Student Editorial and Missing the Point of College

Today represents an awakening for me. I was browsing the student newspaper and came across the following editorial: 'Professors owe us study guides'. My first thought was 'what the hell!', but I quickly remembered that titles are generally not written by the authors. So I decided to read the thing, I suggest you do the same. I'll wait. Sorry if you're now thinking Trump is a good choice, not my fault it was the editorial writer's.

The author starts out reasonably enough "With midterms in full swing, many of us at the University of Minnesota have been studying diligently to prepare for our exams. As these assessments often represent a large percentage of our grades, it’s very important to do well on them." It's good to hear that you are studying diligently, seems appropriate being that you're an adult in college and all. But there's already a whiff of something problematic, the focus on the grade. Yes grades are important and you should want to do well on your work in order to obtain good grades. However, grades in and of themselves are a means to an end, they are not the end.

The problem is manifest in the third and fourth sentences, which encompass the entire second paragraph. "But there’s nothing more frustrating than trying to study every little tidbit of information you’ve learned since the start of the semester. It simply isn’t going to happen, especially because students often have more than one midterm exam." There is so much fail embodied in this, I can't even. First, if you are studying every little tidbit of information, then you probably never spent any time during your education to think about teachers and professors and tests, quizzes, exams to realize that people have personalities and to use this information to strategically study. Is something emphasized over and over (probably a good idea to study it), was something highlighted as important, meaningful, or a key point (probably a good idea to study it). Was something mentioned once as a brief aside, maybe in response to a question (probably not worth spending much if any time studying). As this is spring, almost certainly this semester represents at least the second semester the editorial writer has been at the University of Minnesota (there's a small possibility they just transferred in). Second, we actually know that students have mid-terms around the same time. It's weird, because at the end of a semester there's this thing called 'finals week,' where all the professors schedule exams over a few days, but none of us know the others do the same thing. Third, I hate to tell you this but it does happen. Maybe not with you, but many students do learn a lot of material. I know I've given out the A's to prove it. I've written letters of recommendation for students with 3.85 GPAs. Just because you cannot be bothered or feel like it's too much of a burden, well WAH. But here this is just for you:

Fourth, you need to realize that it is a University of Minnesota policy that on average a student should expect to spend three hours a week per credit of class. So a three credit class means ~ 9 hours of week of in class and out of class work. Maybe some weeks you work 5 hours, exam shows up and you work 10 hours, your average is still less than 9 hours a week. And to be clear that three hour average/credit is for the average student to receive an average grade aka a C. You want a better grade, you should expect to work more hours on average. (Now might be a good time to wash your hair again.)

For full disclosure, I know many classes expect much less work than this. But these classes are in fact screwing you over. My primary class, which I uniformly have received excellent student evaluations for. students note how much work the class is and ask that the credit load be increased because it's so much work. However, most students that note the work also fill in the 6 - 9 hours/week  on the scantron (for my 3 credit class). Realize that a full credit load of 15 credits, represents slightly more than a full-time job commitment (45 hours)!

Ok that deals with the generic dome-a-dozen complaint about studying (you're not in high school anymore). This really isn't more than what is complained about every single year. My problem is with what comes afterwards "Study guides help students to focus their efforts and weed out concepts that won’t be on the exam. This can save a huge amount of time. Not to mention, by ignoring the concepts that won’t be tested, we can spend more time on those we’re expected to know, increasing our understanding of the material and, hopefully, our test scores."

The arrogance of those twisted sentences represents much that is wrong with the approach students have towards a college education. Some, like this letter writer, consider college an extension of high school. It's something they have to do and is mostly a waste of time. I thought much of high school was a waste of time, but that was because I didn't know any better. The difference is that I was required to get an education through the 12th grade, or at least it was a serious issue to drop-out and not something that could be simply accomplished. Not so, with college. There's no law requiring post-K-12 education. I realize to get many jobs a college education is required even if in reality it isn't. But you know what, many jobs, including good jobs, do not require a four year degree.

Let me explain something to our entitled editorial writer and those who agree with them. What we teach in class is important or at least it is considered important by an expert or experts in the field. Courses have to be approved by a committee based on what the learning objectives are and how they will be presented and how they will be assessed. To adequately test someone on their grasp of the material, it usually means your are asking focused questions on specific areas. Because something isn't on the test does NOT mean it is not important to know or needed for subsequent classes. You are not in college to take the fucking tests and I apologize that the ACT/SAT companies, politicians, and standardized testing has you thinking it is. You are correct, if we tell you what to study so you can vomit it back to us, you will get better grades more easily. That isn't the fucking point. Also, how can you suggest that if you spend more time studying fewer things, you will increase your understanding of the material. No, you will not, you will only know a part of the material well and even then probably only well enough to recognize words on a multiple choice exam.

"Not all professors allow students the luxury of having study guides, however. As someone who cares tremendously about my grades, there’s nothing more frustrating than having to study extra information that’s not part of an assessment. The less information I have to worry about knowing, the better I’ll learn it and be able to recall it in the future." See you should not be at a university. I'm sure you're smart, at least from a standardized testing every child in the community regardless of proficiency goes high school standpoint. But you are missing the point (that sound you just heard, that was the point flying by). The point of college is not your grade. Sorry, it's true, time to grow up. You care tremendously about your grade, no mention of knowledge or understanding. Simply your grade. Truly the writer makes me weep and gnash my teeth simultaneously.

