The Three Minute Thesis Experience- Is it worth it?

The call for people to enter Reading University’s Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition is currently being sent round so I thought now would be a good time to reflect on my experiences of this event two years ago.

For those of you who don’t know, 3MT competitions happen worldwide and PhD students get 3 minutes and 1 slide to explain their research to a general audience. This is surprisingly quite tough; to say what you do and explain why people should care in that timeframe is tricky.

I found preparing the talk and practicing it a really useful experience. Not only does it focus your mind on why you’re doing your PhD, something it’s very easy to lose sight of once you get buried in data and coding, but it also helps with thinking about how to explain your work to friends and family who often do want to know what you do but worry they won’t understand. Through doing it you realise that, although you probably know to avoid jargon in general, words like ‘model’, which seem to have such an obvious meaning to you actually have a very different meaning to the bulk of the population! It also means that when you get asked to give your ‘elevator pitch’ of your PhD, be it in a job interview, at the pub or in an actual elevator, you’re more than ready.

I was lucky enough to be the runner up at the Reading competition which was a great piece of recognition and also meant that I got to represent my university at the national 3MT semis in York. The Reading competition was really nice and friendly, I got loads of feedback and enjoyed the whole thing a lot. And there was free wine after.


Giving my talk- just about remembering which way was up after the previous week at Glastonbury…


The Reading finals audience

However, at the semi-finals I started to be less keen on the competition. Many of the audience felt that the judges picked some finalists on how much they liked the project rather than presentation skills, which surely is only part of the point. For me it was clear that what the Reading judges wanted was different from what the York ones did, which was a shame but that that point I was starting to get a bit disillusioned/ questioning how much time I’d traveled as a ratio to speaking time. I think by that stage you’ve done the talk so many times that it stops being an exciting communication opportunity and starts being an attempt to follow a set of predefined rules that you think you know from the style of past talks, but can also change depending on who’s judging you… and it seems a lot of effort to put in for such a short talk!

I also do wonder how good it is to compare PhD projects. They’re all so different and go at different speeds. Although most of us can always get better at communicating and being made to do it so concisely is definitely a good exercise.

So in short, I’d say do it, just don’t do too well…

To get an idea of the style of talk here’s my rehearsal for York filmed at the Reading graduate school, ignore the faffing at the start!


What is a conference? Part 1- a small meeting- International Glaciological Society Iceland Symposium

This June I had the chance to attend my first international conference. It was a little daunting being as I’d only been to UK conferences before and had never spoken outside of my home Universities but the chance to visit somewhere so stunning definitely helped to mitigate that.

The journey there was an adventure itself- fill a tiny plane with glaciologists and fly them over an ice cap and you are bound to get some pretty excited people.

The conference itself was a really good size- there were 120 delegates which means that it is very easy to get talking to people. The day consisted of talks and poster session. Talks are as you would expect, a speak has about 12 minutes to give a presentation on their work and then the audience can ask questions. Poster sessions are usually in another room where people can wander and chat more informally with those presenting their work as a poster. These are often at the end of the day and over drinks.

Being a small meeting the talks were quite specifically in the area of ice shelves, ice sheets and glaciers which was good as I felt I understood a lot and also picked up things from people that are lucky enough to actually go to these places or use satellite data to learn about them.

My talk thankfully seemed to be really well received which was a big relief and has definitely helped with the thesis writing motivation. This was slightly bad timing being as I was about to start 3 months away from Reading on my Government Office of Science internship but it’s definitely made me keen to get back to the science and given me extra confindence that this a career that I can do.

A highlight of the week was the mid week excursion to the Hoffellsjokull glacier. Finally, after 2 and a bit years of PhD, some actual ice! I was clearly not the only theoretician that was overly excited by this as one was heard to exclaim, seeing the chaotic crevassing  in the ice “and we’re supposed to model this?!” We were greeted at the end of the hike with Brennevin (an Exeter Uni musician staple, no-one could understand why I was quite so averse to it), horse meat and pineapple. When in Iceland…

The conference was great for making contacts, I got to see some old Karthaus friends, and make new early career buddies as well as meet a lot of interesting and important people from withing glaciology. I have hopefully got a chance to collaborate with others outside of Reading and have since been invited to give a talk by one of the other attendees. Sadly it was all over too quickly, but even the journey home from the conference was picturesque with the bus stopping at least every half an hour to view lakes and waterfalls. Iceland, I’ll be back.