Agreed. If you check back to the post you commented on recently on my blog re: my class slide presentations, I’ve uploaded a screen grab from one of my students that illustrates (even in the hands of a ten year old) that less is more. I told the class that five slides of content would be enough – it is interesting that the kids who stuck to the text light, image heavy format had the best presentations. The kids who went on and on and on without any restrictions on the scope of their content lost their audience easily. The audience found it much easier to recall important points from the shorter, succinct presentations rather than the “cover it all” presentations where the important stuff got lost in a sea of trivia.
Once again, agreed. Probably should apply to some of my blog posts as well. Maybe that’s why memes are so popular!

Hi Dan,

I actually don’t have a problem with the 4-slide limitation at all. I think that, if done well, that can be a wonderful constraint that fosters creativity.

It’s the intention to take a digital, multimedia medium and REDUCE IT TO PAPER that bothers me. It smacks of digital refugeeism:

http://tinyurl.com/2xp4vz

and echoes the themes and concerns embodied in this video:

http://tinyurl.com/2rcec3

If UC is going to reduce student submissions to paper, why ask them for electronic presentation slides in the first place? UC could just print four boxes on a piece of paper for applicants and say “fill them” (through drawings, cut-out pieces of paper, paint, etc.). It’s the “Sure, use an electronic medium but only in a paper-focused way” mentality that seems sort of silly to me.

Thanks for continuing the conversation!

Dan, I think you and I are on the same page in that neither of us is encouraging stupid use of multimedia (and it’s arguable whether PowerPoint transitions and sound effects and other such nonsense are even ‘multimedia;’ I guess technically they are). I’m just having a hard time believing that a good short video or audio clip might not at least sometimes be more impactful than static images. Goodness knows that folks are finding a lot of power and meaning with the multimedia Web as opposed to just a print paradigm. UC is trying to take one paradigm and constrain it into another, and I don’t think it’s appropriate.

I don’t know what the proper analogy is here. Is it like giving someone a Ferrari on the Autobahn and then saying you can drive no faster than an Amish buggy? Is it like giving a musician an electric synthesizer but only allowing him to sound exactly like a clavichord? It’s something like this, where UC is taking a tool that has the potential for much more and then constraining it to the point of (what I believe to be) ludicrousness.

It would be one thing if UC said, “Look, we don’t want stupid stuff, and we don’t want your presentation to drag on. That said, we also recognize that we live in a multimedia age. So… no more than four slides and five minutes, that’s it.” That makes more sense to me than its current system, which will never encounter presentations like these in which sound, images, video, and other dynamic multimedia come together into something quite effective:

http://tinyurl.com/3x3p5o

http://tinyurl.com/39dkq5

I’m not advocating for multimedia just for multimedia’s sake; that would be stupid. But I am advocating for some recognition that there is worth in effective multimedia and that print alone is not the end-all-be-all. If UC just wants print and paper, it shouldn’t even pretend otherwise. Right now it seems to me like a poseur.

Obviously UC is a phenomenal academic institution full of really smart people. But why, again, isn’t this ‘turning multimedia into paper’ restriction arbitrary? You trust that it’s not, primarily because it happens to be U. Chicago and not Southeast State University Teachers College, that is taking a potentially powerful multimedia medium and subjugating it to the limits of a diferent medium. Michael and I believe that it’s quite possible that the UC faculty don’t understand the power or potential of multimedia. For example, nearly all of my colleagues here at U. Minnesota (another very highly regarded research institution; half a billion in grants each year – yikes!) don’t get it. Why not the UC folks?

I’m no business expert, but I’ll easily accept that it’s a ‘common challenge’ to have to be able to express oneself in the corporate world within a limited time frame (e.g., the elevator pitch). So brevity in terms of time, I have no problem with that. But is it really a ‘common challenge’ in today’s corporate environment to only be able to use paper, and not any other more modern multimedia communication tools, to deliver one’s message? That I’m a little more skeptical about…

I don’t know if either side will know what UC’s reasoning is without more information. I’ll e-mail them and see if I can find out. That will be fun!

