Lesson Report:
# Title
**Final Presentation Preparation: Policy Memo Requirements, Defense Expectations, and Final Topic Check-Ins**
This session was primarily a final-preparation workshop for the last week of the course. The instructor clarified the grading structure and expectations for policy memo presentations, explained how Q&A/defense would be evaluated, randomized the presentation schedule, and then used the second half of class to workshop students’ policy outlines and help them refine problem statements, alternatives, stakeholders, and feasibility analysis.
—
# Attendance
– **No formal attendance roll call was captured in the transcript.**
– **Students explicitly named absent:** **0**
– **Prior absence referenced:** **1 student (uncertain name)** was told they had missed the earlier class in which topic groups were restructured and therefore needed to revise their problem statement accordingly.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1) Opening framing: final week priorities and lesson goals
– The instructor opened by reminding the class that there was **one week left in the semester** and that **next week would be the final presentations**.
– He stated that the session had **two main goals**:
– **Clarify how final presentations will work**: what presenters should expect, what listeners/classmates are expected to do, and how grading will work.
– **Review the submitted homework/outline work individually** so that each student leaves with a workable final plan.
– He emphasized that students needed:
– an **appropriate problem statement**,
– a **specific proposed solution**,
– and a solution they could **defend under questioning**, since the defense would be a major component of the final grade.
—
## 2) Final assignment structure and grading breakdown
– The instructor pulled from the syllabus and explained that the final had two major components:
– **Policy memo**: **15 points / 15%** of the final grade
– **Presentation-related components**: the remaining **85 points**
– He stressed that the **memo is intentionally short** and mainly functions as a concise professional document projecting the policy case.
– He repeatedly emphasized that the **presentation and especially the defense matter more than the memo**.
– The clearest grading emphasis presented in class:
– **Memo**: 15 points
– **Defense / response to questions**: **30 points**
– Remaining presentation points tied to quality of explanation, structure, professionalism, source ownership, adaptability, etc.
### Instructor rationale for the grading design
– He explained why Q&A/defense is weighted heavily:
– Anyone can memorize or even generate a short text.
– What actually demonstrates learning is the ability to **respond off the cuff to specific questions** about one’s policy.
– He framed this as a more valid way to assess whether students genuinely understand:
– their evidence,
– their assumptions,
– the weaknesses of their proposal,
– and why their recommended policy is still preferable.
—
## 3) Presentation format, timing, and defense expectations
– The instructor explained that each student should expect:
– a **3-minute presentation**
– followed by a **substantial Q&A/defense period**
– Across the discussion, he described the defense window somewhat variably, but the consistent point was that there would be **several minutes of questioning**, enough for roughly **5–6 questions per presenter**.
– He said the short presentation time was deliberate because:
– students cannot explain every detail of a serious policy in 3 minutes,
– so the **defense period is where deeper evaluation happens**.
### Audience expectations and participation requirement
– The instructor told students that while others are presenting, they must **listen actively**, not scroll their phones or mentally rehearse their own talk.
– To receive **full participation credit** for the presentation days, students must ask **at least two questions total across the two class sessions**.
– He defined what counts as a valid question:
– It must be **specific** and tied to something the presenter actually said.
– Generic questions such as “Is it feasible?” or “Won’t it cost money?” would **not count**.
– He modeled the desired level of specificity with an example:
– If a student claimed a policy would cost a particular amount to place doctors in rural areas, a good question would challenge that **specific figure** and its realism, rather than just asking in general whether the plan is expensive.
### Who asks the questions?
– In response to a student question, the instructor clarified that **both the instructor and classmates** would ask questions during the defense.
—
## 4) Memo quality expectations
– The instructor explained what distinguishes a **poor**, **good**, and more professional memo:
– A **poor memo** uses vague adjectives, empty phrasing, and unsubstantiated claims.
– A **good memo** is:
– sharp,
– concise,
– purposeful,
– professionally formatted,
– and includes all required parts.
– He explicitly warned students **not** to submit something that looks like a raw Google Doc with no care for professional presentation.
– He framed the memo as a document one might give to a **boss in a professional setting**.
