dig hard enough, you can find something to get me on if the administration wanted to.

The irony that I see in this whole presentation is that it was about anti-censorship, and my classmate wants me to censor myself and only accept his version of truth – which is actually a lie.

I had been invited to give a talk at a summer school abroad, but had to cancel due to a complex visa issue that could not be foreseen at the time I accepted to give the talk: it turns out that I’ll be transitioning between two visas because of a job change, and will be unable to leave the country at that time. I had already spend time preparing and had bought airplane and train tickets. I’ve explored possible solutions to be able to attend in person, none of which panned out; I’ve offered the summer school to give the talk remotely, but this wasn’t an option; I have since been working with the summer school to find a replacement and have offered to help them if needed. At this point I’ve invested a fair amount of effort, energy, and money into this invited talk that is not even going to happen. As a not particularly fancy postdoc, I only get very few invited talks. I was also looking forward to this particular summer school (which doesn’t help with me having trouble letting go of this CV entry).

Is it OK to list this talk on my CV under the invited talk section, with some unambiguous qualifier e.g. “withdrawn for visa reasons”, or perhaps something similar? Or would it do more harm than good?

Related question: Invited to give a talk but could not attend, can it be on CV? –> it seems the answer might depend on the specific reason for not being able to attend

I am a first year Maths PhD student in Singapore.
As I am going to give my first talk at a Mathematics conference soon, I look for some tips on how to give a good talk.
While googling, I come across Terrence Tao’s blog post entitled ‘talks are not the same as paper’.
In the post, he stated in third paragraph that,

Instead, a talk should complement a paper by providing a high-level and more informal overview of the same material, especially for the more standard or routine components of the argument; this allows one to channel more of the audience’s attention onto the most interesting or important components, which can be described in more detail.

I have difficulty understanding the meaning of ‘high-level’.

Considering a presentation is for a group of academics whose specialties are to some (unknown) extent related to the topic, how much of the talk should be spent on explaining the preliminaries?

I often have this problem when preparing slides for a talk where I know that my audience is a group of professors, postdocs, or/and graduate students in the same field or related fields, but I don’t know how much background they have on the topic of discussion. The preliminaries are usually topics that could be covered in an upper-level undergrad course (or a first course on that specific topic), but are not a core topic in the field. I know that there could be academics out there who are either not acquainted with the topic or they need a refresher for their knowledge of the material, but I also know that with a very high probability, a considerable number of audience are so comfortable and deeply familiar with the topic that the preliminaries would be extremely boring and trivial for them (and I’m even afraid that it might sound offensively easy to them, especially when it is presented by a student).

Should I just skip the slides on prelims in such cases, or should I always consider the possibility that some members among the audience may be unfamiliar with the topic and the presentation would sound completely meaningless to them if I skip the prelims? I’ve seen both approaches in academic talks given by experienced professors, so I’m confused about how they decide when to choose which approach.

My questions regards the format of citation.
For the context: I am a student, presenting my work (with slides) and referring to the publications in which I am co-author (never in the first three authors).

It would be nice for my name to explicitely appear, as I also refer to other publications in which I did not take part.However I do not want to list all the authors (more than 10 for some papers).

Should I use (recommendeed by my advisor):

A.Smith, M.Myself et al. “Marvelous publication”

Or

A.Smith et al. (including M.Myself), “Marvelous publication”

My concern is not to appear as being the second author, which would feel like a lie, while keeping a compact formatting.

Is there a common way of doing this ?

Thank you.

My questions regards the format of citation.
For the context: I am a student, presenting my work (with slides) and referring to the publications in which I am co-author (never in the first three authors).

It would be nice for my name to explicitely appear, as I also refer to other publications in which I did not take part.However I do not want to list all the authors (more than 10 for some papers).

Should I use (recommendeed by my advisor):

A.Smith, M.Myself et al. “Marvelous publication”

Or

A.Smith et al. (including M.Myself), “Marvelous publication”

My concern is not to appear as being the second author, which would feel like a lie, while keeping a compact formatting.

Is there a common way of doing this ?

Thank you.

When citing a paper that you coauthored on a slide it is common to abbreviate your name to just the first letter of your last name, or your initials. So John Doe would become D or JD.

My last name consists of multiple words like ‘van der Broek’. Should I then abbreviate it to ‘vdB’ or just ‘B’?