This talk was used during the make-up week because I wasn't able to attend class the week before. My Plan B situation was dealing with a disruptive audience.
I realized from the clip that my very first response to this was just simply brushing it off by pausing and saying "oh...okay." I thought I should have actually been more assertive from the very beginning with the first disruption to tell the audience that this was my time to shine. This was the first time ever for me in handling a situation like this, so I was overwhelmed when most people didn't have their attention on me (seeing people talk with one another, laptops open, people throwing paper planes, etc.) I can understand why professors can get annoyed with students being on their laptops during lectures, especially in a smaller class environment.
The hook that grabbed the audience's attention was solid. I was actually surprised in getting two responses of the polar extreme. Although I kept my composure throughout the presentation, I did get somewhat flustered. This had me struggle at times here and there and prevented a smooth continuity as I would have liked.
Another aside to note is that the clicker did not work that day. It had me closer to the podium to change between slides. To some extent, if the clicker were present, my presentation would probably have seemed worse because of my dependency on the notecards. However, it would have had me away from the podium and closer to the audience. By getting closer to the audience, I could have immediately made my presence known that I wouldn't tolerate disruptive behavior.
Now I want to mention some things to note on the presentation itself. I had a clear and strong voice. I thought the amount of "ums" were less than the usual. Towards the end, I seemed to get too comfortable behind the podium. Again, not having the clicker might have had something to do with this, but I should have been presenting in the center more. This was after a mini-TED talk, in which the speakers usually are "out there" walking back and forth and more engaging. I don't think I did a good time connecting with the audience other than using the hook and telling them to keep it down.
It's a shame I was unable to attend the actual class when the TED talks were first presented. This could have been something I would have liked to re-do. Nonetheless, it was definitely an enlightening experience in dealing with a new and unexpected situation.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Speaker Critique: Prince Zeid
On May 3, 2011, former alumni Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan and Professor Steven David exchanged in a political and interesting conversation about the Middle East. Topics ranged from Osama bin Laden's death to the current liberal outbreaks in the Middle East countries to what the future holds for these nations.
This was interesting because it wasn't a normal stand-up and deliver talk. Mr. Zeid and Professor David, his former professor, sat down and discussed the topics face to face. Professor David prepared the questions but for the most part, the conversation kept moving from whatever topic they would be into. It started off with the topic of bin Laden's death. Prince Zeid offered an interesting view on his death. To quote: "Was killing him the optimal way in taking down Al Qaeda?" He believed it would have been optimal for the United States to have capture him and extract the plans and operations directly from bin Laden. However, he didn't downplay the killing of bin Laden, saying that this brought great emotional satisfaction to those affected in the world. He also brings up that despite the fact he was buried at sea, the Arab world does not have the same kind of attachment. By this he means there aren't memorials and actual gravesites of where famous figures have been buried.
Before proceeding in describing the contents of the talk, I want to review the manner in which Prince Zeid handled the conversation. He had a good sense of humor often cracking jokes about himself and with a former classmate in the audience. One example was when he responded to a question by first saying "We're off the record, right?" In addition, he was always looking towards many different spots of the audience. He was very animated with hand gestures to emphasize his points. His voice was loud and clear and his tone reminded of Hans Gruber from "Die Hard."
Levity aside, he had a calm yet confident demeanor in responding to Prof. David's questions. One thing to mention was how he would respond during Prof. David's remarks. Whenever Prof. David would make a point, Prince Zeid would say "That's right." He actually said this numerous times so that at a point I couldn't really focus on what the content was. I guess it's the equivalent of me nodding my head when someone gives me lots of arguments. However, this did not take away from his overall performance. I found the talk very engaging and intriguing.
Prince Zeid believed the issue in the Middle East comes from a broken educational system. Some eye-popping comments made included "Do Arabs and Jews deserve peace? Should 'we' earn it?" In addition, he reminded us how it was not natural for Arabs and Jews to hate each other.