### Required features emphasized
– The memo should:
– be short and direct,
– contain the required structural parts,
– be properly formatted,
– include **citations/references**,
– and look like a professional deliverable rather than a casual draft.
—
## 5) Presentation quality criteria: ownership, evidence, adaptability, confidence, and structure
The instructor then walked through what makes a strong presentation.
### A. Ownership of knowledge / use of evidence
– Students must be able to **cite where their facts come from**.
– If they make a numerical or factual claim, they must be able to answer:
– **Where did this number come from?**
– **What source supports this claim?**
– He gave examples such as citing:
– international organizations,
– studies,
– or other identified sources directly in the presentation.
– He noted that specific source attribution is a **good use of slides**.
### B. Adaptability and synthesis
– Students should expect pushback and should **prepare for weaknesses in their policy**.
– He reminded the class that **no policy is perfect**:
– every policy has costs,
– the question is whether the costs are tolerable and preferable to the alternatives.
– He encouraged students to anticipate:
– implementation problems,
– tradeoffs,
– political objections,
– and likely weaknesses.
### C. Confidence and professionalism
– He told students to present with confidence, since delivery affects how credible their proposal sounds.
– He described professional presentation as partly about **how one says the idea**, not just what the idea is.
### D. Structural clarity
– The audience must be able to tell:
– what stage of the argument the presenter is in,
– what problem is being addressed,
– what the main objective is,
– and why the recommended solution is being chosen.
– He strongly encouraged the use of slides as a way to **guide the audience through the structure**.
—
## 6) Rules for notes, scripts, and slide design
### Notes vs. reading a script
– The instructor said students **may use notes**, and he even recommended having them.
– However, notes should ideally include:
– the **structure** of the talk,
– and hard-to-memorize details such as **numbers**.
– He strongly warned against:
– reading a full script,
– reading paragraphs from paper,
– reading from a phone,
– or placing full written text on the screen.
– He called script-reading one of the worst presentation habits and said it would lead to **major professionalism point losses**.
### Slides: recommended but not strictly required
– When asked whether students had to use slides, the instructor said **they do not absolutely have to**, but he **strongly recommended** them.
– He advised against simply projecting the memo on the screen.
– He recommended **separate PowerPoint slides** containing only the information the audience needs to follow along.
### Slide design guidance
The instructor gave extensive presentation design advice:
– Keep slides **short**:
– ideally around **5–10 words**, and no more than about **10–15 words per slide**.
– Use slides for:
– key points,
– structural signposting,
– important figures,
– citations,
– relevant visuals.
– Avoid:
– paragraphs,
– clutter,
– excessive text,
– distracting animations,
– irrelevant graphics,
– generic stock imagery with no relation to the case.
– He specifically warned against “Canva-world” overdesign and animations that distract from the talk.
### Example of bad graphic use
– The instructor gave a memorable example from a different student presentation:
– a student had inserted a graph about turning crude oil into gasoline during a presentation on terrorism,
– which distracted the audience because the image had no clear relevance.
– He used this as a cautionary example: **every graphic must directly support the point being made**.
### Color and maximalist design question
– In response to a question about colorful/minimalist design, the instructor said color is acceptable **only if it does not undermine professionalism or become distracting**.
—
## 7) Questions about memo samples, formatting, citations, source age, and length
### Sample memo request
– A student asked for sample memos.
– The instructor said he would upload **a sample policy memo** to show:
– professional formatting,
– margins,
– spacing,
– and general appearance.
– He clarified that the sample would **not necessarily match their exact assignment structure**, but would model the appropriate professional form.
### Citation requirements
– A student asked whether citations were necessary in the presentation and/or memo.
– The instructor clarified:
– **Citations/references are required in the memo.**
– Students do **not need a full reference list slide** in the presentation, but they **must be able to attribute facts and figures**.
– He accepted **any citation style**:
– MLA,
– parenthetical citations,
– footnotes, etc.
– His main standard: **there must be citations**.
### Number of slides
– He recommended roughly **one slide per major section/topic**.
– He suggested something in the range of **about 6–10 slides** would be reasonable.
