The person in charge of matching MSc students with research projects is now seeking research projects for the next batch of students. I was invited to present some opportunities to students on almost no notice several hours before a conference paper was due, and so declined the opportunity.
I do have a couple of data gathering projects to which I could deploy students, but they are not yet written up. My PhD supervisor has mixed feelings about using in this way (she said she was too close to the projects on which previous students had worked). I have resolved to come up with two options during the break. One is a "fire and forget" project in which my expectations would be that the student(s) tell me something interesting about a broadly defined problem at one of my research sites. The other would be a detailed data collection exercise that would be useful any time in the next two years.
It has also been suggested that supervise a MSc student directly to do some of the above research.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Tales of Supervision: The conclusion
On Monday half an hour before our scheduled meeting, my co-supervisor e-mails indicating that a printed copy of her suggested grading was in my physical mail box. I took a brief look at it, spending most of my time Google Translating the criteria into English. I was also responsible for adding to the blurb that explained our grading choices. The opponent and all supervisors have to sign off on one grading/explanation.
On the way to retrieve printouts of my extended comments (for my co-supervisor and the opponent), I catch my co-supervisor in the hallway as she was leaving for lunch. Even though we had hastily set a meeting time on Friday, she had not written it down (understandable, since two of her other MSc students were defending after our common student.) After pointing out that the opponent would come to the university at 1 p.m. explicitly for the paperwork, my co-supervisor remembers the meeting.
We discussed that the student's goal was to get 3/5 points overall. We ended there, haggling over scores of 2-4 (I didn't think the thesis was that great, and tried to push the grades down in a couple categories). It turns out that the thesis was really well organized, and the literature review was really strong, but reusability was weak. At this point, I learned that my extended comments would be visible to the student, and attached to the credential. The opponent agreed with my blurb, but found the second paragraph harsh (limitations of time and company's externalities). We decided to remove it, leaving the first paragraph which was basically something that followed the sandwich rule (praise, bad stuff, praise) I learned when judging primary school science fairs.
One of the changes that the opponent and student had suggested was a change in the title of the thesis. (This is not a problem in the Finnish system, unlike in the Canadian system in which a title is locked in relatively early in the process.) We printed a set of paperwork with the old title, and then realized our mistake. We copied and pasted the title from the final copy the student had sent early Monday morning into our paperwork, (the paperwork/forms come out of a poorly secured internally developed web application) and then realized that it had a grammar error, and did the paperwork a third time.
And so the thesis was done. Had the student completed it after December, he would receive only 30 ECTS instead of 35. He still has coursework to finish at his leisure. I learned quite a bit about the "constructive research" methodology. And the co-supervisor learned some things about internationalization.
At our Friday department meeting and annual Christmas dinner, we learned that the department had produced 98 of the 100 desired Master's theses (not Master's degrees) affecting the upcoming three-year budget cycle. We also learned that the average number of MScs produced per teaching faculty member was around 0.3, which means that a small number of us are carrying most of the supervising load.
On the way to retrieve printouts of my extended comments (for my co-supervisor and the opponent), I catch my co-supervisor in the hallway as she was leaving for lunch. Even though we had hastily set a meeting time on Friday, she had not written it down (understandable, since two of her other MSc students were defending after our common student.) After pointing out that the opponent would come to the university at 1 p.m. explicitly for the paperwork, my co-supervisor remembers the meeting.
We discussed that the student's goal was to get 3/5 points overall. We ended there, haggling over scores of 2-4 (I didn't think the thesis was that great, and tried to push the grades down in a couple categories). It turns out that the thesis was really well organized, and the literature review was really strong, but reusability was weak. At this point, I learned that my extended comments would be visible to the student, and attached to the credential. The opponent agreed with my blurb, but found the second paragraph harsh (limitations of time and company's externalities). We decided to remove it, leaving the first paragraph which was basically something that followed the sandwich rule (praise, bad stuff, praise) I learned when judging primary school science fairs.
