Is Peer Review Broken?

No.

Oh, you wanted more than that? Maybe some nuanced reflection on the issue of peer review? Ok, I'll give it a go, but I won't do nuance. Nuance died when Trump was elected, actually before that, but talk about nail in a coffin.


There have been many stories floating around for years on the failings of peer review (the vetting of scientific studies by other expert scientists in the field prior to publication). These stories usually follow the publication of some study that is fundamentally flawed or unacceptable for any number of reasons. Several examples come to mind Arsenic bacteria, Cold fusion, Caterpillar hybridization, etc. So questions 'Is Peer Review Broken? and If so, How Do We Fix It? come up.

For those who live in the scientific universe you can skip the blue paragraphs, otherwise if you want a short breakdown of the process feel free to read them.

Once a group of scientists have made observations and gathered data, they write a story (aka scientific manuscript). I want to note this manuscript is a story, not in a fiction story sense, but in a narrative sense. The authors may not describe the experiments in the order they were conducted, because it makes a more logical narrative to describe things out of order. The authors may use their 20-20 vision to redescribe why an experiment was carried out, because at the time of writing the manuscript the original reason may not make sense in light of the narrative. Again, for those just looking to find reasons to disparage science,  I'm not suggesting authors are manipulating data or trying to obscure their findings (although there are cases of this), I'm talking about making a compelling argument to convince a skeptical audience of experts that their interpretations of the data (aka conclusions) are correct.

Ok, once the manuscript is written revised and edited until most if not all the authors hate the thing, it is submitted to a scientific journal for publication. The journal then assigns the paper to an editor who then decides if the paper is of sufficient rigor and interest to the readers to actually get peer reviewed. If the paper passes this hurdle, the editor sends a number of requests to other scientists asking them to evaluate the manuscript, including the experimental approaches and interpretations of the conclusions. (There are some variations on this model, but most journals follow this model. Some have additional levels of scrutiny, but this tends to be early in the process and not by current scientists.) Many potential reviewers decline and the editor repeats sending out requests until, usually, at least 3 agree. The 3 reviewers then read and critique the manuscript and provide feedback to the authors and editor on the pros and cons of the manuscript, this is the PEER REVIEW component. At this point the editor makes a decision on the manuscript which ranges from (rarely) acceptance, editorial revisions, more experiments needed revisions, to outright rejection. The most common response is some kind of revision, either with or without more experiments, and the authors deal with those critiques and resubmit a revised manuscript. (In the case of outright rejection, the authors usually revise the manuscript based on the review comments and send the manuscript to another journal (They revise because the same reviewers are likely to see it.)) The manuscript can either be accepted/rejected by the editor or (most commonly) sent out for re-review

Peer review, much like everything humans do, is a human endeavor. So it is subject to human limitations. This is not new or particular special, it's simply a fact that humans are not robots, have biases, and some even have ulterior motives. In a simplistic sense we can say peer review is broken, because people will and do make mistakes at all the levels described above. However, by this criteria peer review has always been broken and always will be broken. But this is a stupid criteria. Let's go through how this process can fail, because once we know how it can fail, we can make recommendations for how to fix it.

1. Poor editors

This works for and against a manuscript. For you: The editor thinks your shit don't stink. They can send out your manuscript, when they wouldn't send out the same manuscript from a different group. They can pick reviewers they know to be 'easy' or can write the invitation letter in such a way to encourage a positive review. How can this latter event happen? An editor, who is an established scientist can send to one of their former graduate students/post-docs who is now an independent scientist the following invitation,

Dear Prof X, I have this manuscript I think would be a perfect fit for journal Y, do you have time to review it? Abstract attached below.

Do you see how the letter could effect the review? You have extreme cases like Lynn Margulis obtaining numerous reviews until she had 3 she could use to accept an atrocious paper in PNAS (ignoring all the reviews that noted the fundamental errors in the paper).

