Archive for July, 2009

The sum is greater than the parts

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

The Sum is greater than the parts. This is what came to my mind when I was aggregating my PhD research into a thesis format in the summers. Thesis writing involves much more than compiling your research. It is analogous to not only writing a manuscript but also be the copy editor of the manuscript.

Firstly, the university rules and regulations have to be met. These rules can range from having a certain width in margins to font sizes and thesis organization. These rules can be consulted from the university examination handbook.

The compilation of PhD research also induces various major and minor consistency issues. There may be repetitions of concepts which need to be weeded out. In mathematical theses, consistency in notation is another issue. Maintaining macros is not only good practice but almost a necessity. In such cases, type-setting software like Latex is very handy.

Other aspects of the thesis such as preparing outline of the thesis, table of contents, list of figures, lift of tables and the index can take longer than expected and are not entirely trivial tasks. The bibliography is another aspect which needs to be taken care of.  To makes the document, well-knit, references to definitions, sections and chapters within the thesis need to be input.  Even if each chapter has conclusions, concluding comments of the whole thesis are expected in the end.

A thesis is much longer than a paper. Therefore, gentle reminders need to be inserted to remind the reader about certain terms defined much earlier.

Tags:
Posted in Academics, PhD, Research | No Comments »

Keeping track of latest research

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

In scientific research, the speed of new results is high so that not only one needs to obtain interesting new results but also make them public before some one else published them.  As a PhD student, I also witnessed this problem when a couple of research questions I answered (but did not publish) were published by some one else within a few months. This raises questions as how to keep up with the latest research, which problems to try solving and how to publish before some one else? Although, these are questions which more experienced researchers would answer better but the following are some observations:

  1. If one chooses a unique problem or uses a novel technique to solve a problem, there is less chance of big research teams working on it. This can also have a downside: if not enough people are working on it, it may mean that it is not as important
  2. Keep track of the latest journals publications so that one can work on recently posed problems or improve recent work.
  3. Journals can take longer to publish so it is useful to lookout for new papers in established conferences for latest developments.
  4. Certain researchers submit their working papers as archived reports much before they publish them. It is worth exploring such archives and getting notified about recent submissions.
  5. Even archive submissions may involve work done many months before the actual submission. It is worth talking to relevant people in the field in meetings/workshops/conferences.
  6. If one knows that certain researchers are working on a similar topic, there it may be helpful to exchange updates or even join forces.

Posted in Academics, Research, Science | No Comments »

PhDs in the insurance industry

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

I went to a combinatorics meeting recently. Among the technical talks there was one talk by Dr. Angela Koller on graph theory in industry. Dr. Koller is a mathematician by training who had worked as a research assistant at Royal Holloway. She was now part of the business research team as an actuarial consultant in JLT Insurance.

Dr. Koller gave an overview of the aims of her company and her team. The team dealt with dynamic financial analysis, financial modeling, pricing, natural catastrophe modeling, insurance aggregation analysis. She stressed the stability of the insurance industry which is needed where ever there is an insurable interest.

She outlined the mathematical aspect of her role and said that her team-mates had backgrounds from accounting, engineering, physics, computer science, geography and mathematics. There were a couple of PhDs in her team and a good percentage of Masters holders. Dr. Koller presented a few cases where she had to use general mathematical problem solving skills to model and solve problems in risk analysis especially related to catastrophes.

Dr. Koller stressed the importance of gaining the actuarial certification to do well in the Insurance industry. However, she did not plan to get an official certification as she had picked up the required skills and an official certification required a further three to four years of intense study and examinations. She was of the view, that even if an insurance employee is not taking actuarial exams, it is worth refreshing the concepts and regularly consulting the training material.

It was really helpful for her to stay after the talk and answer various questions from final year PhDs concerning the job market. Some one asked if she was using her graph theory training in her job. Although, her PhD did not directly apply to her job, she maintained that it was the skills acquired during her PhD which were valuable. She was of the view, that it is these skills which should be emphasized in non-academic job applications. It was interesting to see that where as most PhD seeking a job in the city turn to investment banking, there are other industries with interesting challenges and rewarding careers.

Tags: ,
Posted in Career Advice, Problem Solving, Transferable Skills | 1 Comment »

Presentations and lectures

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

Gian-Carlo Rota was a well known mathematician of the twentieth century. He was also known for his innovative teaching style. Rota wrote an essay on the things he wished he had been taught. Although, the essay covers a lot of bases, I will briefly comment on Rota’s main advice on giving talks/lectures/presentations:

  1. Every lecture should make only one main point: One mistake which we all are prone to making is putting too many things in a single presentation.  A presentation is more effective if there is a single theme and the theme is explained gently and highlighted by examples. Rota, gives the analogy of the audience as a cow herd which needs to gently steered to the central point.
  2. Never run overtime: Rota really stresses this point. It is true that even if a presentation is great, it can be irritating for the audience if the speaker does not keep track of time. Interestingly, in a conference I attended, the program chair stressed the same point but ended up running over time in her own presentation. One could hear chuckles in the room.
  3. Relate to your audience: Rota also writes that making a connection with audience is helpful. It is certainly helpful in breaking the ice, easing the nerves and also making the presentation more personalized and conversational. The talk should be tailored according to the audience. Yeats once said, “Think like a wise man, but communicate in the language of the people”.
  4. Give them something to take home: This is one consistent habit, I have witnessed in all good speakers. Some speakers even emphasise to the listeners they might want to listen to a certain particular point as the take home message. The take home message also pleases the listener as one can remember something useful from an involved talk.

Tags: ,
Posted in Presentation | 1 Comment »

Rudeness in science

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

I was struck by a blog entry on how rudeness is inherent to being a scientist:

“I think that there is an entire extra level of rudeness that comes with being a scientist and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

Since most scientists I’ve met are approachable people, I was curious about what the thrust of the argument was. The central point was that scientists do and should ask tough questions at the end of talks and this is a part of fruitful scientific exchange. The writer had a valid point because open and frank discussion can be helpful in improving and challenging ideas. This is especially valid for countries where deference to seniority, experience, age is considered obligatory and proper manners.

I had a few thoughts on the entry. Firstly, I do agree with basic point of the entry and feel that one appreciates straight to the point and even blunt reviews. This is necessary for honest feedback and appraisal of work.

However, one can be honest and forthcoming without being antagonistic or rude. This is the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. Moreover, asking questions just to appear smarter defeats the purpose of fruitful scientific exchange.

In order to avoid disgruntled questions, I have noticed good noticed researcher going an extra mile to clarifying themselves. This may be by organizing their talks and papers better and also letting the audience interjecting during the talk.

Finally, a speaker who is humble and less prone to portraying his work as the next big discovery is also less likely to be asked rude questions.

Tags: ,
Posted in Academics, Research, Science | 2 Comments »