Overview

The structure of the exercise will be as follows: each of you will independently research (via literature only or literature in addition to experimental / theoretical work of your own) a topic of your selection. The culmination of your study will consist of two main components: (1) a 70-minute talk on your findings before an audience of majors and faculty; and (2) a formal written paper which will serve as a permanent record of your study. The introduction to the paper (or some version of it) will also serve as a brief background paper distributed in advance to those attending your talk. Each student will serve as the peer reviewer for another student during the comps process. The peer review process is designed to provide feedback on the written work of an author from a student’s perspective throughout the process. In addition, you will write brief reaction papers on the oral presentations of two of your other peers. A summary of important dates appears on the last page of this document. It is important that you heed each deadline, in order to give both yourself and us sufficient time for evaluation, response, and preparation for the next step. With the large number of majors this year, meeting all deadlines is of the utmost importance for the smooth running of the entire process.

Choosing a Topic

Because comps represent a major effort on your part, you should choose your topic area carefully. Most importantly, the topic should be one that promises to be interesting to you – one you have many questions about. In fact, one task you can assign yourself is to develop a hypothesis that you will formulate and answer by the end of your final paper. [Instead of simply reporting on dark matter, you could try to answer the question, How soon will dark matter be detected?]

Your topic should also be one that will naturally involve a significant degree of synthesis from the various courses that you have taken; that's the "integrative" aspect of the exercise. Warning: past students have erred by choosing questions that were too broad as well as too narrow. You should discuss possible research areas with one or more of the faculty, especially to get reactions to the breadth and integrative nature of your proposed topic.

Although current areas of physics research provide obvious possibilities for topics, there are other kinds of subjects that may appeal to you more; many past students have chosen topics involving applications of physics in other areas, the history of the discipline, and its relation to societal problems. You can refer to the several volumes of final papers from past years (in Gould Library and outside the Department Office) to get an idea of the range of possibilities.

There are two fall term assignments to help you sort through your ideas for comps. By the fifth week of the term you will let us know what areas you are considering and any questions or concerns you have about them. Identify three different areas and why you’d like to investigate each area. During the seventh week of the term we ask for a formal written proposal that identifies a single, specific topic, why you are choosing to focus on that topic, how your project is integrative, what resources (print and personal connections) you already have available, and, optionally, initial drafts of various hypotheses or initial questions you have that you’d like to develop.

Main Paper

The emphasis of your main paper should be determined in consultation with your advisor; in most cases it will be a concise summary of your work/research which will also serve as the basis of your talk. The main text of your paper must consist of no more than 7500 words (footnotes, appendices , bibliography, etc. may take additional space and words). The paper should be written in a style "appropriate for publication". That means that the content and prose should be carefully thought out, and that the form should follow the guidelines of the appropriate portions of the Style Manual of the American Institute of Physics . Your paper should include an annotated bibliography as well as appropriate references as footnotes or endnotes (with article titles). Check past Comps papers for some samples of annotated bibliographies. Note that the annotated bibliography and the references are two separate categories that will probably overlap somewhat but not completely.

You are to turn in to Mary Drew a neatly printed first version of this paper at least three weeks before your talk. [note: we wrote ‘version’ not draft – you may need/want to go through a few drafts getting ready for your 1st submitted version.] Email submission of the paper is also acceptable.  You will need to complete and attach a checklist to this version when you hand it in, so that your faculty adviser can properly analyze and comment on your paper. This version of your paper will not be accepted if you have not completed all tasks on this checklist, so it is extremely important that you have filled it out completely. Your faculty adviser and your student peer reviewer will read this first version and return it to you with general comments and suggestions within the following week; the three of you will need to meet together to go over all the comments on your paper. After this meeting, your primary adviser and you should discuss your plans for the talk. Following your oral presentation and a further conference with your adviser discussing feedback on the talk, you will revise and resubmit your paper (by two weeks after the talk). This 2nd version should be well polished, representing your best work. Carefully check it for grammar and spelling, placement of figures, etc., and attach a completed checklist documenting some of these details. Once again, your paper will not be accepted without this checklist. Both of the faculty members on your committee, as well as your peer reviewer, will read this second version and make comments and suggestions, to which you may respond in the final version. The final, "archival" version, which is due no later than five weeks after your talk, will be read and evaluated by your faculty committee and then bound into volumes that will be added to those already in Gould Library and on the shelves in Olin.

Note that the above deadlines for each version were set to provide sufficient time for us to read your papers and give you feedback. We need to have the documents in on time. If you do not submit them on time, there may be serious consequences.

[1] A word count from your word processor is to be submitted with the paper, verifying that the paper includes no more than the specified limit.

[2] Appendices are for material that distracts from the presentation (e.g., a long derivation) or supplements it in an important way with information that might be hard to collect elsewhere (e.g., historical time line). The total length of all appendices together must not exceed 5 pp.

[3] See link to “AIP Style Manual" under Comps 2008-09 on the department web site.