I especially love this thought: the less I have to learn, the better I'll be able to learn it. Well no shit Sherlock, no fucking shit. It's kind of like asking for a raise and justifying it by saying I can buy more stuff. Also, if recall is your goal, you're doing it wrong. Life is not, I repeat (because it might be on the exam) not a fucking multiple choice test.

Finally we end with, "For these reasons, I think it’s incredibly important for the University to require professors to provide students with comprehensive study guides. Each individual college could delegate specific guidelines, but the policy should encompass the entire University." Well letter writer let me end with a comprehensive guideline for my upcoming exam: T, F, T, T, B, C, C, A, E, D, D, and more than 14.

Too Easy, but What the Hell

I 'belong' to a 'Creation Evolution Debate' group on Facebook. I joined this group, not because I think there is a debate, there isn't, but because I wanted to see what Creationists thought was debatable. Was kind of hoping to see some thoughtful discussion or potential misconceptions that could be cleared up. Basically all I see is the same old arguments from ignorance that have been dealt with time and time and time again. For example, this little gem showed up awhile ago complete with a geocities approach to web design.

1. How did nothing turn into something? It didn't. I'm assuming this question is referring to Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with evolution and is a problem of physics. I recommend Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes for an answer. I like the sub-heading though, as discussing evolution is banned. 

2. How did life come from non-life? I don't know. One place you could start to address this question is Freeman Dyson's Origin of Life. (Full disclosure, I haven't read it but have read papers on the topic.) Of course the origin of life is not the same as evolution, but what the hell. Regarding the sub-heading, what is the first law of science? Is it conservation of mass? The 1st law of thermodynamics? Neither are relevant here.

3. How did millions of life forms evolve with absolutely no evidence of major change? What? I mean really, what? Let's see I do not look like my cat nor a mushroom, not a bacterial colony. Isn't that evidence of major change? We have these things called fommits...no that's not right...mossels...no...OH! Fossils!!!! Right. A good place to start reading about this would be Richard Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale or Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish.

4. How can a watch come into existence without a watchmaker? It can't. Also, don't mention DNA, because it's so complex it's beyond the complexity of all computers on earth. That's probably why DNA is used to control computer synthesis machines. Wait that's not right, computers control DNA synthesis machines. I'll go with another Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker.

5. How did thought come from non-thought? I don't know, but I do not think thought is as super special as our geocities web host. I recommend Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works as an excellent starting point. Sub-heading is true, the first thought, if there is such a thing, did not come from an evolutionary biologist since the major tenets of relatively modern evolutionary thinking is only a couple hundred years old.

So I answered all 5 questions! Probably the author is not happy with those answers, but I answered them, so the point of that geocities abomination is shown to be wrong! Oh wait, I'm not an evolutionist (whatever that means), so I guess the red and blue vomit of words still stands.

The Changing Climate of Science in the USA (not a post on climate change)

UPDATE: If you are coming from uncommondescent.com please substitute the letter o for all letter u's to avoid 'the vapors'. Also, substitute Darwinius masillae anytime you see the word ENCODE so you won't miss the fucking point (to make things easy, you'll only have to make this substitution once).

One of my heroes: from here

I have seen a shift in the way science is being conducted in the United States. This shift still reflects of minority of the science being done, but it also represents the majority of the science being reported or disseminated to the public. In short, it appears to me that the pendulum has swung from favoring rigorous science to favoring and rewarding what I will call 'splash' science. To be clear this struggle between rigorous and splash science is not new nor different than in previous generations. Nor is all rigorous science not splash and vice versa. However, I think in the US the pendulum has swung dramatically to the splash at the expense of the rigorous. This change in trajectory is not surprising as funding has constricted immediately following a massive expansion. There are too many mouths at the trough and they are competing for those few morsels of grain.

More and more, scientific research is being sold on its revolutionary impact and not on its scientific merit. Of course 'impact' sounds much more important than 'merit'. Hell, important and impact both begin with the letter 'i' so there must be something to that. It seems much more science is being sold as 'paradigm shifting,' 'completely unexpected,' 'novel' (the only one that is true, but only in the trivial sense), or 'needing to rewrite the textbooks.' In these cases, it's also 99.99999999% bullshit (e.g. ENCODE).

2nd edition, 2011

Now admittedly and importantly, there are many studies that reveal unexpected results that lead to interesting and a variety of unexpected questions, which can themselves lead to new insights. For example, I sat in the audience at an American Society of Microbiology conference on Candida and Candidiasis where the phenomenon of white-opaque switching (a well known but poorly understood phenotype of certain Candida albicans strains) was directly and elegantly linked to mating (a process that, at the time, had recently been described but the biology nor the relevance was not understood). This was one of those 'HOLY SHIT!' moments that was amazingly cool, but also neither paradigm shifting nor required the rewriting of textbooks. In almost every single case these types of studies will not shift a paradigm nor require the revision of any textbooks. The results may be unexpected, but at most they will lead to the addition or significant revision of chapters in specialized topic books, such as the Candida and Candidiasis book from ASM.

It could be argued that inflating the importance of a study does not undercut the underlying data. But this argument is generally wrong at several levels. First, in order to emphasize the ephemeral, the actual suffers. In order to emphasize the ability to grow in high levels of arsenic, Wolfe-Simon focused on the bacteria using As in place of P in DNA and other macromolecules. The ability of the isolated bacterium to grow in such high concentrations of arsenic is interesting, but this was ignored to focus on the rewriting of textbooks on the structure of nucleic acids, which was wrong. Second, to push your paradigm shifting results, you have to actively ignore or overlook the contradictory data, even that data contained within your own work. Third, you have to discount and/or disregard the data, usually mountains of data, that led to the current paradigm in the first place.

