Preliminarily

I remember taking my preliminary exam quite vividly. It wasn’t all that long ago, first of all, but it does stand out as one of the hoops I dreaded jumping through in grad school. I recall reading through the handbook before starting courses first year, plan to leave with a Masters resting easily in my little head, and wondered who would put herself through such nonsense. An oral exam? For up to three hours? Not for me, I scoffed. A PhD is simply not worth such stress.

But, well, it happened somehow – I fell into research I found fascinating and turned down the very job which I’d hoped to obtain. So, after three years of courses, a bit of research, a fellowship application to the NIH, and a tremendous amount of journal reading, I was preparing to take my prelim.

“Relax.” Advised χ , then shook his head at my expression of exasperation. The very thought is ridiculous – I have a stressful event coming up? I’m stressed. I don’t remember completely flipping out, though I probably did. My worry over the qualifying exam years earlier was much more extreme though.

My plan was pretty simple. Rock the presentation – the slides were gorgeous, the background complete, the plan set out in color-coded timelines. I had even highlighted my service activities so that there was some excuse as to why I hadn’t done more research to that point.

The second part of the plan? Play it pathetic and sweet – eager for my knowledge, and ever so sad that I didn’t know all the answers. So if they asked a question I didn’t know, I’d create a discussion. I knew and liked the men on my committee – had selected them not only for knowledge, but for personality. So though I was shaky, their easy smiles and gentle demeanors soothed me.

Steve, the elder of the gentlemen, started things off. At Advisor’s nod, I began with some personal introductory remarks, then began going through my slides. I speak quickly when nervous – I think of my numerous interview talks, only the final 2 matched my estimated duration. So pacing is a bit of a problem, but I watch the audience closely enough (having memorized the material. Obviously.) that I can tell if I’m resembling a chipmunk on speed.

I finished the presentation, sighed in relief over the nods of approval and Advisor’s smile of pleasure. The audience was dismissed, and the questions began.

“Tell me how this is original and important.” Steve said, once again taking control from his seat at the head of the table. I smile when I think of him, even considering the defense debacle, because he took care of my prelim for me. “How it will prepare you for your next job. How it will benefit the field in general.”

My response? “Wow. Good question.” Luckily, the stress of making the actual presentation had worn me out, so I was able to calmly consider my answer, taking a moment to think, then offer something reasonably valid.

It went on – “Yes, I am aware of technique Q. Though method M is more simple from a technical standpoint, I also feel that with the proposed population, there is less room for error.”

And on – “It’s a rather circular question, actually. The system isn’t completely understood – at least to my knowledge – so I don’t believe it to be a cause/effect situation. While the two concepts are obviously related – and their relationship does at first seem counterintuitive – it’s not unusual to see increases in X and Y, though it would seem that X would provide Z which would depress Y. Experimental evidence – I’m thinking Smith, 2001, in Journal A and Jones, 1998 in Journal B, indicates the opposite case is true.

And on – “I see your point. It definitely seems to be a potential problem, but I honestly haven’t considered it before. Do you have thoughts?”

I realized, after only an hour of questions that were designed to generate discussion more than quiz me on knowledge – general or specific – that I was hiding behind a chair. We were in a long, dimly-lit conference room with this pretty gray table that had a marble-like finish. There were blue office chairs that would adjust and swivel. At a table that could seat 20, but only held 6 once I took a chair at the far end of the table, there were many seats separating me from those who held my academic future.

I happened to take one of these chairs and turned it to face them, then rested both hands on the back, fingers peeking over the top of the chair at them, then rested my chin between my hands. So all they could see was a face and fingertips. It wasn’t even bad! They weren’t at all aggressive, didn’t cover any general material – every question that I was expected to answer was specific and simple. They wanted me to do well. It was a good experience.

So as three men flipped through my prospectus again, looking for more questions, Advisor looked at Steve, and he said, “I’m satisfied now.” And with a look around to ensure nobody would resist, smiled and asked me to excuse them for a moment.

I returned to my cubicle, turning to see the group members congregate outside the door.