One of his sticky ideas was the following: "We have a problem with how we look at current events." He believes the way that news wires report news today are flawed. He makes the observation that as a country, we are not good at anticipating events. There are lots of unknowns.
During the Q&A session, his demeanor remained the same. However, for some questions it didn't seem like he answered what the person had asked. Nonetheless, his responses were lengthy and he gave great detail. The most interesting question I found was when Prof. David asked Prince Zeid to describe his years at Hopkins. Humorous as usual, he started off the response by stating that there were "vast amounts of consumption of non-alcoholic beverages" to which the audience erupted with laughter. In addition, he mentioned how after he graduated from Hopkins that not everyone in the world is as brilliant as his classmates were. To quote him, "I can overestimate my own intelligence." On an unrelated note to the talk, that response made me realize how gifted and privileged I was to attend such a prestigious and respectable institution.
I want to conclude by saying this conversation inspired some degree of interest in me about international studies. It made me understand why many of my friends have majored in this area; I'm a chemistry major and not really up to date on my current events. However, the conversation was not too complex, which was a testament to how brilliantly Prince Zeid and Professor David conducted their conversation.
This was interesting because it wasn't a normal stand-up and deliver talk. Mr. Zeid and Professor David, his former professor, sat down and discussed the topics face to face. Professor David prepared the questions but for the most part, the conversation kept moving from whatever topic they would be into. It started off with the topic of bin Laden's death. Prince Zeid offered an interesting view on his death. To quote: "Was killing him the optimal way in taking down Al Qaeda?" He believed it would have been optimal for the United States to have capture him and extract the plans and operations directly from bin Laden. However, he didn't downplay the killing of bin Laden, saying that this brought great emotional satisfaction to those affected in the world. He also brings up that despite the fact he was buried at sea, the Arab world does not have the same kind of attachment. By this he means there aren't memorials and actual gravesites of where famous figures have been buried.
Before proceeding in describing the contents of the talk, I want to review the manner in which Prince Zeid handled the conversation. He had a good sense of humor often cracking jokes about himself and with a former classmate in the audience. One example was when he responded to a question by first saying "We're off the record, right?" In addition, he was always looking towards many different spots of the audience. He was very animated with hand gestures to emphasize his points. His voice was loud and clear and his tone reminded of Hans Gruber from "Die Hard."
Levity aside, he had a calm yet confident demeanor in responding to Prof. David's questions. One thing to mention was how he would respond during Prof. David's remarks. Whenever Prof. David would make a point, Prince Zeid would say "That's right." He actually said this numerous times so that at a point I couldn't really focus on what the content was. I guess it's the equivalent of me nodding my head when someone gives me lots of arguments. However, this did not take away from his overall performance. I found the talk very engaging and intriguing.
Prince Zeid believed the issue in the Middle East comes from a broken educational system. Some eye-popping comments made included "Do Arabs and Jews deserve peace? Should 'we' earn it?" In addition, he reminded us how it was not natural for Arabs and Jews to hate each other.
One of his sticky ideas was the following: "We have a problem with how we look at current events." He believes the way that news wires report news today are flawed. He makes the observation that as a country, we are not good at anticipating events. There are lots of unknowns.
During the Q&A session, his demeanor remained the same. However, for some questions it didn't seem like he answered what the person had asked. Nonetheless, his responses were lengthy and he gave great detail. The most interesting question I found was when Prof. David asked Prince Zeid to describe his years at Hopkins. Humorous as usual, he started off the response by stating that there were "vast amounts of consumption of non-alcoholic beverages" to which the audience erupted with laughter. In addition, he mentioned how after he graduated from Hopkins that not everyone in the world is as brilliant as his classmates were. To quote him, "I can overestimate my own intelligence." On an unrelated note to the talk, that response made me realize how gifted and privileged I was to attend such a prestigious and respectable institution.
