"...I remembered an MIT colloquium that took place in the late fifties; it was one of the first I attended at MIT. The speaker was Eugenio Calabi. Sitting in the front row of the audience were Norbert Wiener, asleep as usual until the time came to applaud, and Dirk Struik who had been one of Calabi's teachers when Calabi was an undergraduate at MIT in the forties. The subject of the lecture was beyond my competence. After the first five minutes I was completely lost. At the end of the lecture, an arcane dialogue took place between the speaker and some members of the audience, Ambrose and Singer if I remember correctly. There followed a period of tense silence. Professor Struik broke the ice. He raised his hand and said: "Give us something to take home!" Calabi obliged, and in the next five minutes he explained in beautiful simple terms the gist of his lecture. Everybody filed out with a feeling of satisfaction.
Dirk Struik was right: a speaker should try to give his audience something they can take home. But what? ..."
http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~cahn/life/gian-carlo-rota-10-le...
Not in my graduate school experience. Presenting was often viewed as "display my research while I read from my research".
Say, I'm computer vision researcher specializing in (non-deep learning) 3D reconstruction. Why would I be listening to talks where someone goes into some esoteric tweaks they made to the deep learning stuff? I feel like there almost should be separate conferences for people doing feature recognition/tracking, 3d reconstruction, object recognition etc., as all those fields are vast in themselves. And, once you're on such conference, it's just the experts there and you don't need the 5 minute intros any more.
Again, I don't know if this is something that is only true in Biological science and less so in Computer Science, but while I agree most research is a minor incremental improvement, its often on a topic so specialized that most outside of your research group aren't very familiar with the intricacies.
This begs the question, like you said, then why would you care about hearing that talk? Maybe you don't even care about their thesis and are just interested in adapting a technique they used in your own work. Or maybe their thesis bridges a gap between two fields of study that were previously not very closely linked. Besides, when you're trying to communicate your work to other people, isn't it to your advantage to try and cast as wide of a net as possible? Isn't part of the point of talks and conferences to widen people's spheres a bit? There's no need to leave your home lab if you want to converse with people who understand most of what you're researching already.
Sometimes the students aren't the targets. They're just guests. The speaker is targeting the handful of senior people in the audience.
I come from a Biology background so maybe its different, but I have been to so many talks where 90% of the audience is grad students and looking around the room you can tell none of them are getting anything out of the talk because they got lost in the first five minutes. Sure it would be silly for every Neuroscience talk to waste five minutes explaining what a brain is, but even seasoned scientists seem to take for granted that not everyone studies their same corner of the field. Giving sufficient background info is severely underrated in talks, as is very explicitly stating ideas that will be necessary to appreciate the core thesis of the talk is. I'm sympathetic to the fact that timing is tight and scientists want to save a significant amount of time for their actual research, but if most of the room comes away from the talk with absolutely nothing then it was a wasted effort. You're right that the presenter should know their audience and that would fix things, its just that in my experience, the presenter is almost always overestimating their audience.