Presentation Advice (10%)
This advice is for the in-class presentation in Week 12. You have 10 minutes, followed by one panel question. You may use the whiteboard and paper notes. No slides, handouts, or devices.
The talk is marked on four criteria, each worth 2.5%. Each criterion is scored in one of four bands:
- A range — 80–100% of the criterion mark.
- B range — 65–79%.
- C range — 50–64% (the pass band).
- D / E — below 50% (fail).
These bands map to Victoria Uni's grade letters. For the full schedule, see the VUW grades and grade point average page.
The four criteria are marked separately. A talk can be strong on causal reasoning and still need work on answering the "so what" question.
What we look for
A good presentation leaves the audience clear on three things:
- What causal question did you ask?
- How would you answer it?
- Why would the answer matter?
That is your job.
Rubric
1. Clarity and structure (2.5%)
Can we follow the talk? This criterion covers pacing, whiteboard work, and signposting.
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| A range | Opens with a plain one-sentence motivation. The whiteboard is tidy, legible, and useful. The talk fits the 10-minute slot with a little room to breathe. Each part follows naturally from the last. |
| B range | The structure is clear enough to follow. The whiteboard helps, though it has some clutter or unclear notation. Pacing slips a little, usually by rushing the end. |
| C range | The audience can mostly follow, but has to do some of the organising. The whiteboard is hard to read or not used enough. Timing causes important parts to be skipped or crammed. |
| D / E | The talk is hard to follow. The whiteboard is a wall of text, or almost empty. The speaker runs out of time before reaching the answer. |
2. Causal reasoning (2.5%)
Does the talk get the causal logic right? This is the course-specific part of the mark.
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| A range | States the causal question clearly: target population, exposure contrast, and outcome(s). Names the causal estimand, such as the average treatment effect, and keeps it separate from the statistical estimate. Uses the directed acyclic graph (DAG) to justify the adjustment set. Names and defends consistency, positivity, and conditional exchangeability. |
| B range | The question, exposure, and outcome are clear. The DAG is present and mostly right. Identification assumptions are mentioned, though one is a bit thin or vague. The estimand is stated but sometimes blurred with the estimate. |
| C range | The causal question is implied rather than stated. The DAG is there, but misses important arrows or confounders. Causal language slips, for example using "predicts" when the claim is causal. |
| D / E | The causal question is treated as if it were just a statistical model. The DAG is missing or wrong. Causal language is loose throughout. |
3. So what — including subgroup and ethics (2.5%)
Why should anyone outside the room care? This is the bit students most often leave too late. Because this course studies differences across people and groups, your "so what" should name the subgroup with the strongest estimated treatment effect (from your policy tree) and one practical or ethical issue that would matter before anyone acted on the result.
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| A range | Names the population, the size of effect that would matter in practice, who might act on the result, and the assumption that would change the conclusion if it failed. Describes the strongest-response subgroup in plain language. Names one issue such as fairness, proxy variables, consent, cost, or who gets to decide. |
| B range | Names a plausible audience and decision. Mentions the size of the effect, but does not anchor it well. Names the strongest-response subgroup. The practical or ethical issue is present, but needs more detail. |
| C range | Says the result is important without saying who would use it. Subgroup or ethics is tacked on at the end. The "so what" is generic, for example "this matters for wellbeing". |
| D / E | The "so what" is missing, or just says the topic is interesting. No subgroup content and no practical or ethical issue. |
4. Response to the panel question (2.5%)
How well does the speaker handle one question after the talk? You may ask one brief clarifying question before answering. This is not a trap; it is a chance to show you understand your own argument.
| Band | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| A range | Listens to the question, checks understanding briefly, and answers directly. If the answer is uncertain, says so and names what evidence would help. The response deals with the question rather than replaying the talk. |
| B range | Answers the question asked. Some prepared material comes back in, but the answer still lands. Acknowledges uncertainty where needed. |
| C range | Partly answers, then drifts into nearby prepared material. Uncertainty is hidden or talked around. |
| D / E | Does not really answer the question. Repeats earlier material or answers a different question. |
A worked "so what" answer
For a talk on religious_service → outcome-wide wellbeing:
"If our estimate is right, encouraging weekly attendance among adults who currently attend less often would lift four wellbeing outcomes by roughly a tenth of a standard deviation each. For a public-health body deciding whether to fund community programmes that lower the cost of regular religious participation, that magnitude is in the range that has justified investment in similar programmes elsewhere. The recommendation depends on conditional exchangeability after adjusting for thirteen baseline covariates plus baseline outcomes; if a strong unmeasured confounder remained — say, a stable disposition we have not measured — the result could be reversed for some outcomes. The E-values say a confounder would need to be associated with both attendance and the outcomes by a risk ratio of at least 1.6 to do that."
This answer names the population (adults who currently attend less often), the magnitude (a tenth of a standard deviation, four outcomes), the decision-maker (a public-health body), the decision (whether to fund community programmes), and the assumption that would change the answer (conditional exchangeability, with an E-value benchmark).
Common pitfalls
- Spending the first three minutes on background and never reaching the estimand.
- Drawing the DAG without naming the adjustment set it implies.
- Reporting only standardised effects, with no sense of whether the effect is big enough to matter.
- Reading from notes word for word. Notes are allowed; karaoke is not the goal.
- Treating the panel question as a personal attack. It is just part of the assessment.
Practical checklist
Preparation
- Rehearse the opening sentence until it is short and clear.
- Plan the whiteboard layout in advance (left third for the DAG, centre for the estimand, right for the result).
- Time yourself: aim for eight minutes, leaving two for breathing room.
- Anticipate one likely panel question and prepare a one-sentence answer.
- Re-read the Reporting Guide for terminology consistent with the course.