The Defense
Let me begin this post by congratulating my brother Vivaquijote and The Squirrel on their recent engagement! JJ and I are very happy for both of them, and can't wait for them to actually set a date. :)
Having said that, let me dig in to the promised details of the thesis defense.
I've let this soak in for a few days deliberately, primarily because I was so exhausted afterwards that I slept for half a day and could barely cobble together a single higher brain function to butter my toast much less write an in-depth blog post about what happened. However, the brain freeze, or "thesis brain", as some have called it, has passed, permitting me to prattle on about what transpired.
Before digging deeper, you have to understand that a Masters Defense can best be compared to a cookout, where you can invite as many guests as you like but only three of them are allowed to really eat anything, and when they do eat they are obligated to tear apart what you set before them in the efforts of finding out just how good of a cook you are. Then, to test you, they push you to cook on your feet without much preparation and with a limited selection of ingredients. They see how long it takes before you burn something, and then when you do (because you will, no matter what) they give you pointers on how not to light your food on fire the next time.
That would be an accurate description of what happened. JJ was able to attend (and mercifully brought breakfast), along with one of my undergraduate Research Assistants (RA's). My three committee members listened patiently as I went through the oral presentation of my results, which lasted about 20 minutes. Once I was finished, my chair (my advisor is the chair of the committee) opened the floor for questions.
In other words, she rang the triangle bell and hollered "Feeding Time." The committee members then proceeded to "dig in".
I was completely unable to answer the first barrage of questions at all, questions like "how does this evidence relate to intention" and "you're essentially using a null result to prove something" and "what statistical measures would you use to better bolster this argument" and my personal favorite, "when calculating effect size, what goes in to the denominator?" My tongue-tied state was largely due to a massive, ill-timed case of brain-freeze, and I sort of stood there like a gaping moron staring up at the ceiling with a scrunched up face as I muttered "ummm" and "hmmmm" and finally the defeated "I'm sorry, I don't know." At one point (during my "favorite" question), I was able to say all those things at once by uttering a rather direct, descriptive monosyllabic response - "crap."
However, the questions moved beyond the unanswerable and the mathematical and on into the theoretical, which I was able to answer quite well. And from there, the committee began discussing the work rather passionately and excitedly on their own merit, and went on for such a long time that I just took a seat and let them hash it out on their own. One of my committee members noticed this, and chuckled about it, saying "You did the smart thing - you got your committee talking so they'd leave you alone."
We all got a good laugh out of this, but that didn't change the fact that I felt like I had bombed the first half of the question and answer section. However, as I was reminded later on by my advisor, the more intensely they prod you about your work is a reflection upon the works quality. They grilled me hard because they really, really, really liked it.
And they started telling me that they really, really, really liked it right after the joke about me sitting down. They explained to me that the reason they drilled me so hard is because this was the cleanest, most solid thesis that they had seen in a very, very long time.
I was then excused from the room as they voted, then called back in to handshakes, smiles and the news that they had passed me without any revisions needed for the copy to be turned in. Now, for the publication version, I need to add some information about effect size measures to block any criticisms from that angle (which I took care of today). But beyond that, I can print and submit to the main office without any second thought.
After that was done, my wife took me out for a delightful lunch, and then later on my advisor took me out for a nice early afternoon dessert.
Earlier today, I ran in to the committee member that had opened the question and answer section with a volley of inquiry that I was unable to answer. He told me that he was very impressed by my performance, and he said that if he had to assign me a grade, he would have given me an A+.
I was floored and relieved.
Thanks be to God for granting me the opportunity to do things like this and the ability to finish them well!
Having said that, let me dig in to the promised details of the thesis defense.
I've let this soak in for a few days deliberately, primarily because I was so exhausted afterwards that I slept for half a day and could barely cobble together a single higher brain function to butter my toast much less write an in-depth blog post about what happened. However, the brain freeze, or "thesis brain", as some have called it, has passed, permitting me to prattle on about what transpired.
Before digging deeper, you have to understand that a Masters Defense can best be compared to a cookout, where you can invite as many guests as you like but only three of them are allowed to really eat anything, and when they do eat they are obligated to tear apart what you set before them in the efforts of finding out just how good of a cook you are. Then, to test you, they push you to cook on your feet without much preparation and with a limited selection of ingredients. They see how long it takes before you burn something, and then when you do (because you will, no matter what) they give you pointers on how not to light your food on fire the next time.
That would be an accurate description of what happened. JJ was able to attend (and mercifully brought breakfast), along with one of my undergraduate Research Assistants (RA's). My three committee members listened patiently as I went through the oral presentation of my results, which lasted about 20 minutes. Once I was finished, my chair (my advisor is the chair of the committee) opened the floor for questions.
In other words, she rang the triangle bell and hollered "Feeding Time." The committee members then proceeded to "dig in".
I was completely unable to answer the first barrage of questions at all, questions like "how does this evidence relate to intention" and "you're essentially using a null result to prove something" and "what statistical measures would you use to better bolster this argument" and my personal favorite, "when calculating effect size, what goes in to the denominator?" My tongue-tied state was largely due to a massive, ill-timed case of brain-freeze, and I sort of stood there like a gaping moron staring up at the ceiling with a scrunched up face as I muttered "ummm" and "hmmmm" and finally the defeated "I'm sorry, I don't know." At one point (during my "favorite" question), I was able to say all those things at once by uttering a rather direct, descriptive monosyllabic response - "crap."
However, the questions moved beyond the unanswerable and the mathematical and on into the theoretical, which I was able to answer quite well. And from there, the committee began discussing the work rather passionately and excitedly on their own merit, and went on for such a long time that I just took a seat and let them hash it out on their own. One of my committee members noticed this, and chuckled about it, saying "You did the smart thing - you got your committee talking so they'd leave you alone."
We all got a good laugh out of this, but that didn't change the fact that I felt like I had bombed the first half of the question and answer section. However, as I was reminded later on by my advisor, the more intensely they prod you about your work is a reflection upon the works quality. They grilled me hard because they really, really, really liked it.
And they started telling me that they really, really, really liked it right after the joke about me sitting down. They explained to me that the reason they drilled me so hard is because this was the cleanest, most solid thesis that they had seen in a very, very long time.
I was then excused from the room as they voted, then called back in to handshakes, smiles and the news that they had passed me without any revisions needed for the copy to be turned in. Now, for the publication version, I need to add some information about effect size measures to block any criticisms from that angle (which I took care of today). But beyond that, I can print and submit to the main office without any second thought.
After that was done, my wife took me out for a delightful lunch, and then later on my advisor took me out for a nice early afternoon dessert.
Earlier today, I ran in to the committee member that had opened the question and answer section with a volley of inquiry that I was unable to answer. He told me that he was very impressed by my performance, and he said that if he had to assign me a grade, he would have given me an A+.
I was floored and relieved.
Thanks be to God for granting me the opportunity to do things like this and the ability to finish them well!
posted by Raoul The Destroyer at 10:26 PM
2 comments