2. Poor reviewers

I've been an editor for several journals. I can give you two easy reasons why you might get a poor review. First, you, as an editor, may not be an expert in the area the manuscript addresses. You might be generally aware of the area, but are certainly no expert, which means you likely do not know who the experts are in that field (because its not your field). You can do PubMed searches to identify people who have published in specific areas, but you don't know them or their research. So an editor may not be obtaining 3 rigorous expert reviewers.
Second, even in an area of expertise, the researchers you know are experts often say no when asked. This is particularly true if the journal isn't one of the top journals out there. There is little prestige saying you reviewed papers for a general journal like PLoS ONE in your annual reviews compared to Science or Nature.

3. Poor journals

There are also two versions of this. First, there are journals that will publish anything if you pay, its their business model. You can check out Beall's predatory journal list to identify many of these. Second, there are top-tiered journals that care about mass media dissemination of the work published there, also their business model (Science, Nature, I'm looking at you). The Arsenic bacteria was published in one of these journals, as were the ENCODE papers. This is not simply a journal issue as there were problems at all levels, but the journals actively advertised this work.

So how do we fix peer review?

Most of the discussion I've seen has been dealing simply with reviewers, which I think is the least broken aspect of the peer review process. (It's like blaming teachers for poor student performance and ignoring income inequality and poverty.) The solutions I've seen generally revolve around identifying reviewers, which is stone cold fucking stupid. I've obtained jackass reviews on publications and wish I knew who the dumbass was, but that's kind of the point of anonymous reviewers. If I disagree with a reviewer I cannot subconsciously or consciously screw them over on one of their papers or (more importantly) grant proposals in the future. Non-anonymous reviewers means no early career scientists will review papers for fear of career suicide or early career scientists will review papers and be favorable in the hope for favorable reviews in turn going forward. Non-anonymous peer review would essentially end all the good things of peer review and solve exactly 0 problems of peer review.

One idea I have seen floated around is publishing the reviews, which I actually support. The reviewer remains anonymous, but also has to take some ownership of their review. This could reduce what I think have been some bullshit critiques. While the reviewer would remain anonymous, the community could see what the issues were and decide if those were reasonable (and reasonably dealt with by the authors) or unreasonable and the community could actually comment on it (because the age of social media has changed things profoundly).

How can we fix things? I like the publishing reviews along with the articles (make them available online). BioRxiv may help with this as authors can post their original manuscripts that the world can see to compare reviewer critiques to. I personally like the idea of paying reviewers. $50 a review, not enough to cover the cost of the review but to provide some incentive. (I expect I spend 4 hours on every paper I review rigorously, because I check the literature, so not even minimum wage in some states. Some papers are so bad, they can be reviewed in an hour or two, but I wonder why the editor sent the paper out (see below).) You review 6 papers a year, which is pretty low in my experience, you make an extra $300 bucks, which is not nothing. If you suck at reviewing, editors stop asking you which has a financial consequence. I can see the argument that the money could allow systemic abuse, where reviewers want to appease the editors so they get more assignments, but this is essentially the amount I could make mowing a couple of lawns on a summer evening, probably in less time. (FYI, many journals make good money on the backs of free reviewers and free editors.)

One idea I have not seen floated around is to make editors more accountable. Too often in my submitted manuscripts (and those manuscript I have reviewed), the editor simply defers to the reviews and takes no responsibility. If a reviewer asks for an additional experiment, it must be done even if it has no effect on the conclusions made in the manuscript. In too many cases the editors simply pass information between the reviewers and authors.

How can we fix this? One idea is make editors more accountable. First, pay them. Say $3000 a year, this is essentially the cost of one article. FYI the authors pay to publish their work in the journal. If an editor is not doing a good job, boot them and take on another one. Screw it, hire professional editors, PhD scientists, for $90,000 a year and have them cover a research area. 30 articles covers their salary (another 10-15 for benefits). How many Nature papers are biology related every week?!?! Maybe the CEOs make a little less in order to support high quality science?