I want to conclude by saying this conversation inspired some degree of interest in me about international studies. It made me understand why many of my friends have majored in this area; I'm a chemistry major and not really up to date on my current events. However, the conversation was not too complex, which was a testament to how brilliantly Prince Zeid and Professor David conducted their conversation.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Speaker Critique: Wendy R. Sherman
Ambassador Sherman came to Hopkins on April 28, 2011 to discuss current global, political issues and approaches to handling them. She addressed uncertainty in the future especially regarding the economy. However, before mentioning what she talked about I want to critique Ms. Sherman as a speaker. She stood behind a podium and most read off a prepared speech. In the introduction, she did respond back to the introductory speaker who read off her accomplishments. Even though she read off most of her speech, it almost always seemed that she was looking up. Her eye contact with the audience was extraordinary and showed that she was connected with the audience.
Her tone was very assertive and strong. She held a stern and confident demeanor when she spoke even though she did not appear that way. It was important to note that she did incorporate some elements of humor in her speech to lighten up her talk.
She did have a couple of sticky ideas. The first one was stating a motto that Hopkins was built around, which was "excellence and knowledge to the world." She believed this quote served as the engine for social and political progress. The second was the familiar phrase, "with power comes responsibility." She used the first one when describes ways to address the uncertainty in the future. Ms. Sherman approached this by stating five topics that deserved a better look.
Her first idea was that education is key and that teachers needed to be supported. Instead of blaming and vilifying the teachers for failures, she believed that they should be commended for what they're doing. I remember her calling out the politicians who chastise teachers by mentioning how difficult it must be for a teacher to deal with non-attentive children. Moreover, the second topic revolved around job training. Her third was about prioritizing budgets. The fourth topic centered on energy policy, particularly reducing consumption of oil and fossil fuels. She mentioned how dependent we have become as a nation on fossil fuels and wondered when we would break out of this comfort zone before it was too late. Her fifth topic was about immigration policy.
Ambassador Sherman then went to discuss how important it was for the United States to strengthen their relationship with China. There were lots of shared interests between the two nations. To quote her: "China and the United States are neighbors - not enemies, not competitors. It was here she mentioned her second sticky idea of "great power comes responsibility." It was up to the United States to maintain a strong bond with China since China was a growing nation and most of their exports came to the United States.
The closing remarks of the talk was about giving back to the community or country. She emphasized once more the importance of delivering "excellence and knowledge to the world." It was important for us Hopkins students to take advantage of the many opportunities here and to ultimately serve our community in the end.
I also want to mention how Ambassador Sherman handled the brief Q&A session afterwards. Unlike most people who tended to diverge away from the actual question being asked, she gave comprehensive answers by supporting them with personal example. She also gave a few humorous anecdotes about her experiences in the field.
Overall, I'm going to say that she knows how to effectively connect with the audience despite reading off a prepared speech. Her talk was well-organized and constructed around the two sticky ideas. I liked how she closed the speech by assigning responsibility on us, the audience to go out there and do our best to make a difference in giving back to the community.
Her tone was very assertive and strong. She held a stern and confident demeanor when she spoke even though she did not appear that way. It was important to note that she did incorporate some elements of humor in her speech to lighten up her talk.
She did have a couple of sticky ideas. The first one was stating a motto that Hopkins was built around, which was "excellence and knowledge to the world." She believed this quote served as the engine for social and political progress. The second was the familiar phrase, "with power comes responsibility." She used the first one when describes ways to address the uncertainty in the future. Ms. Sherman approached this by stating five topics that deserved a better look.
Her first idea was that education is key and that teachers needed to be supported. Instead of blaming and vilifying the teachers for failures, she believed that they should be commended for what they're doing. I remember her calling out the politicians who chastise teachers by mentioning how difficult it must be for a teacher to deal with non-attentive children. Moreover, the second topic revolved around job training. Her third was about prioritizing budgets. The fourth topic centered on energy policy, particularly reducing consumption of oil and fossil fuels. She mentioned how dependent we have become as a nation on fossil fuels and wondered when we would break out of this comfort zone before it was too late. Her fifth topic was about immigration policy.