These issues are what concern me most. This is not how I was trained as a scientist and is philosophically opposed to my understanding of the scientific process. In science, at least at the core, we try to prove ourselves wrong. We do not try to prove that X causes Y, we try to prove that X does not cause Y. When we obtain data that undercuts a paradigm, we do not write a fucking press release, we first consider how we fucked up the damn experiment! We do not identify the next great anti-cancer therapeutic target, we identify a protein that is required for uncontrolled cellular replication in a certain cell line under certain growth conditions in the lab.

If we as scientists, have truly identified a paradigm shifting result or established that the textbooks need to be rewritten, this will come out in the end. If we hoist ourselves by our own petard, then we have a problem. Think about this, when we push these boundaries of science as I see happening too often in publications and manuscripts I review, are we any different than the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear, or the person at the other end of the psychic hotline, or the politician that assess every problem to some simplistic social issue we already agree with.

We're scientists. We're better than this.

Poor US Education Meme Infects the Minnesota Daily

It's bad enough reading the standard misinformation regarding K-12 education in the popular press, but now it has infected our student paper too. The editorial compares the curricula of Germany with that of South Korea as educational systems that could be modeled to improve US education. But the question, the answer to which is assumed in this editorial, is, is the US education system doing poorly?

Dunces unite

Based on the popular press, you'd think US education is in complete disarray. This idea is supported by tests that compare the US to many other countries.

For example, Pearson ranks the US as 17th overall in cognitive skills and educational attainment (Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore rank 1-5). The US is between Belgium and Hungary and for the record Germany comes in at a devastating 15th. These rankings spanned 2006 - 2010.

Furthermore, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 rankings have US 15 year olds at 17th in reading, 23rd in math, and 21st in science out of the 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. (The US ranked 36th in math of all countries/areas tested.) 

Highlander ranks higher than
US in math and kicking ass

These rankings are problematic for several reasons.

Zero Sum Games: For the US to move up in its rankings other countries must go down. As the Highlander says 'There can be only one.' Is the US education system likely to be that much stronger than education system of the United Kingdom? Germany? Japan? Canada? France? Belgium? I'm not suggesting we should not try to attain the greatest achievement possible, but don't you think these other countries want to have student success? Even if we thought of it first (we didn't), other countries would likely have noticed and followed suit.

Apples and Oranges: The US is not a monolith of education. If anything we're a monolith of stupidity. We have a decentralized education system. Each state can do what it wants, thus states like Tennessee and Louisiana, which overtly teach biblical creationism, may do poorly on science exams. Using the US as a single entity for comparison sake does reveal major shortcomings in our educational system. But it's basically worthless, unless your goal is to eliminate public education and replace it with a mechanism to move more taxpayer money into corporate hands.

From Slate

 If we look at states individually, something different emerges.

On the PISA exam, the US math average was 481, placing us at 36th of OECD. The average for the OECD countries was 494, putting the US well below average. But if we look at individual states we find that average in Massachusetts was 514, Connecticut was 506, and Florida was 467. Two states doing well above the OECD average and one state 4 points below Croatia, a country recently established from the ruins of Yugoslavia.

Similar results are seen in the science averages. US average: 497; OECD average 501; Massachusetts average 527; Connecticut average 521, and Florida average 485.

Any guesses on reading literacy? US average: 498; OECD average 496; Massachusetts average 527; Connecticut average 521, and Florida average 492.

Do you see a trend there? It looks like some states, Massachusetts, do extremely well helping promote a strong US score. Yet other states, I'm looking at you Florida, fuck it up for everyone. You'ld think the talking heads would be asking 'what's working in top performing states like MA, NH, MN, etc?' or even 'what's not working in bottom performing states like FL, MS, AL, etc?'

I bet people in Massachusetts really want to overhaul their successful education system in order to try out a new one that might improve Florida's scores.

We spend so much time disparaging teachers that many rankings done in the US use teacher tenure, teacher seniority, and charter school availability as major criteria in their evaluations of state education. Regardless of student outcomes! If a state has teacher tenure and great student achievement, should that state be dinged? For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council (not affiliated with Congress) came out with their rankings: Massachusetts received a C; Florida a B.

I suggest you go back on look at the PISA scores and then let that digest a minute. If you think the PISA test is a Muslim plot, you could also look at the USA USA USA National Assessment of Educational Progress NAEP rankings: MA, with MN and NH, first in 4th grade math; Fl 30th. MA first in 8th grade math; FL 37th. MA, first in 4th grade reading; FL 13th. MA first in 8th grade reading; FL 33rd. (Was that a complete sweep?) Yet the ALEC says FL is a clear letter grade better than MA. WTF?!?! (ALEC cares little about education and more about policy that ends public education: Vermont and Rhode Island received D+'s yet were 2nd and 6th in the country on the NAEP tests respectively; Utah B- and South Carolina C were 41st and 50th on the NAEP test respectively.)

For the record, MA and other top performing states do well across economic spectra. These results are not simply due to socio-economic differences. However, poverty clearly has a profound effect on education achievement. 

Coming full circle, it's not a zero sum game here either. For FL to improve its ranking other states have to lose positions. The point is that using the US as an education collective to compare against actual education collectives is ridiculous.

Regardless, I am tired of hearing about the travesty of the US education system, when in fact many states are doing great, but are dragged down in national surveys by poor performing states (I'm looking at you deep south). We should look at the data coming from these assessments and tests and determine what is valid (are students in Singapore better prepared for the test due to timing of the curricula? do all students go to school and are they all tested in China?). We should also celebrate our accomplishments, YAY Massachusetts, and recognize our problems, I'm looking at you Florida, I'm also looking at Minnesota which is doing great on these tests but still has a huge achievement gap.