– He explicitly warned students not to create something like **30 slides for a 3-minute talk**.
### Source recency
– When asked how old sources may be, he said:
– use **recent sources whenever possible**,
– older sources are acceptable if they are still relevant,
– especially if they provide historical grounding or establish that a problem persists over time.
– He reminded students that because they are arguing for action **today**, their evidence must still be relevant **today**.
### Memo length flexibility
– A student asked whether a memo slightly longer than two pages would be acceptable for an ambitious, multi-part plan.
– The instructor said **yes**, as long as the extra material genuinely matters and is not fluff.
– He also clarified that students get **no scoring advantage** simply for writing more; a perfect memo can still be only **two pages**.
—
## 8) Submission logistics and deadlines
– The instructor clarified several submission rules:
– **All memos will be due on the same day for fairness**, regardless of whether a student presents Tuesday or Thursday.
– He said he would move the memo deadline from Sunday to **Monday morning** so he could read them before presentations.
– He asked students to submit their **PowerPoint on e-course before presenting**.
– He also confirmed that students should **not simply put the memo on the screen** during the presentation.
### Presentation-week scheduling note
– A student asked whether presentations had originally been intended for the final week.
– The instructor confirmed that **Week 16 was indeed supposed to be presentation week**.
—
## 9) Random assignment of final presentation order
– Because the class has **18 students** and approximately enough time for **9 presentations per class**, the instructor said he would assign presentation slots **randomly** as the fairest method.
– He used a random sequence generator and announced the schedule in class.
– Due to transcript quality, not every name was perfectly clear, but the clearly identifiable names included:
### Clearly audible Tuesday/day-one names
– **Ashimova Syndat Ulanovna**
– **Mamadboqirova Muqaddas Mamadboqirovna** (very likely; transcript garbled)
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred**
– **Juya Ali**
– Several additional Tuesday slots were announced, but some names were unclear in the transcript.
### Clearly audible Thursday/day-two names
– **Joro Danek**
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek**
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** (likely; transcript rendered as “Akali”)
– **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna** (likely; transcript rendered as “Altoni”)
– Several additional Thursday slots were announced, but some names were unclear in the transcript.
### Exchange/switch policy
– When a student asked to exchange presentation slots, the instructor said **no informal exchanging** at that moment.
– Near the end of class, a student with a possible Thursday conflict asked again.
– The instructor said he would only consider a change if:
– the relevant organizer sent him an email **in advance**,
– and a classmate was willing to switch.
—
## 10) Informal class logistics: pizza discussion for presentation day
– The class discussed making presentation day more enjoyable with **pizza and soda**.
– The instructor appeared open to it if students organized the logistics.
– By the later discussion, the plan being considered was:
– **Thursday only**,
– each student contributing **100 som**,
– with the instructor covering the remainder.
– Students also briefly discussed preferred drinks (Sprite, cola, etc.) and pizza quantities.
—
## 11) Homework/outline workshop: peer review focus questions
With about 35 minutes left, the instructor shifted to a “lightning round” workshop on the students’ policy homework/outline.
### Main recurring problems he had noticed in the homework
He identified several repeated issues:
1. **Lack of specificity**
2. **Too few stakeholders identified**
3. **Weak or missing cost analysis**
### Peer review instructions
He asked students to work with a partner and interrogate each other’s plans using these questions:
#### A. Specificity
– Are the **problem statement** and **alternatives** truly specific?
– He reminded students that problem statements should identify a **concrete, current problem**, not a vague social concern.
#### B. Stakeholders
– Students should identify **more than two or three stakeholders**.
– He pushed them to broaden the map of who is affected:
– direct beneficiaries,
– people who pay,
– implementing actors,
– politically powerful groups,
– those harmed by the status quo.
#### C. Costs
– For **each alternative**, students should identify:
– financial costs,
– political costs,
– human/social costs.
– He emphasized that **alternative zero (“do nothing”) must also be evaluated**:
– doing nothing still has a cost.