Okay, here’s the message I sent the Associate Dean for Student Recruitment and Admissions (I cc’ed Dan):

Ms. Martinelli,

There is a robust discussion occurring in the education blogosphere about GSB’s new admissions policy that allows students to submit 4 slides as part of their application. Essentially we’re all trying to figure out the reasoning behind your decision to reduce those slides to paper rather than take advantage of the affordances of a multimedia medium (audio, video, hyperlinks, whatever). There’s been lots of conjecture; I thought we should go to the source. Any additional detail you would be willing to provide beyond what’s offered here would be most welcome:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/7/prweb539763.htm

We’d like to post your response on one of the blogs if that’s okay with you. Thanks!

Here is Ms. Martinelli’s kind and thoughtful reply to my e-mail:

Dear Scott,

Thanks for your note. Our reasoning was twofold. First, we wanted to focus on the content rather than on the various media that could be used (while expertise is valued, not everyone has the same comfort level with technology options). Second, our evaluation process is iterative, so files are passed through a variety of channels before the final decision is reached. And for Chicago GSB, we still use paper in the evaluation process. We plan to move to online evaluation in the near future, which will allow us to incorporate a broader range of media options next year. I’m happy to answer any other questions you may have as well.

Warm regards, Rose

He he! I was hoping you’d chime in first! =)

I guess I have a few thoughts…

1. I was delighted that she gave such a kind and thoughtful response.

2. I’m not sure I agree with her that reducing PowerPoint slides to paper completely fulfills the goal of ‘leveling the playing field.’ There still, of course, will be a continuum of skill within the applicant pool. UC seems to feel that taking out the multimedia piece reduces the disadvantage for those not comfortable with technology. But… as you yourself, Dan, have so aptly showed us time and time again, folks with a handle on good graphic design, with good computer-oriente presentation skills, with good graphing / flowcharting / mindmapping / visual portrayal skills, etc., still will have an advantage under this paradigm. That said, perhaps the range of skill disparity is less than if UC also included multimedia options. And… it is still important to be able to present oneself well on paper.

3. I read her response as essentially saying that UC recognizes that electronic presentation skills are important but that they can’t handle that yet in their admissions process. This seems to be a transition step for them (and, admittedly, one that other business school admissions offices may not be taking yet). I liked her response that they will consider opening up to full multimedia slides down the road as their online evaluation capacity increases.

4. I’m still left with the feeling that it’s sort of silly to take a multimedia medium and reduce it to paper. Sorry. I just can’t help it. It feels like shoehorning a robust paradigm into a less robust paradigm (‘you can create a sculpture to express your talents, but it can it only be made out of Play-Do because that’s the one material we know you all have used comfortably at some point in your life!’). But… change is slow. Maybe this transition step is better than no step (if the goal is to allow students to express their talents in ways other than admissions essays). But they’re missing out on some interesting possibilities until they make the wholesale changeover. As you can see, I’m ready for them to make the change now. The world is moving toward multimedia; I like the idea that students can someday choose to use modern communication tools to show their knowledge and skills.

5. I’m not picking up a vibe of smug superiority like you do, Dan. I instead sense frustration by people who are knowledgeable about new communication paradigms about what are perceived to be artificial, and possibly unnecessary, restraints on those paradigms by people who are less knowledgeable. Perhaps similar to the frustration you sometimes feel with other math teachers who you feel ‘don’t get it?’

It will be very interesting to see what UC gets in the four boxes from each student and to hear its reactions after the first wave of applications. Maybe we can see some examples afterward!

Thanks, Dan, for extending this conversation. It’s been interesting and fun.

After several hours of mulling this over, the following comes to mind:

1. Bravo for Mike M. pushing on the question by posting the original blog post in the first place.
2. Bravo for Scott M. for contacting the university to find out what lay behind the application element.
3. Bravo to Dan M. for reminding me (and all of us) that the university is being innovative and that ‘constraint’s allow for creativity at the end of the day.