So thanks Minnesota Daily for getting me to write this. For the record, we don't need to look to South Korea or even Germany to fix our education system. First, we have to realize the US education system does not exist, so it can not be broken and need to be fixed. Second, we only have to look at our neighboring states to see what works and what doesn't. Third, if there are applicable educational innovations developed overseas or even up North, I'm all in favor of trying them. But realize much of our system works well and let's not fuck it all up because of Florida.

Teaching Critical Thinking

One question I grapple with is 'how do we get students to ask questions about, or rather to question, peer reviewed research papers?' This is based on my experience that undergraduate students and even many introductory graduate students have difficulty grasping the concept that there may be issues or even important problems with peer reviewed research. Part of this is based on an inherent appeal to authority/self confidence issue, how could a lowly undergraduate find something problematic with a paper written by Ph.D., or equivalently trained, scientists.

Why We Care About Critical Thinking

However, the question I am grappling with is just a subset of the more important issue, how do we teach students how to ask the 'right' questions. The key here being 'right.' This is a fundamental aspect of critical thinking. Being able to identify the assumptions, biases, controls needed, discrepancies, etc. in an argument, and a peer reviewed research paper is nothing if not an argument. I find the most successful approach is to identify these, and other, points by asking questions. Again these question have to be the 'right' questions.

In my advanced undergraduate class, I can usually classify my students into 3 categories: the non-questioners, the trivial questioners, and the rare critical thinking questioner. By the end of my course, I want my students to find themselves generally in this latter category.

In the first category, the non-questioner, we find the shy students who are uncomfortable speaking up. This silence could be the result of inherent shyness, poor classroom experiences, or even cultural issues. In fact, this point of 'cultural issues' reminds me that it is important for me to remember that women and minorities are frequently ignored or blatantly omitted from discussions. In my experience, there are as many if not more women promoting the discussions in my course as men. Regardless, I try to address the issue of cultural differences early by calling on women and minorities during our 

The Shy Student

discussion sessions. Included in this category of students are those who are not confident with the material and thus do not want to speak up for fear of saying something stupid. I provide many resources and tools to help bring students up to speed if they are missing some background, so I tend to be less sympathetic with these students because they, by definition, must be aware of their deficiencies and choose not to address them. Of course, it takes awhile to separate these students from those who are shy, but it is disheartening to identify a student as being  intellectually lazy, lazy in general, or indifferent. To be clear, I have had students that lack some of the foundational material needed for my course that have worked hard to address these issues, and I help them as much as possible, having one on one meetings as much as they need to go over concepts, specific papers, etc. I love these students, because they have a drive that is infectious. Getting back to the shy students, how can I help get them engage in the course, such that they can move to category 3 and without having to change their personalities? For these students, all students actually, I have online components to the course. In addition to in class discussions, I have an online forum to initiate new discussions or continue discussions started in the classroom. This provides a place for those students who are inherently shy and students who are not comfortable thinking on their feet, which is what the classroom discussions entail. Students can use these forums to ask broad questions, initiating discussions beyond the minutiae of the papers they read. Students can also ask for help if there is something in the papers, a method, conclusion, etc. they do not understand, and students can help their colleagues by answering those requests for help. While I monitor the discussion boards, I refrain from commenting as much as possible, such that it quickly becomes a student-driven environment. While not perfect, there are mechanisms to promote moving students from category 1 to category 3.

Were you there? Only applies
to science not the New Testament.

The second category: the trivial questioner, is the place I work the most. Not that a specific student is a constant trivial questioner, but rather it is a constant place we come back to in class. This is not a problem because it does serve as a constant 'teachable moment.' The trivial questioner falls into the meme that there are no stupid questions. Of course there are stupid questions! In fact, the 'there are no stupid questions' comment is itself a stupid comment. I understand the 'there are no stupid questions' concept, but it is used with the tacit understanding that everyone is acting in good faith. This is seldom the case. For example we have Ken Hamm's 'Were you there?' question. This question is bullshit and not acting in good faith. The fact he encourages ten year olds to ask this question just serves to exemplify the moral vacuum in which Hamm resides. Hamm knows this question is a bullshit question, but it is a nice soundbite gotcha-sounding question to the masses. However, the ten year olds Hamm sends out to 'ask' questions do not know why this is bullshit, and that is his goal. However, we can use it as a teachable moment. The problem, in my opinion, is that Hamm knows many children would never ask the question, but will think the question and then answer it for themselves. In my course, there are many 'were you there?' type questions. Not necessarily from the Hamm perspective, but from the 10 year old perspective of 'this sounds good, I'll go with it' perspective.' These kind of questions are particularly present at the beginning of the course and I like to think I help move the students into the 3rd category. It's possible that I push these students into the 1st category, but I doubt that based on the quality of the discussions as the semester progresses. By way of example, every year when discussing a paper using a mouse model, the question will arise 'well I am concerned that the study only used female mice and I wonder what the data would be if male mice were used?'  This kind of question is relatively easy to come up with because we teach students 'black and white' thinking, everything is a binary decision. So when the student reads the methods and materials and sees '20 female C57/B6 mice were....' the student immediately thinks 'male' or vice versa in a 'tell me the word that pop into your head when I say...' kind of way.

So how do I encourage questions/comments of these 2nd category students without pushing them into the 1st category? What I have found works is to mimic Socrates, I ask questions. For example...