What about the journals? Well, authors should stop fighting to get their shit in glamour mags. I know scientists are under immense pressure to publish in C/N/S journals (Cell, Nature, Science), but do these journals really publish the best of the best? Don't know, what I do know is that any good study published in an open access journal is available to everyone, every-fucking-one-with-an-internet-connection!!! How many people actually peruse journals anymore as opposed to PubMed searches? I still subscribe to Science and/or Nature, but primarily for the news, reviews, and opinion pieces as well as to support their policy and outreach initiatives. If you are doing quality work, it will be read, because google. If I can find a decent Chinese restaurant in Rome online, I can find interesting articles on phenotypic diversity in microorganisms online. I would point out the Noble Prize winning research on B-cells (the antibody producing cells of the body) was published in the fucking Journal of Poultry Science.

In summary, peer review is a human endeavor and subject to human foibles. Is it perfect? No. Can it be improved? Marginally. Is it the best we have? Absolutely, but with the caveat that minor improvements can be made and the acceptance that there is no such thing as perfection, simply the ongoing striving for perfection.

What I Read (2016)

(Grade A-F, no E's) Title-Author Additional thoughts

A        Injustice: Gods Among Us Year 1. In general, when the video game comes first, the next media manifestation sucks. Think of all the video game to movie travesties (I'm looking at you Super Mario Bros). However, this graphic novel (a compilation of the first year of the comic book series) based on the Mortal Combat style video game is a success. Like Watchmen, it deals with some interesting issues.

C        Die Trying by Lee Child. Another pass the time 'thriller'. Not that thrilling really, but an easy quick read to pass some time.

C-       John Constantine: Hellblazer Vol 1. Meh, better have some knowledge about John Constantine coming into to this or it's not going to be easy figuring out what's going on initially. Last story and a half seemed not related to the overarching arc of the story, but tacked on to add some filler.

C-       The Obelisk Gate by N.K. Jemisin. Had to go back and see what I rated the first in this series (FYI an A), because  I was not a fan of The Obelisk Gate. Maybe I forgot too much of the earlier book, but this one provided little to no context for much of the previous book. (A brief synopsis or some character conversations to orient the reader of last years' book would be helpful.) Basically two independent stories moving along in parallel.

A-       The Sandman: A Game of You by Neil Gaiman.  I enjoyed this story a lot. In general I like stories that interconnect two different worlds, particularly the 'real world' with a fantasy world. But also, this story had some great characters.

B-       Chimera by Mira Grant. Well my opinion of the second book seems justified by this book. I liked the way this story culminated, but I think the second and third books could have been merged to make a more concise flowing story.

B+      Night Stone by Rick Hautala. Classic Indian burial site horror story. Not a feel good happy ending, and considering that this was written in the 1980s not par for the course. Also, Hautala gets a nod because I knew him (my mom worked with his wife) and he gave an aspiring author (me, age 9) a collection of books for my birthday (including Nightshift by Stephen King and October Country by Ray Bradbury).
 
C        Severed Souls by Terry Goodkind. Enjoy Goodkind's Sword of Truth books and I think I enjoyed this one when I read it, though I recall getting bogged down with the flight from the half-men. It just kept going and going, got to the point of being more of the same. The reason I scored this lower is I had to look up a synopsis to remember some of the plot lines of the book, not a good sign.

A-       Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard. Knew little of James Garfield and now I know more. Wonderful weaving of the politics and medical science of the time, especially the motivations of individual people. While Alexander Graham Bell is an central character in the narrative, he doesn't actually contribute except as a historical notation (albeit an important notation).

A-       Dust by Hugh Howey. Great conclusion to the series. Kind of a happy ending if you forget about all the horrible things. Overall a good evaluation of the human condition both good and bad. Some issues were never resolved adequately in my opinion, like why were women and children frozen in Silo 1 or why other Silos had to be killed off instead of simply being ignored moving forward.

F        Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. Not really any redeeming qualities to this book. Behe's writing is condescending and he treats his audience like children. The book is more propaganda than scientific analysis. After a brief intro where the word 'literal' is misused. Following chapters are supposed to establish the idea of 'irreducible complexity' at the molecular level, but basically the point is that if we don't understand every possible thing, then the god-of-the-gaps argument is true. Some chapters are supposed to address the idea of intelligent design, but are rewordings of god-of-the-gaps argument. I am sure this book appealed to creationists and still does.