“Good. It went well.” I replied in response to their questions. “Except…I think I hid behind a chair for most of the questions.” Then I shrugged when they looked confused. I shared that feeling.

So when η wrote with news of her upcoming exam and a request that I read a draft of her prospectus document, I was rather flattered. Not surprised – I try to stay in touch and abreast of her progress – but pleased that she wanted my opinion.

My notes included the following*:

Diverse not "divers" in your meta-analysis second paragraph.

"information can be found in the literature." Just for my information, from what model is it based? How do people know what [things] connect in what order? Carrie's working on studies that actually follow [some thing] and defines the system based on what's actually happening rather than a theory. It might be worth asking her for a draft of that paper when it gets in press. I think they're still writing it at this point.

Are references recent? It's sometimes hard in reviews like this, but it looks like you have some recent work included. I know you’re pulling from a grant application, but try to know the most recent literature to some extent.

Would it help to use [different data acquisiton system]? Do you have a plan for assessing problems from the older system?

Any advantage to switching/upgrading your software?

OK - the introduction/significance is obviously important. Steve's first question to me was regarding why my work was novel and how it would contribute to the field. I stumbled there, so just be ready to emphasize why you chose this topic and how it will be important overall. Then consider how it's important to you - how it trains you, what you're learning, what you hope to gain.

A timeline is helpful not only for the committee but for your own benefit as you try to figure out what you want to have done by when. So you'll know for sure when you want to have data acquisition completed. When you're evaluating new software. You can even include lists of abstracts/papers you plan to submit at specific times and look all kinds of cool and impressive. It might even be good to keep a list of labs in which you'd like to work - impressive papers, good conference presentations. All pieces of information to keep you on track as you move toward the end.

Now for my worst stuff, and please keep in mind that I struggle mightily with these issues myself so I'm trying to save you a lot of time and energy in the future trying to figure out why papers aren't getting accepted.

So - either in the methods or just in your mind - consider how you'll prove/disprove your hypotheses, hopefully in a statistically significant way so you can publish this stuff.

I'd number you specific aims so you can refer to them in the body of the document - or later in your thesis.

SA1. [Specific questions I’m too tired to reword for generality] It's an interesting hypothesis but I don't see how you can make a definitive statement on it at the end of your study. Think carefully here.

SA2. How do you define "strong"? Above a certain numerical value? Can you test for significant differences in these values between groups? (Seems that you could. Some 2 sample nonparametric stat, perhaps?) If you set this plan and rationale out in the prelim, you might get some feedback from your committee as to whether they'd buy that test or not. Then you'll know if you have more work to do.

SA3. So my understanding here is that you'll have 2 sets of values that you're going to compare. If you find connections using Method1, can you use them to alter your Method2 model? Then you're looking again at some stat test for differences?

The background is well done - I think you've done a beautiful job with that. I followed it pretty well, I think, and it should be easy to expand into the appropriate sections of your thesis. Yay for that.

The methods will be of particular interest. I assume your committee will want to know - especially after my thesis struggle - how you're going to do this stuff, if you have the tools you need, if you can finish in time, when you're going to publish, etc.

Oh! Why don't you add [unrelated method] to check [slightly correlative fact]? That seems like a big deal to many people at conferences, yes? It'd be a nice addition to the study, I think.

Congratulations on the document this far! Feel free to roll your eyes at me and disregard any of this - I just wanted to give you my thoughts as they came to me. :)

My advice overall? Be as confident and relaxed as possible - they want what's best for you, and that might be comforting. Give a good presentation - it'll give you time to relax into material you know well and boost confidence for doing so well with it. Then take questions as they come - try not to get defensive or upset. Answer what you know and ask follow-up questions for those topics that confuse you. Take notes - the stress then the euphoric relief might erase parts of this from your memory. After all, my most vivid recollection is hiding behind a chair.

* I'm documenting this, though I realize it might be boring, because it was a good professional feeling. That I could analyze her document and offer feedback. I'd be comfortable sitting on her committee, actually. And on days where I feel like I've regressed here in the postdoc, it's important to remember the moments of clarity and understanding.

Plus, I rather like the boring turn we've taken here in the last few days. It's a nice change, I think.