[4] See link to "First Version Checklist" under Comps 2008-09 on the department web site.

[5] See link to "Second Version Checklist" under Comps 2008-09 on the department web site.

Introductory Paper

This paper should get your audience to begin to think about your topic and to cover certain bits of background information that you believe are important, but that you don't feel you will have time to develop in your talk. For example, you might include a brief history of the work done on your topic (i.e., names, dates, and accomplishments of those who have studied it) and/or a sketch of why people are interested in the topic and how it fits into the discipline as a whole. The paper should include a brief outline of your talk as well.

Mathematics is usually difficult to present orally. It might be a very good idea to use part of your introductory paper to derive and/or to present formulas, definitions, and other mathematical entities that you will use in your talk.

While the introductory paper is designed to acquaint your audience with background material, this does not imply that you should omit coverage of this material in your oral presentation. In order to provide a clear and complete presentation of your subject, basic background information must be included in your talk. The existence of the introductory paper should allow you to shorten the time needed to cover this background material. Because you (as a speaker) will want everyone to be prepared for your talk, you (as a participant) should extend to others that courtesy by reading the papers carefully before the talks. The system of putting important background information into the introductory paper will only work if you can count on its being read by your audience.

In most cases the introductory paper will be derived from the intro­duction to your main paper, and about three or four pages long. To provide time for distribution, your introduc­tory paper must be submitted electronically as a PDF to Mary Drew one full week before your talk.

Oral Presentation

The centerpiece of the integrative exercise is the oral presentation. The emphasis in this talk is on clearly communicating what you know to your peers. This process will be enhanced if you

(a) plan your talk carefully,

(b) avoid trying to cover too much material,

(c) plan the use of the whiteboard and other visual aids carefully, and

(d) practice delivering the talk, alone and/or with a sympathetic and supportive listener.

You should remember to allow a few minutes so that people will have time to ask questions during your presentation. On the other hand, some people find that, in the heat of the moment, they go through their material faster than they had anticipated. Clearly you need to be flexible, prepared to delete material if interesting questions use more time than you had planned or to add material if substantial extra time remains.

A tradition has evolved that the speaker provides some modest munchies and that the faculty adviser supply coffee, tea, and cocoa. These are made available right after the talk; we hope to encourage people to stick around for a few minutes to ask informal questions, talk about the research, and visit with each other.

Peer Review

You will each be assigned to one of your peers to serve as a peer reviewer of their written work. You will need to carefully read the first and second versions of the paper they submit in order to provide constructive comments and feedback as to how the paper could be improved. You will meet with the author at the same time as they meet with their primary advisor, so please come prepared to these meetings. Peer review is a very important process which will give the author extremely valuable feedback on their work. The primary faculty advisor of the author will be evaluating your performance as a peer reviewer, so do not take your responsibilities lightly. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process, and your contributions will help to greatly improve the author’s final product.

Reaction Papers

You will be assigned to write a two-page (typed, double-spaced) paper commenting on the presentation of each of two of your peers. The objective is to provide careful, thoughtful, sensitive, constructive commentary on your experience as an audience member at the talk. What made sense to you? What didn't? What aspects were particularly interesting? What might have been done differently? They are due in Arjendu Pattanayak’s box in the department office area within 24 hours of the talk. This deadline is critical, as the speaker's adviser needs to study your reaction paper before meeting with him or her.

We will use your comments to help us judge how effectively the presentation came across to the speaker's peers. Note in this respect that a reaction which is blandly and uniformly favorable is much less useful (and convincing) than one which points out both the strengths and the weaknesses of the talk. We will also share with the speaker relevant portions of your reactions, along with those of your faculty committee, without attributing particular comments to you individually.

Faculty Adviser

A faculty member will be assigned as your adviser for the exercise. (You may indicate any preferences with your fall term updates – though we can’t fulfill all requests.) You should keep in close touch with your adviser about your plans and progress. He or she will read and comment on the first version of your written paper, and should be sought out for advice as you develop the plans for your talk. Immediately after the talk, you should arrange a time with your adviser for a follow-up conference to discuss your presentation, the reactions of the faculty and your peers, and consequent revisions to your main paper. That conference should take place within three days after the talk.

Faculty Committee

In addition to your advisor, one` other faculty members will serve on the committee that evaluates both your talk and the final version of your paper. The committee will also read the second version of your paper and provide further feedback to guide you in preparing the final version.

Evaluation

Eventually we will award to each of you one of three final "grades": pass, pass with distinction, or fail. The criteria that we will consider in determining that assignment are:

1. Evidence that you have developed a good command of your subject through your study and that it has involved a significant amount of the synthesis of material from your separate courses. That evidence will include

(a) your selection and organization of material for the oral presentation. We will ask ourselves whether you have made the material fit together well, and how well you have dealt with the integrative aspect of the exercise.

(b) your ability to explain your subject to your peers, both in the part of your presentation that you plan and in your response to questions.

(c) your final paper.