I am concerned that the study only used female mice and I wonder what the data would be if male mice were used?

Why do you think this might make a difference? I agree that there are important differences between females and males, I'm wondering how you think these differences apply to this study?

Well there could be differences due to hormones or something...

That's a great point, because that is clearly the case in certain instances like Paracoccidiodes infections. Is there anything in this system that makes you think there is would be a sex-based difference?

.....

Ok that's a good point at face value, but maybe needs further consideration, did anyone have additional issues with this study?

The point is to encourage/require the students to have a scientific justification for their concerns, questions, critiques. This, in my opinion, is the most difficult thing the students can learn and that I can teach. The point is that I need to teach the students how to question the studies, but also to question their own questions/concerns. But, I want to emphasize that it is ok to be wrong! We talk about well conducted studies that have generally solid conclusions and identify potential concerns. These concerns may not change the overall conclusions, but do raise concerns with sub-conclusions that may not be valid. In fact, the introductory paper we are discussing is the one I railed on previously. We will also be considering the press release. This is a change from the last couple of years when we discussed a well written, described, and assessed paper. I'm interested in how this approach works.

Own this book!!! 

Finally, we come to the third category: the critical thinker questioners. For these students, I can only refine their skills, improve their writing, and expose them to new and interesting areas. Almost uniformly, these students have research experience and likely significant experience. However, these students almost certainly have holes based on the areas they have been exposed to. These students know the potential issues in the area they are familiar with, but lack the similar approach/mindset in the areas they are not familiar with. This is one of the reasons it is essential for scientists to read well outside their fields. Breadth of knowledge promotes a better assessment for how your studies fit into the broader world of science. This increases the impact of your research not only from the study in question, but also in the questions you ask in the first place.

FYI. While I have categorized student comments/questions into 3 groups, no one student (nor the instructor) fits into a given group. Furthermore, I love my course because I learn so much from the students, even those that tend to cluster in a specific category. The lessons I learn may vary, but I learn important concepts, holes, insights from all three groups.  I thank the students from previous years for helping me develop these insights and to improve my courses.

How to study: a re-repost

This seems timely to repost.

Since a new semester is about to begin I think a post on how to study would be apropos. So here is an advice column for students looking for some techniques to improve their study habits. I am not an expert in learning, but I am an expert in being a college student with no fucking idea how to study and had to figure it out over the course of a year or two. I was one of those students who didn't have to do much to maintain an A/B average in high school. Although I was exposed to study skills and habits while in high school, none of it stuck because I really didn't need to study to do reasonably well. So here is what I learned that worked for me. If you have your own successful techniques, please feel free to add them in the comments.

Learning is an active process, it requires energy. It may not be as physically taxing as a 45 minute work out, but then again you may not be doing it right. What I discovered is that I learn when I do things, when I engage the material, when I'm an active participant. If it's a couple of days before the big exam and you're wondering to yourself 'What's the best way I can study? I know, I'll take some time to play online and get some tips.' Well, if this is you, you're fucked or at least I don't have anything for you. Come back after your upcoming exam, my advice might help you for the next exam. Right now, you are in cram mode, so you better start cramming and not wasting your time reading blogs. I will admit that cramming works, to a degree. Cramming is a short term solution, getting enough material under you belt to survive or even succeed at the exam. But it's a long-term problem. Are you really in college to survive exams and classes? That was really high school wasn't it? Cramming is problematic because the material is never actually learned, it may come up again on the final, it will likely be important next semester or the semester after that in your more advanced classes. Learning and cramming both take energy, but the former is far less stressful and provides both short-term and long-term gains.

Step 1. Find an environment to study in. Ultimately this became at my desk in the bedroom of my apartment. I also kept my stereo close by set at police notification level. I learned quickly that I could ignore the music, but sounds from the street, from the kitchen/dining/living room area, or from anywhere outside my room were distracting. To this day, when I'm working on grants or papers and do not want to be disturbed, I  close my office door and crank up some music. Although I am a chaotic person by nature, my desk was neat and organized. I needed a place to work comfortably and that was it. My textbooks and notebooks were stacked in/on some milk crates I used for shelves. (These of course were the store bought kind of 'milk crates' not the easily available sturdy and inexpensive milk crates available behind 7/11s, like the one across the street of my apartment. Although if they were the illicit version, which they weren't, they would have been returned when I moved to go to graduate school.)

$0.69 for 3 in 1989

Step 2. Get a bunch of notebooks. I used spiral bound notebooks available for next to nothing at drug stores. Of course these notebooks will have absurd cover designs or pictures you would never in a million years gravitate towards (see picture of my Molecular Biology notebook). That's not the point. The point is what's inside the notebook, and that will be gold. I mixed up the designs on the notebooks I bought so I could easily identify which one I wanted. The alternative is to be flipping through them wondering if this is the black notebook Im looking for. Get one notebook for every class you take (except maybe for the golf/tennis/etc classes). Any class that has a lecture has its own notebook. No cheating by getting a three-subject notebook. Also, get a couple of additional notebooks.

These things are evidence of evil

Since you're at the drug store all ready, get some pens and pencils. I love pens, but despise cheap ass ball point pens. You'll be using these a lot, so get pens/pencils you are comfortable with. Make sure you get a variety of colors. I survived with black, blue, and red, but there is a veritable palate of colored inks now. Get what you love or at least can tolerate. I prefer mechanical pencils, but if you get classic ones, you better kick in for a decent pencil sharpener or two. Also grab some highlighters also in assorted colors.