One of the changes that the opponent and student had suggested was a change in the title of the thesis. (This is not a problem in the Finnish system, unlike in the Canadian system in which a title is locked in relatively early in the process.) We printed a set of paperwork with the old title, and then realized our mistake. We copied and pasted the title from the final copy the student had sent early Monday morning into our paperwork, (the paperwork/forms come out of a poorly secured internally developed web application) and then realized that it had a grammar error, and did the paperwork a third time.
And so the thesis was done. Had the student completed it after December, he would receive only 30 ECTS instead of 35. He still has coursework to finish at his leisure. I learned quite a bit about the "constructive research" methodology. And the co-supervisor learned some things about internationalization.
At our Friday department meeting and annual Christmas dinner, we learned that the department had produced 98 of the 100 desired Master's theses (not Master's degrees) affecting the upcoming three-year budget cycle. We also learned that the average number of MScs produced per teaching faculty member was around 0.3, which means that a small number of us are carrying most of the supervising load.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Tales of Supervision: The defense
(Yes, I'm spelling defen(s|c)e inconsistently. Deal with it. This might also be conscious breathing awareness month.)
I arrived in town on Thursday morning to snow and ice covered streets. I decided I would bike it in since proceeding on the first 600m test scenic route to the main road was uneventful. I was surprised to see several locals walk their bikes along some stretches of pathway. Deciding to investigate, I tried to slow down. There was no slowing down. Somehow, I had made it more than 3 km without running into this problem, and then I noticed locals falling over and/or biking into snow banks or off the path to avoid worse things on the path.
I dismounted after riding into some soft snow, and walked the bike under the highway underpass. A local walking his dog warned me about the slippery surface in Finnish, and then gestured the same. A cautious 40 minutes later (walking past some interesting tread marks that recorded black ice under snow) I arrive at my office.
No new draft from the student, so I work on the text he sent to the opponent (It had obvious grammar issues in new text, but was otherwise OK). I hope he at least did a language check with someone for whatever new content might be added. Then I realize that I have no idea about protocol at the defense on Friday, and my co-supervisor was not in her office. But she did return an e-mail detailing the procedure (most of which I had observed before).
On Friday morning, I collect my co-supervisor from her office, and we head to the usual presentation room a few minutes before its scheduled start. The student was already there, with the PowerPoint loaded, waiting for us.
The presentation goes well. In addition to we the supervisors, there was the opponent, the moderator, and some other students/staff. A couple of attendees even walked in late, during the defense.
The opponent offers his criticisms in detail. He and the student debate for a few minutes. I agree with most/all of the criticisms, and even recall making some of them in previous drafts. The opponent states that the presentation was clearer than the text.
After time was up, we adjourned to a communal sitting/coffee area, at which the four of us discuss in detail the criticisms and next steps. My co-supervisor and the opponent both supply hardcopies of the thesis (my co-supervisor did not print a copy of the final version), I promised to send a copy of my marked-up PDF.
The student would have until Monday to amend his thesis because the department committee that has the final word on thesises meets on Tuesday. My co-supervisor suggests a meeting on Monday to do the formal grading paperwork (based on the expectation that the student will improve the text as suggested).
[I have extended hand-written notes about the defense, which may appear in this space at a later date in some form.]
I arrived in town on Thursday morning to snow and ice covered streets. I decided I would bike it in since proceeding on the first 600m test scenic route to the main road was uneventful. I was surprised to see several locals walk their bikes along some stretches of pathway. Deciding to investigate, I tried to slow down. There was no slowing down. Somehow, I had made it more than 3 km without running into this problem, and then I noticed locals falling over and/or biking into snow banks or off the path to avoid worse things on the path.
I dismounted after riding into some soft snow, and walked the bike under the highway underpass. A local walking his dog warned me about the slippery surface in Finnish, and then gestured the same. A cautious 40 minutes later (walking past some interesting tread marks that recorded black ice under snow) I arrive at my office.