2. General communication skills in the oral and written reports.

3. . Participation in the program, in particular, your attendance, attention, contributions, and questions during the presentations other than your own, as well as the two reaction papers that you submit and the evaluation of the primary adviser on your performance as a peer reviewer in the comps process.

4. Completion of the various tasks according to the relevant deadlines.

We will give approximately equal weight to the oral and written parts of your work. To receive "distinction'', you must have done work on one of these components (at least) which was outstanding, with the other component being significantly better than the passing level. To receive "pass", your work on each component must be at least passing, though in those rare cases where someone does an inadequate job on the oral presentation we will consider awarding a "pass" on the basis of a sufficiently revised and upgraded paper.

Meeting Times

The oral presentations will take place on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays during 6A (MW 3:10 – 4:20, F 3:30 – 4:40) during the third through tenth weeks of winter term, and the first two weeks of spring term. You are expected to attend at least ten presentations, so make sure you sign the attendance sheet as it is passed around at the talk. Please inform Steve Parker ASAP if you think you might have a problem wiht this requirement.

Credits

The physics integrative exercise receives 6 credits. When you register for winter and spring terms, you may distribute these credits in one of three ways: all in winter term, all in spring or 3 credits each term. However, if your last paper is due winter term, you should take all 6 credits in winter. (That will be the first 3-5 to present.) Whichever option you choose, the distribution of the actual work carried out will depend on the date for which your talk is scheduled. An appendix lists possible individual schedules.

Closing Comments

We cannot emphasize enough the importance of meeting all the deadlines. We have set each deadline with two main considerations in mind: First, to give you sufficient time to do your work; and second, to give us the time to evaluate your work before you embark on the next step. Any delays on your part will probably result in a less thorough evaluation and a delay in your receiving it, which in turn will mean that you will have less time to complete the next step. This will lead to great frustration and a much poorer experience for you and for us. Please, avoid delays at all costs!

Our experience over the past few years has been that most students find comps to be a worthwhile, interesting, and satisfying undertaking. We faculty share these feelings, and enjoy each year seeing the successful results of your work -- work which has frequently extended well beyond our specified requirements. We invite and encourage you to give a good effort to your comps, and to discover that you are capable of pursuing the study of a topic independently to the point that you become the local expert on the subject. Good luck!

Important Dates

Fall Term: Topic Selection

• Friday, Oct. 16
  • Submit to Arjendu Pattanayak (AKP) a brief written (email is fine) report of your progress in selecting a topic. List 3 topics you have considered. [Even if you are heavily leaning toward one, identify and consider 2 others.] With whom have you talked about your ideas? If you have a preferred adviser(s) or dates, let me know.
• Friday, Oct. 30
  • Submit to AKP a one page proposal (hard copy or email attachment) which includes a specific statement of the topic you’ll be investigating, why it's interesting, which material from which courses will be involved, and resources you’ve identified. If you have a working hypothesis or a list of questions you hope to answer as you work, list them as well. This is your last chance to state a preference for an adviser and/or a presentation date.
• Tuesday, Nov 3
  • You will be notified by this time of your advisor's name and the date of your talk.
• By Wednesday, Nov. 18
  • Meet with your advisor to discuss your progress and to help plan your project.
  • This conference is important.

Winter and Spring Terms:

Oral Presentations and Papers

Papers:

• (Presentation) -(3 weeks)
  • First version of paper to Mary Drew along with completed “first version checklist” from department web site.
    (for example, Andrew's paper is due Jan 6th, Callie's on Jan 8th, etc)
• (Presentation) -(2 weeks)
  • Advisor returns paper; conference with primary advisor and peer reviewer.
• (Presentation) -(1 week)
  • Introductory paper to Mary
• (Presentation) (January 25 – March 10)

• (Presentation) +(1 day)
  • Reaction papers to AKP
• (Presentation) +(3 days)
  • Conference with primary adviser concerning the oral presentation
• (Presentation) +(2 weeks)
  • Second version of paper to Mary along with a completed second version checklist
• (Presentation) +(3 weeks)
  • Meet with your committee members to discuss paper. (One meeting with both the primary adviser and the peer reviewer, another meeting with secondary adviser)
• (Presentation) +(5 weeks)
  • Final version of paper submitted to Mary in PDF form. This single PDF of your paper must contain all components of your work. Name your file using the following pattern: username_YYYY [gradyear].PDF. Mary will print this file on archival paper for binding. Carleton would also like to digitally archive your paper. Instructions for digitally archiving can be found on the Library’s website here; it shouldn’t take more than filling out a short form and sending the PDF file to the appropriate person.

NOTE: Spring Break is not counted in the official comps schedule. If spring break falls in your comps schedule as shown above, check with your adviser for details and clarifications.

These deadlines are critical. Failure to meet any one of them can be disruptive of the entire process and may result in serious consequences.

FYI: to consider when thinking about when you’d like to schedule
~6 people will be completely done winter term
~9 people will be done except for their final version winter term (papers could be submitted over break)