Reflections and Summary After a Failed Defense
Five hours have passed since the defense ended. I feel as if a layer of skin has been stripped off, overwhelmed with shame. Silently riding my bicycle, I blend into the sycamore-lined path. Fortunately, there are only strangers around, giving me a moment to catch my breath.
Escape.
This is indeed the thought I haven’t had time to articulate into words. I fear any possibility of deceiving myself.
So I need to think: where exactly did things go wrong?
The Defense
We included Light, the online judging platform we had been working on and which fascinated me, in our application for the University Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program. To gain support, or perhaps to put some pressure on ourselves, we decided to do this. Ah Zheng asked me to be the project leader, responsible for handling matters related to the program. After hastily submitting the application, I learned that the project defense was scheduled for noon today, and I had two days to prepare.
So, at noon today, I suffered a crushing failure. The judges gave me the impression that they had no idea what I was talking about, thinking I was being fanciful, making things up, trying to pitch some nonsensical idea to scam funding.
Where did the problem lie?
External Factors
There were a total of eight groups defending their projects today, and I was the last one. The judges were indeed not professional, even giving off a sense of condescension based on seniority. But can they be blamed for this?
No. If our product is to be aimed at the general public, it must be simple enough, easy to understand and use. Therefore, if even judges in the relevant field couldn’t grasp and understand it, then it must be a poorly defined product.
So, let’s think further: where did the problem lie?
Surface-Level Issues
Clearly, something was wrong with my PPT style. During the Q&A session after the presentation, the judges spent half the time pointing out issues with the PPT. Presumably, this problem was the most obvious and the most irritating.
This was caused by a belief I’ve held more firmly with each recent defense: that the PPT should outline key points, while the content should be delivered primarily through speech.
This in itself isn’t a problem, but this time I almost fell into a pathological obsession: only titles, no body text, not even complete content.
Simplicity isn’t the issue; the issue is being crude.
No data, no charts, no examples—I had none of the things that could clarify the points and make the presentation clearer.
But was it just the PPT that ruined this defense? I’m afraid it’s not that simple.
Communication Skills
I am well aware of my weakness: severely lacking communication skills. But do I truly understand this?
In fact, even with a PPT like mine, with proper delivery, it might still have been possible to explain things clearly for this defense.
Lack of coherence in language, gaps in logic, incomplete expression—on top of that, I stammered, forgot my lines. All of these were fatal flaws.
Thus, the surface-level PPT issues exposed my shortcomings in communication.
But can these shortcomings be changed? I believe they can. However, knowing full well I had these weaknesses, I didn’t take appropriate measures to prevent them from being exposed—I could have.
What else?
Understanding of the Project
Actually, I had a similar defense during the training in Chengdu. The PPT that time wasn’t as extreme as this one, and my delivery was much better. I believe the secret to that success was my role as project manager, overseeing the entire project: I did the detailed design of the whole system, understood every aspect of the API server design and the reasons behind them, and clearly knew what kind of system I was building, who it was for, and its potential for future development.
But this time was different. I don’t think I fully understood Ah Zheng’s vision for the entire system: the analysis of potential user needs, the definition of the system, and its future, especially its developmental prospects.
The Root Cause
Ultimately, where did the problem lie?
Lack of genuine effort and care.
If I had delved deeply into the entire project and formed my own thorough understanding;
If I had rehearsed before the defense;
If my PPT had contained more substance;
This defense likely wouldn’t have been such an ugly mess.
In short, I feel ashamed.
Diligence can compensate for clumsiness, not mere tranquility leading to distant goals. I hope I can remember this.
Reflections
After dinner, carrying my glasses and a bottle of soy milk, I took a walk around campus. North of the library, I found a small garden where I could think quietly.
There, I summarized why my defense turned into a mess and also pondered what a good product should be like.
A Thought Experiment
Newton said he was just a child picking up shells by the seashore of truth, while we are a species with an infinite thirst for knowledge.
I believe there are two types of pioneers on the journey of exploration:
- Creators of technology
- Commercializers of technology
The first type builds lofty foundations, worthy of remembrance, worthy of being recorded in history, serving as the pride of their era and a beacon for history thereafter, providing the possibility for progress. The second type thinks deeply and thoroughly enough, connecting technology and people in a natural and harmonious way, truly realizing progress.
— Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction; Edison and Tesla created the entire electrical age.
Therefore, I define a good product as follows:
It fulfills a fundamental human need, is convenient enough to use, and serves as a bridge connecting technology and humanity.
Returning to the Starting Point
I looked up at the towering sycamore trees. Everything has structure.
How do we abstract, model, and analyze the intrinsic connections of things? How do we see the essence beneath surface phenomena?
The society formed by humans also has structure. The angle and depth of thinking, as well as the mastery of information resources, are also ways of delineating structure. If everyone is born the same, then education is the ladder that provides structural mobility. However, this still cannot resolve the contradictions arising from information asymmetry. For example, people at the higher levels of this structure and those at the lower levels can almost only communicate through media—analogous to a client-server architecture. Currently, there is no efficient method to match information seekers with providers (peer-to-peer).
Perhaps Light could solve this kind of problem? That remains to be explored.