Hey Everyone,
This week has honestly been pretty relaxing. I edited my discussion, went to an amazing Model UN conference, and ate the best tacos ever.
Anyways, let's get into my research. Last week's comment groups were really helpful for pointing out the flaws in my paper. The good thing is that the worries I had with my results section were alleviated. I do still have a lot of other things to worry about though. So the first issue that I need to take care of in my paper is the transitions in my literature review. I think, although many of my transitions were pretty good, I need to work on transition into an analysis of the different valuation methods better, as well as a transition into the specific firms I am choosing to analyze better. I think the big problem here is the weird way I phrase some of my sentences, so I'm going to go through each sentence in these sections and just revise and rewrite them if necessary. The second thing I need to include in my literature review is more specific examples of the interactions that are present in the post-IPO process in order to help my reader better understand exactly what I intend on analyzing.
Moving on to my methods section, a lot of people were saying that the statistics and math in the section was still to overbearing. For this reason, I have started and will continue to remove some of the math terms that I originally had in my paper. Instead, I'm just replacing these sentences with a description of whatever the formula's purpose is in my paper. That way, if people gloss over my manipulations, they still understand what it actually does.
In the results section, I really only have one problem that I have worked on and am continuing to work on. In the section after I provide a table of the pricing errors for multiples, I have another table describing how significantly different the multiples are from one another. I need to do a better job of explaining this table and differentiating it from the tables preceding it. Otherwise, the section becomes confusing and seemingly redundant.
Finally, in my discussion section, I need to work on few things. First, I need more structure to the section. This means that I need better transitions and synthesis when explaining how my results relate to Lie and Ritter's study in my discussion section. This is of particular importance because it sets up some of the explanations I provide later. Second, with my explanations, I need to actually explain certain claims I make more. For example, I never really explain why intangible assets can lower short term net income, but increase growth prospects. Third, I need to fix my ending. Most people found the phrasing awkward and a bit corny, and I'll be working on fixing that in the next week.
In regards to the rubric, I think my strongest points are definitely in my results and literature review sections, where I provide fairly good transitions and explanations of whatever I'm discussing. The big parts of my paper that still need work are the explanations and transitions in my methods and discussion section, however. Particularly, I still need to do a better job of conveying the statistical information and results analysis in a formal, yet more easily understandable manner. This can really only be done through a ton of edits, so I do have my work cut out for me. My grammar could also use a bit of work, because I tend to use passive quite a lot when writing.
With the presentation, I'm actually feeling pretty confident. Considering I've been working with my paper for a while I'm really confident that I can explain it well. I'm also much better at explaining concepts to people through words than in writing, so the presentation is something I'm actually looking forward too. In general, I've had a lot of practice explaining statistical concepts to others, and I'm confident that I can do so in the presentation. Not to say that the presentation is going to be easy, but it's something I'm going to have a lot of fun with. The only thing I'm worried about is the time limit. Considering that I love myself a bit too much, I tend to talk a lot. (734)
Feeling a bit conceited,
Akash
This week has honestly been pretty relaxing. I edited my discussion, went to an amazing Model UN conference, and ate the best tacos ever.
Anyways, let's get into my research. Last week's comment groups were really helpful for pointing out the flaws in my paper. The good thing is that the worries I had with my results section were alleviated. I do still have a lot of other things to worry about though. So the first issue that I need to take care of in my paper is the transitions in my literature review. I think, although many of my transitions were pretty good, I need to work on transition into an analysis of the different valuation methods better, as well as a transition into the specific firms I am choosing to analyze better. I think the big problem here is the weird way I phrase some of my sentences, so I'm going to go through each sentence in these sections and just revise and rewrite them if necessary. The second thing I need to include in my literature review is more specific examples of the interactions that are present in the post-IPO process in order to help my reader better understand exactly what I intend on analyzing.
Moving on to my methods section, a lot of people were saying that the statistics and math in the section was still to overbearing. For this reason, I have started and will continue to remove some of the math terms that I originally had in my paper. Instead, I'm just replacing these sentences with a description of whatever the formula's purpose is in my paper. That way, if people gloss over my manipulations, they still understand what it actually does.