A-      Shift by Hugh Howey. A great sequel (more of a prequel), provides much of the backstory for how the apocalypse came to be. It's depressing in large part, but we are talking about the end of civilization. It ties into Wool well and provides a solid foundation for the last book Dust.

A        Wool by Hugh Howey. A great and in my opinion excellent world built by Howey. Life in a gigantic silo to survive a 'dead' earth. I whipped through this book in no time and am looking forward to picking up the second and third of this trilogy.

C+      The Sorcerer's Daughter by Terry Brooks. Definitely a Shannara book (maybe its a 'familiarity breeds...' issue), although I rank it higher because there are some novel aspects to this story, including a not so neatly packaged happy ending for some of the protagonists. 

A        Mr. Mercedes by Stephen King. A suspenseful and exciting mystery by Stephen King. No magical or fantastical forces at work in this story. Not really surprised, because it seems much of the 'horror' in King's work are the human kind.

B-       Galilee by Clive Barker. An engrossing story about two families, one mortal and the other less so. I began this book many years ago, but gave up on it for unrelated reasons. An enjoyable story that I didn't score higher because I found the ending describing how the families became entwined rushed.

C       Killing Floor by Lee Child. An average read to pass some time. Pretty obvious who the bad guys were and what the motivations were. Kind of expected more from the initial Jack Reacher franchise.

A-      Morning Star by Pierce Brown. I truly have enjoyed this series. Like with The Expanse series, I enjoyed this trilogy tremendously although I'm not usually a fan of space operas. Unlike The Expanse series, this reads more as a fantasy that takes place in space instead of different kingdoms on a single world. There are orcs, trolls, gnomes, elves, etc. although with different names. Regardless of genre placement, I highly recommend the books.

B       The White Dragon by Anne McCaffrey. Another solid sequel in this series (3/3 so far). While using the same world established and grown in the first two books, this has a different feel to it. Only aspect I didn't quite follow, which dropped it out of the A category (spoiler alert) is why did it take so long for the Southerners to realize how desperate they were to have to resort to stealing a golden egg.

A-       Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman. Do you sense a trend with this string of A-'s? A thoroughly enjoyable read. I read the Author's preferred version, because why wouldn't you? World building exploring the border between reality and slightly not-reality reminds me of several Clive Barker stories. Hell, even some Stephen King stories. Great characters.

A-       Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick. Blade Runner was a great movie. This book was better, but different. I don't see how you can compare the two. I love that the movie is different enough to work in that medium compared to this book which works so well in this medium.

A-       Dragonquest by Anne McCaffrey. A great sequel! Probably feeling better when I wrote this to score it higher than the original installment, which I enjoyed a lot. What stuck with me in this book was that it is centered on dealing with problems arising from the solution to the problem in the first book. Even our solutions, which completely solve a problem, are not without consequence.

C       The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. I know this novel is considered by many to be a major contribution to our literary time. Hell it even put a permanent death sentence on Rushdie, but I don't see it. I think the biggest contribution to society this book makes is uncovering the extreme danger of fundamentalist religion 20 years before it was obvious to America.

B       Dragonflight by Anne McCaffrey. An enjoyable romp, especially the prologue/backstory.  I started this book many years ago, probably as a late teen and didn't get into it at all. Not sure why, but I thoroughly enjoyed it now.

A       Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Of all the crap I was forced to read in high school, The Scarlet Letter or Fountainhead (neither of which I actually finished reading), why wasn't this a must read. Great exploration of the human condition and how fragile our hold on civilization may actually be. (I'm looking at you Ammon Bundy and Donald Trump.)

C        The Cat Who Walks Through Walls by Robert A. Heinlein. The first book started and finished in 2016. Stranger in a Strange Land is one of my all time favorite books. I was extremely excited to read another Heinlein, however this did little for me. Don't really get the point of the ending.

B+      A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. An engrossing layperson approach to what we know about the universe and our place in it. Engaging writing with intimate descriptions/discussion of/with the scientists on the ground. As a biologist, I was disappointed with many factual errors in the sections on biology, but the main points held up. I assume the astrophysicists and geologists felt the same way about the description of their fields as well. 

