Throughout the semester I have attended two research presentation in the political science department. These two presentation were different in many ways but had an underlying similarity. I have learned lessons from each presentation and presenter separately but also combined.
Joe Ornstein presented the first workshop, which was titled “Subnational Public Opinion Estimation Using MrsP”. This presented took place on October 25 in the Eldersveld Room, 5670 Haven Hall. Joe Ornstein is a PhD candidate in the Political Science department of the University of Michigan. The seminar was to be more to be casual, with different faculty asking questions throughout the presentation instead of waiting for a formal question and answer segment at the …show more content…
I believe Orenstein’s choice of using a PowerPoint was smart, because his research contained a proof, maps, and charts. Since we could actually see these visuals it was easier for the examples to seem concreate and plausible. I also appreciated that the presentation felt like a discussion, in which many professors were able to ask him a question during the middle of the presentation and engage in a conversation. This was not only helpful in understanding some concepts since questions would be answered o the spot but it also showed some flaws in Orenstein’s presentation and knowledge. One instance that stuck out to me was when Mai Hassan asked him about during the South African example, what a certain aspect of the map meant, Orenstein did not have an answer and instead stated that he has to check back with the scholar’s work. This seemed somewhat unprofessional and misleading since there were some more questions about this example that Orenstein could not answer. Another aspect that I enjoyed was the fact that Orenstein did not read straight from the screen, all the basic information that had to be on the screen was and he would expand on it. I enjoy this style because it serves the presenter a purpose of being present. If all the information was on the slides and the presenter would read it off the information, I believe that I could do the same action. Overall, I feel like I understood the basics, I don’t think I have a complete understanding based on the fact that I’m not familiar with this MrP and MrsP and heavy based proofs. I do,
Joe Ornstein presented the first workshop, which was titled “Subnational Public Opinion Estimation Using MrsP”. This presented took place on October 25 in the Eldersveld Room, 5670 Haven Hall. Joe Ornstein is a PhD candidate in the Political Science department of the University of Michigan. The seminar was to be more to be casual, with different faculty asking questions throughout the presentation instead of waiting for a formal question and answer segment at the …show more content…
I believe Orenstein’s choice of using a PowerPoint was smart, because his research contained a proof, maps, and charts. Since we could actually see these visuals it was easier for the examples to seem concreate and plausible. I also appreciated that the presentation felt like a discussion, in which many professors were able to ask him a question during the middle of the presentation and engage in a conversation. This was not only helpful in understanding some concepts since questions would be answered o the spot but it also showed some flaws in Orenstein’s presentation and knowledge. One instance that stuck out to me was when Mai Hassan asked him about during the South African example, what a certain aspect of the map meant, Orenstein did not have an answer and instead stated that he has to check back with the scholar’s work. This seemed somewhat unprofessional and misleading since there were some more questions about this example that Orenstein could not answer. Another aspect that I enjoyed was the fact that Orenstein did not read straight from the screen, all the basic information that had to be on the screen was and he would expand on it. I enjoy this style because it serves the presenter a purpose of being present. If all the information was on the slides and the presenter would read it off the information, I believe that I could do the same action. Overall, I feel like I understood the basics, I don’t think I have a complete understanding based on the fact that I’m not familiar with this MrP and MrsP and heavy based proofs. I do,