No new draft from the student, so I work on the text he sent to the opponent (It had obvious grammar issues in new text, but was otherwise OK). I hope he at least did a language check with someone for whatever new content might be added. Then I realize that I have no idea about protocol at the defense on Friday, and my co-supervisor was not in her office. But she did return an e-mail detailing the procedure (most of which I had observed before).
On Friday morning, I collect my co-supervisor from her office, and we head to the usual presentation room a few minutes before its scheduled start. The student was already there, with the PowerPoint loaded, waiting for us.
The presentation goes well. In addition to we the supervisors, there was the opponent, the moderator, and some other students/staff. A couple of attendees even walked in late, during the defense.
The opponent offers his criticisms in detail. He and the student debate for a few minutes. I agree with most/all of the criticisms, and even recall making some of them in previous drafts. The opponent states that the presentation was clearer than the text.
After time was up, we adjourned to a communal sitting/coffee area, at which the four of us discuss in detail the criticisms and next steps. My co-supervisor and the opponent both supply hardcopies of the thesis (my co-supervisor did not print a copy of the final version), I promised to send a copy of my marked-up PDF.
The student would have until Monday to amend his thesis because the department committee that has the final word on thesises meets on Tuesday. My co-supervisor suggests a meeting on Monday to do the formal grading paperwork (based on the expectation that the student will improve the text as suggested).
[I have extended hand-written notes about the defense, which may appear in this space at a later date in some form.]
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tales of Supervision: In a hotel room, after visiting the local analogue of the Lincoln Memorial (or Layton Memorial...)
I had received my student's latest text by 8 a.m., but couldn't do much with it since I was packing. The hotel I was transiting through didn't have an overnight room ready, and no business center to speak of. (I had mistaken their security room for a business center. It had a computer workstation built into a wall and was not occupied or guarded. The actual public computer was an old HP junker in the lobby.) It also didn't have much of a lobby (three chairs). So I could either cram myself into a subway or visit the local analogue of the Lincoln Memorial to find a place to sit down and work. (The amazing thing about this city is that it provides very few public sitting places in an effort to discourage vagrancy.) I left my luggage and computer at the front desk (which was also the unoccupied security desk and headed out to the memorial. It provided no public seating (except under the drizzle).
Two hours later: The hotel room has exactly one accessible power outlet, to which the entire entertainment system is connected. To access it requires forcing my way behind the 30" flat-screen TV... My sitting place (there was no desk in the otherwise immaculately appointed room) was one of two non-reclining easy chairs by a ground-floor window facing the local alley-side coffee and snack shop. 2.5 hours later, I sent my comments on the "final" copy of the thesis, along with a PDF of the comment summary. This should give him plenty of time to edit things before sending it to the opponent.
Late that evening (for the student), he sends a copy of his thesis to myself, my co-supervisor, and my opponent. It has some minor text issues.
I'm scheduled to arrive in time for the usual Thursday afternoon meeting time, but the student does not think he needs a meeting.
Two hours later: The hotel room has exactly one accessible power outlet, to which the entire entertainment system is connected. To access it requires forcing my way behind the 30" flat-screen TV... My sitting place (there was no desk in the otherwise immaculately appointed room) was one of two non-reclining easy chairs by a ground-floor window facing the local alley-side coffee and snack shop. 2.5 hours later, I sent my comments on the "final" copy of the thesis, along with a PDF of the comment summary. This should give him plenty of time to edit things before sending it to the opponent.
Late that evening (for the student), he sends a copy of his thesis to myself, my co-supervisor, and my opponent. It has some minor text issues.
I'm scheduled to arrive in time for the usual Thursday afternoon meeting time, but the student does not think he needs a meeting.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Tales of Supervision: North American style
Monday's meeting went as usual.