Step 3. Do the readings strategically. Chapter 3 is covered Wednesday? Read it through by Tuesday night. That isn't very strategic is it? The strategy is to skim read the text. Get a sense of what's in there and what will be the likely topics and points for the upcoming lecture. You don't need to be more than familiar with the material. (In the case of labs, this is not true. You must be intimately aware of the material, because you will be using that information in the lab. Hell, there may even be a quiz on the lab manual!)

Step 4. Go to class. Although you probably couldn't pass a quiz on the readings material, the vocabulary is familiar. Now you already know a bit about the upcoming lecture. Gather up your pens and pencils and one of the extra notebooks. Leave your textbooks at home, along with the highlighters, and other notebooks. You don't need much.

Get to class on time and get a good seat. In large classes, I recommend a seat near to the front and in the middle where the professor can actually see you. Why? Psychology that's why. Take two students doing equally well, one student the professor recognizes, even if there is no name associated with the face, and one student the professor has barely, if ever, seen. If both come to discuss an issue regarding an examination or writing assignment, which one will have at least a sub-conscious advantage?

Open your notebook to page 1 get out a couple of writing implements and get ready. If the professor has handouts or, god forbid, print outs of the slides, then definitely pick them up, but DONT use them during the lecture (with rare exception). Your job is to take a shit ton of notes. Don't worry about neatness and perfection, just get the stuff written down. Write down the points on the slides, the drawings, incorporate what the professor is saying. The very act of writing things down is helping you learn the material! 'But we have the slide print outs, so why write stuff down?' you ask. In my more youthful days I would have responded with 'Because we didn't have the material presented to us, so stop being so fucking needy.' But in my dotage I think an example is better. What is another name for a television? Did 'idiot box' spring to mind? There's a reason for that. Some people watch tons of TV, these are not inherently the most educated people in the world. My mother loved to watch soap operas during the 70s, hours of soap operas. She was not an expert in social interactions because of this nor was she an expert story teller, she just watched a lot of soap operas. This is one of the biggest impediments to learning, fucking handouts. Remember I said learning was an active process. Lectures are not television. You should be doing something not just watching. The problem with handouts is that it facilitates the TV watching mentality. There are reasons to hand out the notes, which is why you are collecting them, but wait until later to use them. For now, take a shit ton of notes.  Do not be tempted to put notes in the margin of the print outs, you bought the cheap ass notebook, so use it. (Plus you'll want a pristine copy of those hand outs for later.) So, you were in class sitting in a strategic location, you took a shit ton of notes, now what? Go to your next class and repeat using the same notebook.

Notes on chromosomal

melting temps.

Step 5. THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP: The next day. So you went to all your classes, even the ones you think are boring, and you took a bunch of notes, even on things you think you know already. Now what? Hang out with friends, watch TV, play some Xbox, then go to bed and the next day go to all your other classes. At some point on this second day, you need to carve out some studying time. When depends on your schedule. I did this in the mid-late-afternoon, because I was generally done with classes then. Go to your studying environment, get out your notes from yesterday, one of the fresh notebooks that will be specific for a specific class, any handouts, and your textbook. Now you will rewrite your notes in a more organized and legible manner. As you rewrite, you will refer to the text for additional points, and in your class-specific notebook you can either incorporate the textbook material or simple refer to the page numbers/figure numbers. Either redraw or cut out the handout figures you need and add them to your notebook. This could take as long as the original lecture, but probably won't. Regardless, you are now learning some serious material. The act of rewriting helps embed the information into your memory, by organizing the material in a manner that works for you (which is probably like it was presented) you are thinking about the material in total not simply one fact after another. You are also reading the text in a more in depth way, which is easier because you already skimmed it and went to the lecture. Do this for those boring easy classes too. It helps maintain good study habits and instead of simply learning the material, you'll own it. Another benefit is that if you do this, you will know before the next lecture what material you may not understand. This gives you a ton of time to meet with your colleagues, TAs, professor to get things straight.

Step 6. When you finish going through the crappy notes, rip out the page(s) and throw them away. You don't need them anymore because they are rewritten and you'll feel good about the progress you made.

I won't guarantee these steps will improve your grade, but I do guarantee that they will improve your understanding and knowledge of the material.

Additional thoughts:

A. Write in your textbooks, at least highlight important information. I used different colored highlighters for different purposes. Red was for definitions, blue was for what I thought were key concepts, green was for things referring to my class notebook. Will writing in your textbook reduce its value when you resell it? Well hopefully you will not resell it. Having that chemistry textbook could come in handy when you need to revisit something you forgot in your molecular biology class. If you absolutely do not want the book, why buy it in the first place? Probably you could borrow one from a colleague or use the library.

B. Scheduling. You need to prepare ahead of time when things are getting done. If you don't, you will almost certainly get behind or not have enough time. If you want to go to that party or game, you may need to start rewriting your notes earlier than normal to make sure you have enough time to finish before going out. Also, there will be several big assignments due for other classes throughout the semester, you'll need to be prepared for catching up on those notes you couldn't rewrite the day after class. (Don't get more than a class or two behind or you'll defeat the purpose of rewriting.)

C. Turn off your phone. You can survive an hour or two without reading all those awesome texts and facebook postings coming in. A 30 second distraction actually amounts to much longer, because it takes time to get back to where you were before you were distracted. Every time you break focus, you are back to a more superficial level of learning and it takes some time to get back to that deeper level.

D. When it's test time, you'll find it much easier to study. The material is already there in your mind because you've been through it at least twice already. You may have to pull an occasional all-nighter, but it will be different than the cramming you did previously.