D        After Alice by Gregory Maguire. Alice in Wonderland was a delightful jaunt. After Alice was forced and tedious. Tim Burton's take on Alice was infinitely better, at least there was a story.

28 books, including several graphic novels that I know rankles some readers as not being literature.
Of the 28 books: 25 were fiction for fun, 1 was philosophy, 1 was history (although not academic), and 2 were science(ish). I was on pace to complete close to a record number, but the fall semester is a killer time wise for me. I have three books I'm in the middle of.

On the 2016 AmericanBrexit

I planned to write an after-election post on what I thought about the election. I assumed a Clinton win and wanted to write about the divisiveness that exists in this country. I wanted to write about the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia that was normalized during this election. I wanted to write about the normalization of violence in politics. I wanted to write about how none of this goes away simply because Clinton won and that we needed to work hard to offset the divisiveness.

I wanted to write about those things...

and then Clinton lost the electoral vote...

So what do I write now? What is there to say?

We have not only normalized racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia. We have made it the official position of the country. Are all Trump supporters racist? sexist? homophobic? No. Maybe many are, maybe most aren't, I don't know. But when the KKK backs your candidate, when other white supremacist groups are working to get your candidate elected, you have to own that. When your candidate rates women on a scale of 1-10, talks about the size of his penis, you have to own that.  When your candidate's choice of vice president advocates electro-shock therapy to 'treat' homosexuality, you have to own that. You don't get to say, but I'm not homophobic, I like those people, and get a pat on the back.

I learned some things that were articulated by Secretary Clinton, we are a much more divided country than I would have guessed. It's probably because I matured and live in a setting of higher education where I am exposed to amazing and talented people from all walks of life regardless of gender, color, religion, country of origin, etc. I'm not terrified of the 'other' like many people in this country. 'Home of the brave'? I think not.

I no longer think most of the people who voted for Trump are racists, sexists, xenophobes, and homophobes. This leads me to question why these people voted for him. There is the anti-establishment crowd with whom I can commiserate. Neither party has done much for them, although one party is outstanding at allocating blame at the 'other' for all the suffering they feel. The allocation of blame can lead to racist, sexist, xenophobic, and/or homophobic ideologies. But here's my problem, if you really feel the establishment is fucking you over, why vote for one of the parties? Why not vote for third, fourth, etc parties? Why not get things done at the local and state level to build up alternative solutions? That's a long term solution, but how long did African Americans live in bondage or the effects of bondage (which Michelle Alexander eloquently argues is rampant today), when did white women finally get the right to vote? Some people work hard over a long period of time to get their intrinsic rights, but apparently lower middle class and lower class white people can't wait.

Maybe you think Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever. Trump has a fraud case this month and a rape case next month, Clinton emails no court dates. Trump foundation is a farce that he doesn't donate to and uses to pay off personal debts. Clinton foundation only put out 88% of proceeds and used the other 12% for overhead. Millions of dollars spent thousands of hours used and nothing on Clinton. Republicans have controlled Congress for the most recent 6 years and nothing. Are the republicans that incompetent? If yes, why did you vote for them? if no, why do you continue to call Clinton the most corrupt politician?

You are upset with the system, you just gave a party the White House and Congress. Trump gets to fill Scalia's seat (because the party you voted for refused to do their job) as well as probably another judge. For the next generation (not 4 years, an entire fucking generation) you have supported the party that wants Citizen United to remain the law of the land. You can kiss having government be interested in your needs goodbye when companies and billionaires can donate millions of dollars without oversight. On the plus side women's reproductive rights will be set back 50 years, but fuck them. (Not literally because they'll have to keep their legs closed to hold up that aspirin.)

83% of Americans identify as Christian. Tell me what aspect of Trump's rhetoric over the last 18 months you find Christian? Is it 'grabbing them by the pussy'? Is it mocking a disabled reporter? Is it egging on supporters to commit violence? Is it the overt racism (birther movement, etc)? Would Clinton get the pass Trump got if she was on stage with her 5 children by 3 different husbands? But there's a war on Christmas.