Added my own 2centsworth blog-style here
http://thinklab.typepad.com/think_lab/2007/07/4-slides-of-inn.html

Thanks to all of you; been a great conversation to enter today.
Cheers,
Christian

Wrote the following in my post responding to Dan’s post (and that of Mike, and Scott’s comments). Seems fitting given Sharon’s comment above (and since I’m also a K-12 educator who cares deeply about kids having access to a wide range of tools in the spirit of developing their “global learning brand”, I feel comfortable adding the following):

***

Rant coming up. Maybe a thesis. A fine line in this day and age of rapid-fire publishing without editors standing over the top of your shoulder.

In a Death-by-Powerpoint world, there’s a lot of reasons to cave into bullet-point despair and call it a day. Even worse if you’re a teacher assigning projects with a PPt flair…and have to suffer the visual/mental arrows of your best intentions once the little buggers submit their work.

There is ONLY one thing worse than being a corporate denizen being lulled to sleep in a conference room as a a colleague is slow-lane lumbering through PPt slide 15 (of 35 more to come), proving just how many complete and otherwise lucid/relevant thoughts chopped down to broken-mind bullet points can be crammed onto a single slide all while reading it word for word aloud rather than even hinting at a presentation style and an ability to connect to audience in a slightly meaningful manner.

Agreed. Okay. But what is that “ONLY one thing worse…” business?

The ONLY thing worse than this ubiquitous business scene is being a teacher who has assigned (possibly poorly, let’s be honest) an assignment inviting a bunch of young kids to use PowerPoint as a “multi-media” tool void of any “design” instruction or “constraints” placed on the actual gimmick-vs-substance meter ahead of time.

The ONLY thing worse than that is the same teacher watching her/his beloved kiddos demonstrate a week later what 8 hours of badly conceived design gimmicks (add flying words and oddly sized photos here) and superficial creativity can do to thoroughly dismember and render obsolete/worthless 30 seconds worth of actual research they snuck in via Wikipedia on the final night.

The ONLY thing worse than that is the same teacher who must now sit through an entire class set of kiddos standing in front of the screen without the slightest sense of eye contact’s value, the golden mean of visual balance, or the visual ‘less is more’ and research ‘more is more’ theories.

The ONLY thing worse than that is this same teacher then having to grade them without pandering to the “Well, they did use PPt slides to show off at least one multiple intelligence or another, I think…” rubrics.

[Do you find yourself feeling either guilty or nodding knowingly here?]

Sure, our kids are jivin’ and shakin’ in front of cut-n-paste pictures shown in technicolor on newly installed Smartboards, but are they really demonstrating anything that resembles learning? And maybe as importantly, are they saying anything about themselves as learners and showcasing their “global learning brand” of creative processes?

Why does this matter?

***

So, I’m curious, how do we make this less an argument about the specific tools (PPt, for instance) and the School2.0goodorbad argument (blah, blah, blah scarecrow either way you face it), and focus more and more on helping our K-12 kiddos/students/charges begin to grasp the ‘power of presentation’ in front of all ‘audiences’ they will face and engage?

Dan is spot-on with regards to elevating ‘design’ and ‘presentation’ (although I think it’s fair to say that the whip-the-school2.0-boy posture can be retired so he can dazzle with all the rest that he brings hard/fast to the conversation). To be fair, Sharon, Dan never has advocated that”creativity and good use of multi-media is irrelevant” in any situation — classroom or business or real life.

But back to the point of it all: simply arguing over ‘fluff’ vs. ‘ multi-media as digital god’ seems to ignore the issue.

How do we help our kids grasp the power of presentation?
Esp. when most teachers or business professional themselves have NO idea how to effectively use ‘tech’ to present, or to simply engage an audience F2F with nothing but a legal pad and a decent story.

Curious —
Cheers, Christian