Notes for a recently submitted grant

from a relevant paper.

E. For the record, I still use these techniques to prepare grants and papers (see photo). I do a lot of background reading and have notebooks dedicated to taking notes on the papers, complete with different colored pens. This allows me to make connections and think about the material in a much deeper way than I would be able to otherwise. Same for seminars I attend, I bring a notebook.

With those words of advice,

Good luck and have a great semester!

In Defense of Ignorance: Heffernan Edition

An article making the rounds on Yahoo does a great job of reinforcing societal loathing of science. You know that stupid activity being done everyday by jerk wads and has given us things like clean water, antibiotics, the ability to feed 7+ billion people, wifi, etc.

Heffernan is not a scientist nor someone in a technology field and that's ok. Most people aren't.  But like most people, Heffernan likes the benefits provided by science and technology. For instance you might note she is publishing an article at Yahoo that was certainly written on a computer. She also admits to owning a smartphone. Clearly this is someone who embraces technology, even if she doesn't understand how it works.

She gives up the game in the first paragraph.

As a child I fell in love with technology, but I have to admit I never fell in love with science. I kept hoping that messing around with Macs and Atari and eventually the Internet would nudge me closer to caring about the periodic table, Louis Pasteur and the double-blind studies that now seem to stand for science. As it was, I only cared about the double-blind studies that told me what I wanted to hear—that potatoes are good for you or that people of my height are generally happy—and I liked the phrase “double-blind” when it was on my side because it meant “true” and “take that.” (emphasis mine)

See, she admits to not falling in love with science and what science gave us. She only cared about science when it told her what she wanted to hear. Someone should probably inform her that that is not how science works. That is actually more like how religion works. Interestingly, throughout the early parts of the essay, Heffernan establishes religion as being oppressed by science and those evil practitioners of science. And as you might expect, Heffernan ultimately admits to being a fundamentalist Christian. Of course she is not direct about and does an end around to try to hide her intentions from her 'dear readers.' (As a person who admits to only caring about information that reinforces what she already believes, she likely assumes most people are like her and will not think too deeply about what she is doing.)

Upon admitting that she is a creationist, she tells us that the last person she actually said that to stormed off in a huff. I suspect that is bullshit, a lie, a fabrication. I could be wrong, but I am sure there is more to the story than being said. As a rational skeptic and scientist, I think it is more likely she is lying or leaving out important information than a person up and left a restaurant simply because she said she was a creationist. Based on my reading of Heffernan, I do not think I would like hanging out with her, but if we were at a restaurant having an appetizer and a cocktail, I would still not up and leave simply because she admitted to being a moron.

Upon telling us she read many books, which she seems to read for pleasure and style focusing on the prose not the content, she then states 

I still read and read and listen and listen.

Remember this is the person who tells us she only cares about things that agree with what she wants to hear.

And I have never found a more compelling story of our origins than the ones that involve God.

Ok, for a humanities Ph.D. trained person complaining about scientific prose that is one god-awful sentence. 'than the ones' suggests she is lumping all magical creation stories into this sentiment. Basically suggesting that any mythology is better than reality. But no. Heffernan is clearly only talking about Genesis as interpreted the way she interprets it. We don't need to consider all those silly New England theologians who believe Genesis is metaphor. We can discount all those Catholics and other Christian denominations that believe Genesis is not true, because she has it all figured out.

Heffernan then tries to bring up the fact that science is always changing (it's not, at least not how she believes it does). As we get more information we understand the universe in which we live better, thus we revise our conclusions. Because of this cars get 40+ mpg instead of 2 mpg. Because of this we get more food per acre than we used to. Because of this we have the internet. I don't see Heffernan lamenting the fact she has to upload a crap pile of an article to Yahoo instead of using a good old fashioned telegraph to transmit her thoughts across the country. Stupid science.

See the bible never changes. The book of Genesis is still around in its original form, unlike that pesky science. Genesis has never been translated from the original texts, which we definitely have. And the ideas supported by the bible like slavery and murder of adulteresses have not changed. Ideas that women, even those named Virginia, being responsible for all sin and subject to men haven't changed. Or maybe they have and Heffernan only cares about things that affirm what she wants to hear. But why should I think that.

Support the artist

Yahoo Can Do Better

Dear Yahoo,

When you post an article about 'nightmare bacteria' I suggest not using a picture of someone holding a petri dish covered with mold. Just sayin'.

Best,
Lorax

Father-in-law of a Science Fair

Well another Twin Cities Creation Science Association science fair has come and gone. This ostensibly is a science fair for homeschooled children, but is more pointedly a “Christian-only science as described in the bible 'science' fair.”

from here

This is my 4th TCCSA science fair (you can see my write ups on the others here, here, and here). However, this represents the first time I was able to attend when the students were presenting their posters to the judges. Of the 23 (one for each human chromosome?) posters, I was able to talk with about half in some detail. Not surprisingly talking with the kids was a blast...well talking to some of the kids was a blast. Like other venues, some kids were truly enthusiastic about what they had done, whereas others not so much. One has to wonder how much the parents forced this latter group into participating and even going so far as to do the work.

