Doctoral Consortium for Students in AI; July 28, 1997; Providence, RI

学习如何做研究的最重要的方面之一是与经验丰富的导师就研究计划的各个方面进行早期和详细的讨论。 不幸的是，大多数学生在最初阶段除了直接顾问之外，很少得到关于论文的反馈。 参加会议可以是一个很好的方式来满足其他研究人员和讨论工作。 然而，一个学生在他/她的工作的早期阶段，有机会与成熟的研究人员讨论他们的初步想法的机会不是很好。 美国人工智能协会会议上的博士联盟（DC）计划作为改善这种情况的一种方式。 即将开始论文工作的学生被选中在一组精心挑选的教师小组成员面前展示他们的研究计划。 与传统的会议演示不同，DC的大部分时间都用于学生和教师小组成员之间的讨论。 每个学生还被分配一个教师导师谁与学生在一个更详细的水平。 学生们既可以从自己的演讲中学习，也可以从其他学生的演讲中学习。 教师小组成员。 在去年举行的第一届DC之后进行的一项调查发现，所有参与者（包括学生和教师）都认为DC非常有用。 我们预计，今年参加DC的所有学生（无论是作为演讲者还是刚刚参加的学生）都会对他们的工作充满信心，提出改进论文计划的建议，并更清楚地了解什么是良好的研究实践。

One of the most important aspects in learning how to do research is early and detailed discussions on various aspects of the research plan with experienced mentors. Unfortunately, most students get little feedback on their thesis at the initial stages except from their immediate advisors. Attending conferences can be a good way to meet other researchers and discuss work. However, the chances of a student at an early stage of his/her work getting the opportunity to discuss their preliminary ideas with well established researchers are not very good. The Doctoral Consortium (DC) at the American Association for Artificial Intelligence conference was planned as a way to improve this situation. Students about to begin their thesis work are chosen to present their research plans in front of a group of carefully selected faculty panelists. Unlike traditional conference presentations, the bulk of the time in a DC is devoted to discussions between the students and the faculty panelists. Each student is also assigned a faculty mentor who works with the student at a more detailed level. Students learn from both their own presentations as well as watching other students being advised by the faculty panelists. A survey taken after the first DC held last year found all participants (both students and faculty) agreeing that the DC was tremendously useful. We anticipate that all students attending the DC this year (both as presenters as well as those just attending) will leave with renewed confidence in their work, suggestions for improving their thesis plans and a clearer idea of what constitutes good research practice.