### Feasibility framework reminder
When students asked follow-up questions, the instructor returned to the full feasibility framework and reminded them to evaluate all alternatives, including **do nothing**, using the four criteria previously taught:
– **Alignment/effectiveness**
– **Equity**
– **Political feasibility**
– **Bureaucratic feasibility/resilience**
– He explained again that students should be able to answer not only whether a policy sounds good, but:
– who it affects,
– who could block it,
– who would implement it on the ground,
– and whether those implementers would realistically carry it out.
—
## 12) Individual topic coaching and policy development discussions
The latter part of class included a series of short instructor-student consultations. Several names were unclear in the transcript, but the policy themes and feedback were clear.
### A. Student with infrastructure/internet topic and prior absence
– One **uncertain student** had missed the earlier class when broader sectors were broken into individual topic tracks.
– Their original idea concerned **nationalization of internet/telecommunications** and/or **internet scarcity in rural areas**.
– The instructor told the student that:
– they needed a **new, narrower problem statement within the same sector**,
– and the issue must be a **current problem**, not just a past event.
– The student brought up the **Texas power grid crisis in 2021** as an example topic.
– The instructor rejected it as framed because the assignment requires a problem that is **still occurring now**, unless the student can show that the same crisis persists.
### B. Narrowing a public education topic: rural teacher shortage
– Another consultation led to a better-formulated education topic:
– the student initially mentioned **textbook shortages and teacher shortages** in rural Kyrgyzstan.
– The instructor told the student these are **two separate problems** and should not be combined casually.
– Together they narrowed the issue to:
– **too few qualified teachers in rural Kyrgyzstan**.
– He then guided the student through the next steps:
– formulate a **principal objective**,
– then generate **two policy alternatives**,
– and compare them to **alternative zero**.
### C. Teacher salary proposal and feasibility pushback
– In the same teacher-shortage discussion, the student proposed:
– **raising teacher salaries**,
– and possibly using outside/private financing support.
– The instructor said the idea was normatively good but pressed hard on feasibility:
– Where exactly would the money come from?
– Why has this not already happened?
– Is the proposal too “root-level” and therefore too difficult to implement directly?
– He used the class concept of solving from the **root vs. the branch**, suggesting that broad salary expansion might be hard to implement if the state lacks the money or political capacity.
– He recommended thinking of **more incremental, feasible incentives**, such as targeted subsidies or other support for teachers in rural areas.
### D. Wedding loans / household debt / banking regulation
– Another **uncertain student** presented a topic about:
– households taking large bank loans to finance **lavish weddings**,
– creating debt burdens and financial risk for both borrowers and banks.
– The student connected the issue to weak lending controls and analogized it to the broader logic behind the **2008 financial crisis**.
– The instructor responded positively to the general direction but asked two major questions:
1. **Why is this the government’s problem?**
– The student argued that insufficient government regulation of lending could create systemic risk.
– The instructor agreed this could be justified if framed as a financial stability issue.
2. **What is the actual policy?**
– He pointed out that saying “banks should…” is only a recommendation unless the student identifies:
– what branch of government acts,
– what law or rule is passed,
– and what enforcement or penalty exists.
– He told the student to find:
– data on wedding-related household debt if possible,
– and to transform the idea into an enforceable state policy, not just a moral recommendation.
### E. Housing inflation / rent affordability consultation
– Another **uncertain student** brought a topic on **housing inflation / rising rent / affordability**.
– The instructor reviewed the student’s stakeholder analysis and pushed them to move beyond vague categories such as:
– “upper class”
– “lower class”
– He suggested identifying more precise stakeholders, including:
– **landlords**,
– **renters**,
– **lower-income renters**,
– **migrants/immigrants**,
– **students**, etc.
– He also told the student to strengthen the analysis of **alternative zero** by asking:
– if the problem is obvious, why has the government not solved it already?
– The student proposed alternatives including:
– **rent subsidies**
– and **development of affordable rental dwellings**
– The instructor’s feedback:
– specify **where subsidy money comes from**,
– estimate **approximate cost**,
– identify **who qualifies**,
– and explain **how implementation works step by step**.
– He also noted that Kyrgyzstan is **already pursuing housing-related measures** through public housing / mortgage structures and told the student to analyze those domestic policies, not just cite foreign cases like Australia.