Ambassador Sherman then went to discuss how important it was for the United States to strengthen their relationship with China. There were lots of shared interests between the two nations. To quote her: "China and the United States are neighbors - not enemies, not competitors. It was here she mentioned her second sticky idea of "great power comes responsibility." It was up to the United States to maintain a strong bond with China since China was a growing nation and most of their exports came to the United States.
The closing remarks of the talk was about giving back to the community or country. She emphasized once more the importance of delivering "excellence and knowledge to the world." It was important for us Hopkins students to take advantage of the many opportunities here and to ultimately serve our community in the end.
I also want to mention how Ambassador Sherman handled the brief Q&A session afterwards. Unlike most people who tended to diverge away from the actual question being asked, she gave comprehensive answers by supporting them with personal example. She also gave a few humorous anecdotes about her experiences in the field.
Overall, I'm going to say that she knows how to effectively connect with the audience despite reading off a prepared speech. Her talk was well-organized and constructed around the two sticky ideas. I liked how she closed the speech by assigning responsibility on us, the audience to go out there and do our best to make a difference in giving back to the community.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The Interview
The very first thing that absolutely needs to be addressed is this habit of mine (not sure if it's negative, but it's definitely not positive) to repeat to myself aloud the question that was just asked to me. For example: "what would you do with the scholarship?" "what would I do with the scholarship? hmm, let's see..." I realized this tic of mine immediately after I finished the interview. I'm surprised no one brought it up in the feedback.
Another tic of mine is to end my responses with a tentative "and yeah..." This makes me look not confident in my answers and as a person in general. I should work on this to prevent it for future interviews.
I noticed that we have this tendency to be very general and vague with our responses. We answer the questions in a general light to give the interviewer a broad spectrum. However, for the future I need to make to embellish my responses by giving at least one very specific example.
I thought my handshakes in the beginning and the end were good. My posture was upright and proper. Mark did make a comment saying that I needed to make eye contact with the committee as a whole instead of looking at just the person who had asked me the question. The eye contact issue again. I had thought I looked around the committee multiple times at different people, but it wasn't enough. The usual "um"s and "likes" came up. This issue just revolves around confidence. I feel confident in my responses, but perhaps I do not feel confident being present in front of an audience. This needs to be fixed for my speech next week with the TED talk in plan b mode.
Another tic of mine is to end my responses with a tentative "and yeah..." This makes me look not confident in my answers and as a person in general. I should work on this to prevent it for future interviews.
I noticed that we have this tendency to be very general and vague with our responses. We answer the questions in a general light to give the interviewer a broad spectrum. However, for the future I need to make to embellish my responses by giving at least one very specific example.
I thought my handshakes in the beginning and the end were good. My posture was upright and proper. Mark did make a comment saying that I needed to make eye contact with the committee as a whole instead of looking at just the person who had asked me the question. The eye contact issue again. I had thought I looked around the committee multiple times at different people, but it wasn't enough. The usual "um"s and "likes" came up. This issue just revolves around confidence. I feel confident in my responses, but perhaps I do not feel confident being present in front of an audience. This needs to be fixed for my speech next week with the TED talk in plan b mode.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Extemp/Impromptu Speeches
Unfortunately the video feed was not working properly and I am unable to see myself on the screen. However, I can discuss my performance based on the audio feed.
My first speech was on the topic of "obesity." I approached this by outlining steps we can take to prevent future cases of obesity. My main message of the speech was that we needed to fix this issue and reduce cases of obesity. However, I did not explicitly state the previous sentence. I kind of jumped right into the things we can do to fight against obesity. The organization in my speech was pretty good since I gave three examples. An additional thing I could have incorporated to utilize more time was to give a personal example in dealing with obesity or with knowing someone who dealt with obesity. Now, at that time I could not think of such persona examples, but one example I should have mentioned was the case of my younger brother. When we were young, we would indulge a lot in fast food and other kinds of junk/frozen food. I didn't become overweight, but I would say my younger brother became overweight, not obese. He eventually lost all this extra weight by participating heavily in sports and various kinds of physical activity such as swimming, lacrosse, and football. That was definitely one personal example I could have mentioned.