On Thursday, I was nearly late. I had decided to go shopping at one of the not-so-local night markets, and returned to a flakey Internet connection at the residence. Skyping my co-supervisors desktop computer was flakey, so I Skyped my student instead. (He had his laptop at the co-supervisor's office.)
The student had not had time to address all the suggested text revisions. He was instead focused on presentation slides. My co-supervisor found a minor issue with the timeline slide, which anticipated completion in Spring 2012 (a formality to satisfy the bean counter in the room).
I had asked a few questions of both my co-supervisor and student about linking back to the literature. I had suggested that a stronger link be made in the analysis, but my co-supervisor objected, stating that that section should be used exclusively to describe the student's own original work. I had no objections to that, as long as the findings linked back to the literature in some fashion. It seems that there are some style differences still to be worked out. We emerged the idea that the discussion and conclusion should deal with this in a cohesive way. (We found out later that the student had decided to start the final section as "Discussion and Conclusion"... Not exactly what we had expected, but it was clear that the student was working on something. We trust him enough to figure it out.)
My co-supervisor then over-interpreted my style question to mean that active/passive voice question that I thought we had settled. So far, I had only been editing for local grammar, without altering the student's choice of voice in his writing. My co-supervisor had been paying more attention to voice as a style matter and suggested that the student not refer to his own work in the "passive voice", by which she meant past tense.
After two long weeks in the field, I thought better of arguing about that detail at 11:30 p.m. the night before the student was scheduled to present. I'm also glad that my co-supervisor is more on the ball this week since I was/am dead tired. I asked for more text for Monday, which would be our last meeting before the defense. I asked if there was further opportunity after the defense to modify the text, to which the answer was thankfully "yes, we must deal with the opponent's comments".
About the presentation: I attended via Skype, while skipping out on a part of a local workshop relating to my own research. (The co-supervisor was late, she ditched out of giving a lecture to attend this.) I saw the presentation via the student's laptop, with which he was also presenting..., but I couldn't hear or respond to any questions from the audience due to exceedingly poor audio pickup. I'm glad that my co-supervisor was there (even though a bit late) to address live questions. (Even though the presentation and teardown lasted 30 minutes, the workshop had not significantly proceeded in the schedule, and I picked up almost where we had left off.)
In an exchange of e-mails later, there is still some hesitation about formally booking the defence for next week, but we run with it for now. My co-supervisor emphasizes that the goal now should be to get the thesis to look like it has the correct parts and order of a good Finnish thesis, whatever that is.
On Thursday, I was nearly late. I had decided to go shopping at one of the not-so-local night markets, and returned to a flakey Internet connection at the residence. Skyping my co-supervisors desktop computer was flakey, so I Skyped my student instead. (He had his laptop at the co-supervisor's office.)
The student had not had time to address all the suggested text revisions. He was instead focused on presentation slides. My co-supervisor found a minor issue with the timeline slide, which anticipated completion in Spring 2012 (a formality to satisfy the bean counter in the room).
I had asked a few questions of both my co-supervisor and student about linking back to the literature. I had suggested that a stronger link be made in the analysis, but my co-supervisor objected, stating that that section should be used exclusively to describe the student's own original work. I had no objections to that, as long as the findings linked back to the literature in some fashion. It seems that there are some style differences still to be worked out. We emerged the idea that the discussion and conclusion should deal with this in a cohesive way. (We found out later that the student had decided to start the final section as "Discussion and Conclusion"... Not exactly what we had expected, but it was clear that the student was working on something. We trust him enough to figure it out.)
My co-supervisor then over-interpreted my style question to mean that active/passive voice question that I thought we had settled. So far, I had only been editing for local grammar, without altering the student's choice of voice in his writing. My co-supervisor had been paying more attention to voice as a style matter and suggested that the student not refer to his own work in the "passive voice", by which she meant past tense.