– He specifically mentioned the **State Mortgage Company / existing public housing efforts** as relevant context.
### F. Bureaucratic feasibility reminder through examples
– In explaining bureaucratic feasibility, the instructor revisited class examples, including:
– earlier discussion of **deforestation in Brazil** associated with **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred’s** prior policy idea,
– and a hypothetical about **traffic police** being overburdened by unrealistic enforcement demands.
– He used these examples to show that a policy can fail if the frontline actors responsible for implementation do not have the time, incentive, or capacity to execute it.
—
## 13) Closing administrative items
– A student asked if a current outline/worksheet could be submitted **that night**; the instructor said **yes** and approved a later same-day submission.
– At the end, a student with a possible **Thursday conflict** asked about missing class for a meeting.
– The instructor said the student would need:
– an email from the meeting organizer,
– and possibly a classmate willing to switch,
– otherwise the student would still be expected to present as scheduled.
—
# Student Tracker
> Only students who could be identified with reasonable confidence from the transcript are included by name; where audio/transcription was too unclear, participation is noted as uncertain in the topics section instead.
– **Juya Ali**
– Opened with light banter at the start of class and was later confirmed in the randomized presentation schedule.
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** *(likely; transcript rendered as “Akali/Akhila”)*
– Was referenced early during the grade discussion and later asked/participated in clarification about whether students could project the memo versus preparing a separate presentation.
– **Shamyrbekov Erkhan Shamyrbekovich** *(likely; transcript rendered as “Erhan”)*
– Appears to have helped spark the informal discussion about bringing pizza for presentation day.
– **Hawton Kyle “Abu Bakr” Jarred**
– Was referenced in an example about prior policy work on deforestation/Brazil and was listed in the presentation schedule.
– **Kurmanbek kyzy Zhibek**
– Was clearly named in the randomized Thursday presentation schedule.
– **Joro Danek**
– Was clearly named in the randomized Thursday presentation schedule.
– **Ashimova Syndat Ulanovna**
– Was clearly named in the randomized Tuesday presentation schedule.
– **Mamadboqirova Muqaddas Mamadboqirovna** *(very likely; transcript garbled as “Mufatnaq”)*
– Appears in the Tuesday presentation schedule.
– **Orolova Altynai Sharshenalyevna** *(likely; transcript rendered as “Altoni”)*
– Appears in the Thursday presentation schedule.
– **Several uncertain students**
– Asked substantive questions about timing, notes, slide design, citations, source age, memo length, submission format, fairness of deadlines, presentation-day logistics, and individual policy topics including rural teachers, wedding loans, and housing affordability.
—
# Actionable Items
## Immediate / Before next class
– **Upload sample policy memo** to e-course as promised, showing professional formatting and general memo structure.
– **Confirm the final presentation roster/order** from the board or instructor record, since several names were unclear in the transcript capture.
– **Follow up on the requested Thursday schedule change** only if the student sends documentation/email from the meeting organizer and a classmate is willing to switch.
– **Confirm pizza/soda logistics** for Thursday if the class is proceeding with the 100-som contribution plan.
## Important course-management follow-up
– **Check on students who missed the earlier regrouping class**, since at least one student still needed to reframe their topic within the correct sector.
– **Reinforce the difference between a recommendation and an enforceable policy**, since multiple students still framed alternatives as “X should do Y” without naming the government actor, mechanism, or enforcement.
– **Monitor whether students are evaluating alternative zero properly**, including its costs and feasibility dimensions.
## Lower urgency / useful clarification
– Consider posting a **brief written reminder** of:
– 3-minute presentation limit,
– expectation of at least two specific audience questions across presentation days,
– memo due date for all students,
– and “do not project the memo” guidance.
– If time allows, provide a **very short visual example of acceptable slide design**, since many student questions centered on what a clean professional presentation should look like.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Final Policy Project Outline
You need to submit the outline for your final policy project so your instructor can see exactly what problem you will address and how you plan to build the memo and presentation. This outline should help you move from a broad topic to a specific, defendable policy proposal.