An interesting thing to note is that I heard in the audio feed besides the "um"s and "likes" was the occasional throat-clearing. I did not realize that I have this horrible habit of clearing my throat often whenever I got caught up. Now, I'm not sure if I did this in the past but I caught on to this probably because I'm only focusing on the audio part of the presentation. Lauren also brought this up. I also said "I guess" a couple of times, which Haris brought up, and ended the speech with "Yeah, thank you very much." A very poor and abrupt ending. This was definitely something not to do.
My second speech had such an awful start. Way too many "um"s before I was able to bring out the main point. I need to super confident in the beginning to draw my audience in and focus on me. Midway or a little before then, the audio in the feed got cut off. From the video, I saw that I made eye contact a few times but not enough. It's strange because I feel like I make more than enough eye contact during my presentation when in fact I give very little. I should stay away from the paper and focus more on conversing with my audience. What frustrates me the most throughout is that I haven't made much progress in terms of fixing my issues of "um"s and "likes". I do realize that I got rid of saying "pretty much" which was very prevalent in my first two speeches. I still remain very nervous in front of everyone despite enough practice (although not applicable in this kind of speech). I'm not sure if I can ever fix this issue 100%.
My first speech was on the topic of "obesity." I approached this by outlining steps we can take to prevent future cases of obesity. My main message of the speech was that we needed to fix this issue and reduce cases of obesity. However, I did not explicitly state the previous sentence. I kind of jumped right into the things we can do to fight against obesity. The organization in my speech was pretty good since I gave three examples. An additional thing I could have incorporated to utilize more time was to give a personal example in dealing with obesity or with knowing someone who dealt with obesity. Now, at that time I could not think of such persona examples, but one example I should have mentioned was the case of my younger brother. When we were young, we would indulge a lot in fast food and other kinds of junk/frozen food. I didn't become overweight, but I would say my younger brother became overweight, not obese. He eventually lost all this extra weight by participating heavily in sports and various kinds of physical activity such as swimming, lacrosse, and football. That was definitely one personal example I could have mentioned.
An interesting thing to note is that I heard in the audio feed besides the "um"s and "likes" was the occasional throat-clearing. I did not realize that I have this horrible habit of clearing my throat often whenever I got caught up. Now, I'm not sure if I did this in the past but I caught on to this probably because I'm only focusing on the audio part of the presentation. Lauren also brought this up. I also said "I guess" a couple of times, which Haris brought up, and ended the speech with "Yeah, thank you very much." A very poor and abrupt ending. This was definitely something not to do.
My second speech had such an awful start. Way too many "um"s before I was able to bring out the main point. I need to super confident in the beginning to draw my audience in and focus on me. Midway or a little before then, the audio in the feed got cut off. From the video, I saw that I made eye contact a few times but not enough. It's strange because I feel like I make more than enough eye contact during my presentation when in fact I give very little. I should stay away from the paper and focus more on conversing with my audience. What frustrates me the most throughout is that I haven't made much progress in terms of fixing my issues of "um"s and "likes". I do realize that I got rid of saying "pretty much" which was very prevalent in my first two speeches. I still remain very nervous in front of everyone despite enough practice (although not applicable in this kind of speech). I'm not sure if I can ever fix this issue 100%.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Extemp/Impromptu Speeches (practice)
Extemp/Impromptu speeches are tough. You have very little planning time and have to deliver your main message immediately. After the main message, you want to have a couple of supporting details and examples to elaborate on and use the time. I think the most important things to do in such a situation are to use up your allotted time and to make sure you repeat your main points.
My introduction/hook was good since almost everyone could relate to it. Perhaps I could have kept going with the questions to use up more time since I fell a bit short in the end. I also wanted to stress that it was impractical to completely resolve illegal downloading because nearly everyone has done it. I thought I did a good job at mentioning a few approaches that can be done and some that already have been done like my YouTube example with the VideoID.