My point is, many Trump supporters for whatever reason do not care about all the other things. The female racists don't care about the sexism, the financially concerned don't care about the racism. The list goes on and on and on and on. People are upset, that's their justification for ignoring the hate. This is the mentality the causes some people to think I'm pissed, so I'm going to crash into this car that I think cut me off. This is the mentality the causes some people to think I get to use public lands to feed my cattle for free, and gun toting douche bags support them. This is the mentality that gets women raped because of how they dress.

There are major divides in this country. This election uncovered the extent of that division. Now let me ask you, how does electing Trump solve these problems?

Here's my pessimistic view. Trump has legitimized bullying and the basest of our instincts. The republican party has learned that this approach works and works better than expected. Olympia Snowe (former senator) and Susan Collins are republican senators from Maine that I disagree with on many issues but I think would not support this appeal to the worst. Cruz, McCain, Christie et al have shown that they are happy to give up values for power. So I see Congress moving farther to the right. The democrats will also move to the right to try and recruit republicans who care more about values than power. The DNC will assume more liberal voters will stay with them because anoth option is non-existent.

Young women, non-whites, Muslims (it's a religion so you can't tell based on country of origin or skin color), the LBGT community, and anyone else who could be considered 'other', I feel for you. You are in a bad place now. I sympathize with you, which at some level makes me an 'other' too. Hell I'm an elite because I have an advanced degree, so I'm already an 'other'. At least I can blend in, although I tend not to. "Others' you are in a bad place. We can, and should, work hard to get Congress out of republican hands in two years, but the long-term damage is done. The Supreme Court will be staunchly in the conservative column for the next few decades. I'll be dead before this can be rectified, but my son won't.

My son is growing up knowing that bullying is a legitimate and workable strategy. N**ger and B**ch are now terms that can be used without any real repercussion. Hate is a reasonable approach to getting what you want. I do and will continue to do my best to teach him the 'do unto others...' approach to life, but he is now at the age when friends and society have a growing influence on him. Pussy, in reference to the vagina, is now a part of his lingo. He didn't learn it from me and I'm trying to explain why words matter. My problem is the president-elect of the USA has made pussy 'normal'.

Since I can't even, here are some kittens and a puppy.

Cute kitten

Kittens with puppy

Preparing for Eukaryotic Microbiology Class

For the second year in a row, my advanced microbiology course, Eukaryotic Microbiology, is up and running. Technically this is the 11th iteration of the course, but the second year I'm going to try and blog about the course concomitantly. So the website is went live to students today and has a bunch of business related things about the course and a the first few weeks of modules available.

Before we met, in just under two weeks, there is an online quiz and a number of introductory papers for the course as a primer for the students. The papers are:

• The eukaryotic tree of life from a global phylogenomic perspective. Burki F. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014 May 1;6(5):a016147
• The origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics.  Koonin EV. Genome Biol. 2010;11(5):209.
• The hybrid nature of the Eukaryota and a consilient view of life on Earth. McInerney JO, O'Connell MJ, Pisani D. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014 Jun;12(6):449-55.
• An archaeal origin of eukaryotes supports only two primary domains of life. Williams TA, Foster PG, Cox CJ, Embley TM. Nature. 2013 Dec 12;504(7479):231-6.
• The common ancestor of archaea and eukarya was not an archaeon. Forterre P. Archaea. 2013;2013:372396. doi: 10.1155/2013/372396.
• A new view of the tree of life. Hug LA., Baker BJ., et al. Nature Microbiology. 2016 Apr 11; 1(article number 16408)
• Predation and eukaryote cell origins: a coevolutionary perspective. Cavalier-Smith T. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2009 Feb;41(2):307-22.

Figure 1 from the Hug paper

I ask the students to read the Burki paper first, which is a great overview of the current eukaryotic tree and how it was established. The Koonin and McInerney next, followed by the Williams and Forterre papers. There's a fair bit of overlap among the Koonin, McInerney, and Williams papers that I suggest they skim through. Once those are done, I ask that they read through the Hug paper, which is the only primary research paper of the list. Finally,  the Cavalier-Smith paper on what is a eukaryotic cell in some detail.