Instructions:
1. Choose a problem that is specific and current.
1. Your problem must still be happening now; do not choose an issue that only existed in the past.
2. Avoid broad statements such as “there is poverty” or “the system is bad.”
3. Frame the issue as a concrete, identifiable problem that your policy can actually address.
2. Write a clear problem statement.
1. State exactly what the problem is.
2. Identify where it is happening, who is affected, and why it matters.
3. Make sure the problem is narrow enough that you can propose a real solution within this assignment.
3. Write your principal objective.
1. State what outcome you want the policy to achieve.
2. Your objective should directly respond to the problem statement.
3. Keep it concrete and measurable when possible.
4. Develop your alternatives.
1. Include Alternative 0: do nothing.
2. Include at least two actual policy alternatives the government could implement.
3. Make sure each alternative is specific and actionable, not just a recommendation such as “the government should help more.”
4. If you say something “should” happen, also explain who will make it happen and by what mechanism.
5. Identify multiple stakeholders for the policy.
1. Do not stop at only two or three stakeholders.
2. List more than three groups or actors affected by the policy.
3. Think carefully about who benefits, who loses, who pays, and who is responsible for implementation.
6. Estimate the costs of each alternative.
1. Consider financial cost, political cost, and human or social cost.
2. Do this for all alternatives, including doing nothing.
3. If you do not have an exact number, provide a justified approximation based on available evidence.
7. Evaluate the feasibility of each alternative using the class framework.
1. Alignment: Explain how directly the alternative addresses the problem and principal objective.
2. Equity: Explain which stakeholders benefit, which stakeholders bear costs, and whether the burdens are distributed fairly.
3. Political feasibility: Identify which actors could block the policy and why, and explain how the policy could survive that opposition.
4. Bureaucratic feasibility/resilience: Explain who would actually carry out the policy on the ground and whether they have the time, resources, and incentives to do it.
8. Check whether your proposal can be defended.
1. Ask yourself what weaknesses your policy has.
2. Think about what questions your instructor or classmates are likely to ask.
3. Revise the outline so that your policy is specific enough to defend during the final presentation.
9. Review your outline before submitting.
1. Make sure your problem statement is appropriate.
2. Make sure your solution is something you can argue for with evidence.
3. Make sure your alternatives are not vague and that your stakeholder and cost analysis are complete.
10. Submit the outline by the end of tonight, as discussed in class.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Final Policy Memo
You will write a short professional policy memo that summarizes the policy you will present next week. The memo is meant to be concise, sharp, and professional; it should communicate your policy clearly rather than fill space with vague language.
Instructions:
1. Write a policy memo of about two pages.
1. Aim for two pages.
2. You may go slightly over only if the extra material is necessary and not fluff.
3. Do not assume that writing more will improve your grade; a strong two-page memo can earn full credit.
2. Present a specific policy problem.
1. Open with a clear problem statement.
2. Show that the issue is real, current, and important.
3. Avoid vague claims and broad adjectives that do not say anything meaningful.
3. State your proposed solution clearly.
1. Explain the policy you recommend.
2. Keep your language direct and precise.
3. Make sure the memo shows what specific action should be taken, by whom, and for what purpose.
4. Include the major parts required for the policy memo.
1. Follow the memo structure used in class.
2. Keep the organization clear enough that a reader can immediately follow your logic.
3. Include the sections expected for this assignment, such as the problem, alternatives, recommendation, and implementation-related discussion.
5. Use evidence and specific facts.
1. If you make a factual claim, support it.
2. If you include numbers, explain where they came from.
3. Use concrete details instead of general statements.
6. Include citations and references.
1. Your memo must have citations.
2. Your memo must also include references.
3. Any citation style is acceptable as long as it is clear and consistent.
4. Parenthetical citations, footnotes, or another recognizable format are all fine.
5. If you make claims without citation, your grade will be hurt significantly.
7. Make the memo look professional.
1. Format it as a professional document, not as an unedited default document.
2. Use clean spacing, readable formatting, and a polished appearance.
3. Imagine that you are handing this to a supervisor or employer.
8. Remove fluff.
1. Make every sentence do real work.
2. Cut meaningless phrases and inflated wording.
3. Keep the memo sharp and to the point.
9. Proofread carefully.
1. Check that your argument is easy to follow.
2. Check that your formatting is clean.
3. Check that every major claim is supported by evidence.
10. Submit the memo by Monday morning at 10:30 a.m., as announced in class.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Final Presentation, Slides, and Presentation-Day Participation
You will deliver a short professional presentation of your policy memo and defend it in a question-and-answer session. This part matters most because it shows whether you actually understand your policy, can explain it clearly, and can respond thoughtfully when others push back.