In the results section, I really only have one problem that I have worked on and am continuing to work on. In the section after I provide a table of the pricing errors for multiples, I have another table describing how significantly different the multiples are from one another. I need to do a better job of explaining this table and differentiating it from the tables preceding it. Otherwise, the section becomes confusing and seemingly redundant.
Finally, in my discussion section, I need to work on few things. First, I need more structure to the section. This means that I need better transitions and synthesis when explaining how my results relate to Lie and Ritter's study in my discussion section. This is of particular importance because it sets up some of the explanations I provide later. Second, with my explanations, I need to actually explain certain claims I make more. For example, I never really explain why intangible assets can lower short term net income, but increase growth prospects. Third, I need to fix my ending. Most people found the phrasing awkward and a bit corny, and I'll be working on fixing that in the next week.
In regards to the rubric, I think my strongest points are definitely in my results and literature review sections, where I provide fairly good transitions and explanations of whatever I'm discussing. The big parts of my paper that still need work are the explanations and transitions in my methods and discussion section, however. Particularly, I still need to do a better job of conveying the statistical information and results analysis in a formal, yet more easily understandable manner. This can really only be done through a ton of edits, so I do have my work cut out for me. My grammar could also use a bit of work, because I tend to use passive quite a lot when writing.
With the presentation, I'm actually feeling pretty confident. Considering I've been working with my paper for a while I'm really confident that I can explain it well. I'm also much better at explaining concepts to people through words than in writing, so the presentation is something I'm actually looking forward too. In general, I've had a lot of practice explaining statistical concepts to others, and I'm confident that I can do so in the presentation. Not to say that the presentation is going to be easy, but it's something I'm going to have a lot of fun with. The only thing I'm worried about is the time limit. Considering that I love myself a bit too much, I tend to talk a lot. (734)
Feeling a bit conceited,
Akash
That was a good paper, albeit a bit hard to comprehend due to all the technical terms. I did not really find any big problems with your argument, in fact, I thought your argument was great and had very few to none holes in it. Further, you clearly showed the significance of your research and why there exists an academic gap.
ReplyDeleteBut, you need to work on your language. You were vague at times and that left the reader really confused as to what is going on. It would be a lot more helpful if you provided some more concrete examples so that all your hypothetical/theoretical claims make more sense to the reader. Also, like you mentioned in your blogpost, your numbers and formulas are quite overwhelming, especially when we get to the tables showing your results for all the Social Media IPOs. I think you need to do more to explain what those numbers mean and how they are significant to your methods or research.
Finally, this is just a really small technical thing, which I'm not even sure if I am right, but wouldn't you call it Snap Inc. not Snapchat when talking about the IPO. Besides those few concerns, your paper was great, and if you make it easier to comprehend, it will basically be ready to submit to the College Board. Best of luck!
Akash,
ReplyDeleteGood job on the paper! I think you do a great job showing the gap in the literature review and explaining the post v. pre-IPO stuff. The lit review clearly uses sources to dictate your argument without relying too much. In the methods, I think you need to be more clear about the equations and dumb it down to the average reader's level. Your limitations are addressed but you never explain why your conclusions are still valid. For significance, focus on the broader aspect and positive good rather than the money aspect for investors. You are doing great!!
Hey Akash!!
ReplyDeleteYour paper was really good! I tried my best to understand everything that you were saying, but it was really hard with all the technical terms, but that also might just be bc I'm dumb.
In your literature review, you did a good job of having everything you said be a movement toward the gap and your topic. I think there were some parts where you could have explained a bit more, though, and I marked those areas. Your methods section was good, but there are a lot of equations that I think need some more explaining, bc it can be kind of daunting. Your results section was pretty clear, especially with all the tables, which allowed you to fit a lot of info in an understandable and visually pleasing way (not like ved's tables lol). In your discussion section, your organization could have been better and I think you should talk more about significance.
Overall, good job!!