I particularly like the two papers by Williams and Forterre as they basically argue different things. This allows me to introduce ambiguity into the course from the beginning, which I think is important. One of my goals is to teach students to think critically about the science they read. This is quite difficult as I think the students have been taught that if it's written in a textbook or scientific paper, it must be correct. Here, I am giving the students two papers, written the same year, that argue two different points of view. Logically they cannot both be correct. It will be interesting to see if this helps students get over the hurdle of being able to question authority or not. 

Donald Trump and Climate Change: California edition

So here's what the potential dumbass-in-chief had to say in regards to the lack of rain in California over the last few years: "there is no drought." And he follows up with "If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water, so that you can have your farmers survive so that your job market will get better,"

This is how I envisions Trump's understanding of how droughts work:

and how he'll fix it:

easy peasy

Best Rock Albums of the 80s

Over at Patheos, Ed Brayton as a child of the 80s posted his:

The Best Albums of the 1980s

As a child of the 80s myself, entering high school in 1983, and a music lover I thought I'd add my two cents (which was worth a lot more back then, although still not much more than two cents). Overall, I have a lot of overlap with Ed's choices of bands, although I often choose different albums. Also, I'm specifying 'Rock' albums, because there are other 80s albums I love that are not Rock. 

So, where we agree:

The Police – Synchronicity An amazing album Miss Gradenko, Synchronicity II, and King of Pain are some of my favorite songs. 

Peter Gabriel – So Got to see Gabriel in concert and he is amazing. 'So' fuses with The Police as Stewart Copeland plays some of the percussion on Red Rain. Regardless, 'In Your Eyes' is probably the best love song ever written. (and I'm not generally a fan of love songs.)

Guns n Roses – Appetite for Destruction Come on? Do I really need to comment? Mr. Brownstone, Welcome to the Jungle, It's so Easy....enough said.

Talking Heads – Stop Making Sense While I did not get the Talking Heads during high school, I discovered them during my early years of college. Kind of perfect for Stop Making Sense.

Eric Clapton — Journeyman (Ed also included August here, but although I was familiar with many of the tracks on the album, was not really in my wheelhouse.)

Where we agree on bands, but not albums:

U2 – Rattle and Hum (Ed picked the Joshua Tree, which I thought was overrated. I would have taken Boy or War, both excellent albums, over The Joshua Tree.)

Yes – Big Generator (Ed picked 90125, which is a great album. Big Generator resonated with me more and represented a memorable summer in my life. I could also put Robert Plant in here for 'Now and Zen' for that same summer.)

Where we part ways:

My Choices not on Ed's List

REM  — Fables of the Reconstruction (although Murmur and Document are in the running). How can you consider important music from the 80s and omit R.E.M., sure they're from Georgia, but they're from Athens which also has some great breweries.

Pink Floyd — The Final Cut and Momentary Lapse of Reason I know Pink Floyd is arguably a 60s or 70s band, but the Final Cut, which I actually discovered in the 90s, and Momentary Lapse of Reason are amazing albums for completely different reasons.

Def Leppard — Pyromania The 80s without Def Leppard is like the 30s without the Great Depression, why even talk about it?

Ed's Choices not on My List

Living Colour – Vivid (Great band and music that I am only recently coming to appreciate)

Public Enemy – It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back Not my experience.

Prince – Purple Rain (Great artist but never quite clicked with me.)

Stevie Ray Vaughan — Couldn’t Stand the Weather (Excellent artist, but there are so many excellent artists....Santana...just saying)

Genesis – Three Sides Live (Look I love Genesis, especially before Peter Gabriel left, but they reinvented themselves extremely well with Phil Collins as the front man. I just don't have them higher on my list of definitive 80s bands. For a road trip 'Something in the Air Tonight' is a must.)

End point: If I redo this in 5 years how much overlap will there be? Will Duran Duran make the cut, Flock of Seagulls? Doubtful.

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.