Instructions:
1. Prepare a 3-minute presentation of your policy.
1. Your presentation itself must be three minutes sharp.
2. Practice in advance so that your first full run-through is not in class.
3. Time yourself repeatedly until you can present clearly within the limit.
2. Structure your presentation clearly.
1. Guide your audience through the problem, your objective, your alternatives, and your recommendation.
2. Make sure listeners can always tell where you are in the argument.
3. Do not present your ideas as a loose stream of thoughts.
3. Focus on a specific, realistic policy proposal.
1. Do not make your presentation about a huge abstract goal such as “making the world better.”
2. Present a specific solution to a specific problem.
3. Be ready to explain why your chosen policy is preferable even if it has weaknesses or costs.
4. Prepare to defend the policy in Q&A.
1. After your presentation, you will answer questions from both your classmates and your instructor.
2. Expect several questions.
3. Think in advance about the weaknesses, costs, and tradeoffs in your policy.
4. Remember that no policy is perfect; you should be ready to explain why your policy is still the best available option.
5. Use evidence you can own.
1. Be ready to identify the source of any fact, number, or claim you use.
2. If you say, for example, that a country has a certain number of doctors, you must be able to explain where that number came from.
3. Your ability to respond with specific evidence will affect your grade heavily.
6. Prepare slides to support your talk.
1. Do not put your memo on the screen.
2. Create a separate slide deck to support the presentation.
3. Use slides to guide the audience, not to provide a script.
7. Keep slide text minimal.
1. Put only short key points on each slide.
2. Aim for about 5-10 words on a slide, and avoid going beyond 10-15 words.
3. Do not place paragraphs on slides.
8. Use one slide per major section or topic.
1. A rough range of about 6-10 slides should be enough.
2. One slide per major section of your memo is a good rule of thumb.
3. Do not create an excessive number of slides for a 3-minute talk.
9. Use visuals carefully.
1. Only include graphics that are directly relevant to your case.
2. Do not use random stock images, unrelated charts, or decorative visuals that distract from your point.
3. If a graph, image, or logo appears on your slide, you should be able to explain exactly why it is there.
10. Keep the design professional.
1. Clean, simple, readable slides are best.
2. Avoid distracting animations and excessive visual effects.
3. If you use color, make sure it does not interfere with clarity.
11. Decide how you will use notes.
1. You may use notes.
2. Your notes should remind you of structure, numbers, and difficult details—not contain a full script.
3. Do not read a paragraph word-for-word from paper, phone, or screen.
12. Cite evidence during the presentation.
1. Use citations on slides when appropriate.
2. If you are not using a citation on a slide, use attribution in your speech, such as “According to…” or “In a 2017 study…”
3. A full reference list at the end of the slide deck is not required, but source attribution is.
13. Speak professionally.
1. Avoid filler language and vague wording.
2. Speak at a pace the audience can follow.
3. Aim to sound confident and prepared.
14. Submit your slide deck before you present.
1. Have your PowerPoint ready in advance.
2. Upload it before your scheduled presentation time.
15. Present on your assigned day and in your assigned order.
1. Follow the presentation schedule assigned randomly in class.
2. Be ready at the start of class on your assigned day.
16. Participate during your classmates’ presentations.
1. If you want full participation credit for the presentation days, you must ask at least two questions across the day.
2. Your questions must be specific.
3. Do not ask generic questions such as “Is it feasible?” or “Won’t it cost too much?”
4. Instead, refer to a concrete detail from the presenter’s argument and push on that detail directly.