I do want to comment on the venue. In previous years this religion-as-science fair was held at the Har Mar Mall in the large open space/hallway separating the stores that defines a mall. The positives of the Har Mar Mall was the fact I could buy a new book at Barnes&Noble and get a beer with friends at Old Chicago afterwards. Both of these abilities served to limit the soul crushing depression associated with kids being taught that religion = science. The negative with the Mall was the lack of emphasis on the work the kids did. There are elderly power-walkers doing laps, potential homeless folks trying to stay warm, peripheral security guards watching potential homeless folks, and shoppers scurrying from one store to the next. All of this detracted from the posters. However, one of the goals of the TCCSA religion-as-science fair is to bring Christianity to the masses:

Five things to remember:
1. Know your material. 
2. Be confident. 
3. Communicate well. 
4. Be thorough. 
5. Pray your exhibit will witness to non-Christian visitors. (emphasis mine)

from here

So from that perspective, the Mall is a useful venue even if, and maybe especially if, it detracts from the science. Regardless, this year the event was held at Northwestern 'College', which  (their words) "exists to provide Christ-centered higher education equipping students to grow intellectually and spiritually, to serve effectively in their professions, and to give God-honoring leadership in the home, church, community, and world." Thus, Northwestern College seems like the perfect place for the religion-as-science fair. The campus is adjacent to Little Lake Johanna and quite pleasant/quiet. I jogged around it a few times last summer and look forward to it again when winter is over. The plus is that the environment was more conducive to looking at the posters and engaging with the people there. Northwestern College is also close to a favorite watering hole for the post-fair recuperation drink.

So I arrive and started looking at posters. When a poster had a student standing by it with no one showing an immediate interest, I went there and asked the student if they would tell me about their work...and now we enter the realm of any K-12 science fair occurring at (a diminishing number of) schools all over the country. We have the good and the bad.

This fair represented age groups from around third grade to junior/high school I'm guessing, so the level was quite diverse. There were two categories: experimental and report. The reports, regardless of venue, tend to bore me because I find it difficult to engage the student in the process of science. There were two of this type that I recall: one on butterflies and one on cranberries (I learned that cranberries grow and are farmed in bogs!). Neither student for these posters was available when I was in the vicinity.

The experimental covered a range of science. We had the standard 'what freezes first? warm or cold water' Spoiler Alert: It's cold water, and a study on the 5 second rule (see below). Notably absent was the 'do plants grow better when music my parents like is played?' project.

My favorites:
1. the 5 second rule presented by a young woman (Im guessing 4-6th grade range). She conducted several experiments and even had some important controls included. She was familiar with the literature on the topic and was clearly well prepared. Most importantly was her enthusiasm, I was exhausted by the time she was done.  It was a lot over the top, but compared to so many student posters, including graduate students' at professional meetings, this was a breath of fresh air...albeit at ~100 mph so maybe a tornado of fresh air. 

2. One young man studied the parallax effect using trap shooting as a model. Basically he had people shoot clay pigeons with either one eye open or the other or both and graphed the success rate. He did replicates and used several different people termed expert and amateur at shooting. I wanted to ask him if he thought practice had more to do with it, but he was also not around when I there. This idea was supported by his data where the amateurs' success wasn't altered by a change in eye usage, whereas the experts' were. I liked this project because it tried to look at something interesting using readily available resources. Based on the pictures, he and his family appear to be trap shooting enthusiasts. This seemed liked a great way to combine something he enjoys with some science.

My least favorites: 
1. The unprepared. These were students who probably had little involvement with their research other than assembling the poster. There were several in this category. I worry about my own son's science projects, because I help him. I know I can come up with experiments/projects for him, walk him through the experiments, and prep him for the presentation. But how does that help him or teach him science? It just teaches him to do what he's told (how I wish for that some days though!). I find asking him questions works best. Ask him what he thinks, ask him about other possibilities to explain his data and then ask what we could do to rule them out. This approach seems to work based on feedback I've received from those who talked to him at his school's science fairs. 

2. The I'm too cool for school. There was one of these. The 'let's put a mentos in soda and see what happens' experiment. This young man was clearly one of the older participants. I asked him to walk me through his study and his immediate response was 'Well this is the top left corner, and over here is the top right corner.' Normally I would just be done, but I decided to play. I asked what he wanted to learn and why, we all know it foams up. *crickets* I asked him what causes the foam? *crickets* I asked him in what way he thought his work represented a good example of science in action? *crickets* I then suggested he check out the '5 second rule' poster.

3. The I totally outwitted all those experts. This was the one overtly creationist one I recall. (This is sold as a science fair for home schooled children and I expect some (many?) participants are not necessarily raised by creationists but simply the parents are using the forum to have their kids participate in a science fair.) This young woman, on the older side, was interested in stalactite formation, which some guides at a local cave said took millions of years to form. Well, using a solution of epsom salts she showed that crystals could form within a few days. She then concluded, and I quote, "I proved them wrong." I was polite and asked some methodology questions. I did ask if she thought the stalactites she saw were made from epsom salts and she of course said no. I then asked if she thought that might matter.

I spoke with a number of other students, who were great. It's fun talking science and seeing the joy of learning something new in a person's, especially a young person's, eye. The sense of accomplishment with being able to explain something new to someone. Of course at this religion-as-science fair the posters were tainted by the requirement of a bible verse relevant to the science project (which is part of the judging criteria). Prizes were awarded and you could not win based on the fact that the judges were not impressed with your bible verse. Luckily I met up with two friends Greg and Mike at the fair and we relocated to the local pub to decompress afterwards. It was good to end on a high note, especially one that lacked a required bible verse. 

Update: a reader noted that the original cartoon I inserted made fun of a creation science fair participant. My intention is not to disparage the kids who are the victims in these events. Thus, I replaced it with a more relevant cartoon. Thanks to the reader for bringing that issue to my attention.