Maybe because it was an on-the-fly speech the "um"s and "like"s could be excused to a certain extent. I recall being stuck around 3 minutes into the speech. I tried my best to reiterate my main points to fill up the time but I ran out of examples. I think my problems with falling short on time comes with not going into as much detail as I can on each example. For example, in the VideoID situation I didn't mention in the speech how I had received multiple warnings from YouTube to stop uploading content that wasn't 100% mine. I could have elaborated on how I had put a disclaimer saying that the purposes in sharing the video were for entertainment purposes, yet my account still got shut down. From this I could have brought up how harsh the consequences were in uploading such content. Even though I had my disclaimer, it wasn't enough.
On my second speech I wasn't too sure about the prompt. I didn't realize I was supposed to give specific personal examples on why prospective students should choose Hopkins. I am a member of the Hosting Society so I gave other examples to "sell" the school. It was natural for me to describe why Hopkins was the right choice. However, if I had known better, I would have given more examples of personal experience.
My introduction/hook was good since almost everyone could relate to it. Perhaps I could have kept going with the questions to use up more time since I fell a bit short in the end. I also wanted to stress that it was impractical to completely resolve illegal downloading because nearly everyone has done it. I thought I did a good job at mentioning a few approaches that can be done and some that already have been done like my YouTube example with the VideoID.
Maybe because it was an on-the-fly speech the "um"s and "like"s could be excused to a certain extent. I recall being stuck around 3 minutes into the speech. I tried my best to reiterate my main points to fill up the time but I ran out of examples. I think my problems with falling short on time comes with not going into as much detail as I can on each example. For example, in the VideoID situation I didn't mention in the speech how I had received multiple warnings from YouTube to stop uploading content that wasn't 100% mine. I could have elaborated on how I had put a disclaimer saying that the purposes in sharing the video were for entertainment purposes, yet my account still got shut down. From this I could have brought up how harsh the consequences were in uploading such content. Even though I had my disclaimer, it wasn't enough.
On my second speech I wasn't too sure about the prompt. I didn't realize I was supposed to give specific personal examples on why prospective students should choose Hopkins. I am a member of the Hosting Society so I gave other examples to "sell" the school. It was natural for me to describe why Hopkins was the right choice. However, if I had known better, I would have given more examples of personal experience.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Group Discussion
First thing to note here was that I did not contribute as much as I would have liked to in this discussion. Therefore, not much can be said regarding feedback of my performance from this group discussion.
Our group unfortunately did not have the mic set up properly or at all during our discussion. I was not able hear my group and myself in the video, but I do recall my performance that week. Honestly, had it not been for my other two members I probably would not have done so well. I remember saying only two things (first in the introduction and second somewhere in the middle of the discussion). I felt like the "third wheel" just standing there awkwardly when really, I knew the material pretty well. I just was not able to speak in the times that I needed to. I think my biggest fear or problem was deciding when to butt in or speak during the discussion. The issue here was confidence. A side note to mention is that I can improve my posture during the discussion. I had my left arm holding my right arm/elbow for most of the duration of this discussion. Maybe I could have alternated poses here and there, but I probably had this posture during the presentation since I did not speak much. This was my worst performance to date.
Our group unfortunately did not have the mic set up properly or at all during our discussion. I was not able hear my group and myself in the video, but I do recall my performance that week. Honestly, had it not been for my other two members I probably would not have done so well. I remember saying only two things (first in the introduction and second somewhere in the middle of the discussion). I felt like the "third wheel" just standing there awkwardly when really, I knew the material pretty well. I just was not able to speak in the times that I needed to. I think my biggest fear or problem was deciding when to butt in or speak during the discussion. The issue here was confidence. A side note to mention is that I can improve my posture during the discussion. I had my left arm holding my right arm/elbow for most of the duration of this discussion. Maybe I could have alternated poses here and there, but I probably had this posture during the presentation since I did not speak much. This was my worst performance to date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)