After two long weeks in the field, I thought better of arguing about that detail at 11:30 p.m. the night before the student was scheduled to present. I'm also glad that my co-supervisor is more on the ball this week since I was/am dead tired. I asked for more text for Monday, which would be our last meeting before the defense. I asked if there was further opportunity after the defense to modify the text, to which the answer was thankfully "yes, we must deal with the opponent's comments".
About the presentation: I attended via Skype, while skipping out on a part of a local workshop relating to my own research. (The co-supervisor was late, she ditched out of giving a lecture to attend this.) I saw the presentation via the student's laptop, with which he was also presenting..., but I couldn't hear or respond to any questions from the audience due to exceedingly poor audio pickup. I'm glad that my co-supervisor was there (even though a bit late) to address live questions. (Even though the presentation and teardown lasted 30 minutes, the workshop had not significantly proceeded in the schedule, and I picked up almost where we had left off.)
In an exchange of e-mails later, there is still some hesitation about formally booking the defence for next week, but we run with it for now. My co-supervisor emphasizes that the goal now should be to get the thesis to look like it has the correct parts and order of a good Finnish thesis, whatever that is.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Tales of Supervision: Supervising at 10:30 p.m.
Reliable Internet connection + thesis draft from my student + six hour time difference = supervising at 10:30 p.m. by Skype.
It turns out that my supervisor only glanced at the student's latest draft, which I received in the morning (or around midnight for my student). Good progress was made with text and diagrams. During the day, I highlighted a number of ambiguities remaining in the text, and did my usual Acrobat 9 text edit suggestions. (Acrobat X is flakier than Acrobat 9 and the UI was garbaged. Avoid if possible.) Apparently, they don't completely show up in whatever PDF viewer the student uses (probably Preview since he's on a Mac), so I provided a screenshot of what they should look like.
We agree to do this again on Monday since we're two weeks from the deadline. Also, because he was sick the last time he was supposed to present his "research proposal", it will be held next Friday. (The research proposal presentation is basically a 10-minute talk about the student's proposed/ongoing research [problem, methods, literature], given at a seminar that runs every Friday morning. At it, critics and colleagues are allowed to ask questions about the research. It is open to all interested. The same booking is also used for MSc defenses, that typically last 40 minutes with a 15 minute presentation, 10 minutes of comments and dialogue from the opponent, and 15 minutes for general discussion including the supervisors.)
We scout out possible English-speaking opponents (apparently s/he only needs the text by the Tuesday before the Friday defense).
I will try to attend the research proposal presentation via Skype on his laptop, even though the usual facility for presentations is a PolyCom-equipped teleconference venue.
It turns out that my supervisor only glanced at the student's latest draft, which I received in the morning (or around midnight for my student). Good progress was made with text and diagrams. During the day, I highlighted a number of ambiguities remaining in the text, and did my usual Acrobat 9 text edit suggestions. (Acrobat X is flakier than Acrobat 9 and the UI was garbaged. Avoid if possible.) Apparently, they don't completely show up in whatever PDF viewer the student uses (probably Preview since he's on a Mac), so I provided a screenshot of what they should look like.
We agree to do this again on Monday since we're two weeks from the deadline. Also, because he was sick the last time he was supposed to present his "research proposal", it will be held next Friday. (The research proposal presentation is basically a 10-minute talk about the student's proposed/ongoing research [problem, methods, literature], given at a seminar that runs every Friday morning. At it, critics and colleagues are allowed to ask questions about the research. It is open to all interested. The same booking is also used for MSc defenses, that typically last 40 minutes with a 15 minute presentation, 10 minutes of comments and dialogue from the opponent, and 15 minutes for general discussion including the supervisors.)
We scout out possible English-speaking opponents (apparently s/he only needs the text by the Tuesday before the Friday defense).
I will try to attend the research proposal presentation via Skype on his laptop, even though the usual facility for presentations is a PolyCom-equipped teleconference venue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)