Angry by Choice

Descent into Madness

2013-03-25T17:00:00.000-06:00

I enjoy the NFL, college hockey and basketball, and a little NASCAR to pass a lazy Sunday afternoon on the couch. However, I'm not a huge follower of any particular sport. I'll watch a fair amount of football and have even been known to go to the local watering hole to watch a game that was not shown locally. I don't really watch hockey or basketball anymore, my teams are not televised in Minnesota (Maine Black Bears and Arizona Wildcats, respectively). At best, Ill catch the end of a Sunday race.

When March Madness hits though, I do fill out a bracket. I know somewhere between jack and squat about the college teams, but it's free to play (or at least it can be). I feel pretty good about filling in a bracket because I had a good experience back in graduate school.

On this particular year (1993), our departmental pool was running. Some students kept a large scoreboard on one of the whiteboards in the hall tracking the competitors. It comes down to Championship weekend and there is a 3 way tie for first: myself, the department head, and another student. The department head and I had picked UNC to win and the other student picked Michigan. It was a close game until...

That effectively eliminated student number 2. It was just the department head and me with total points being the tie breaker. I had 150, department head had 130 (or thereabouts).

Lorax wins!

Not saying there was any money involved, but if there was, I would have offered to take the department head out for a consolation beer. Surprisingly, he came and still treated. I mean, if there had been some money involved, but of course there wasn't because that would constitute illegal gambling.

That represents my one March Madness claim to fame. However, it usually isn't as bad as this year. My bracket was dead on the first day when UNM fell to Harvard. In fact my entire West division is kaput. I also lost a second final four team when Georgetown choked. Ah well...

Yahoo Can Do Better

2013-03-06T13:30:00.000-06:00

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

Need something to do this afternoon?

2013-02-17T08:46:00.002-06:00

Come see Dr. Sehoya Cotner speak. She is giving the talk "Fun Myths About Evolution Explored." The talk begins at 2:00 and is open to anyone, I'll be there a bit earlier if anyone wants to say Hi.

When:
Sunday, February 17, 2013

Where:
Southdale Library
7001 York Avenue South
Edina

Schedule:
1:00-1:15 Social Time
1:15-1:45 Business Meeting
1:45-2:00 Break
2:00-3:30 Clement Presentation
4:00- Dinner at Q. Cumber’s

Remember the talk is on 'fun' myths not those lame-ass boring myths.

Father-in-law of a Science Fair

2013-02-12T22:11:00.000-06:00

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 I 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 participantsI 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.

Grades: Do They Mean Anything Anymore?

2013-01-25T22:00:00.000-06:00

Alright. I'll do it, but I'm not happy about it.....ok, I'm a little happy about it. I mean I'm not happy to have to call out my profession, but I am a little happy to cause some well deserved uncomfortableness. Look, I have a battery of K-12 teacher slips noting my problems with authority and the status quo. I have also realized that I am happiest when I question my friends, disagree with them (even when I agree with them), and push others to justify their positions. (I may piss off a lot of people, but fuck 'em. I mean they should be secure in their positions if they are sound. Plus, I provide tasty malt beverages ie the great equalizer.)

So without further psychological adieu, I want to discuss grades at the collegiate level. As I noted in a previous post, this is something that appeared on my radar screen that deserves attention. I am going to focus on my institution but this is not unique to it, nor is it unique to public colleges. This is a systemic problem that must be addressed or if not addressed maybe it's time we rethink our mission statement. For example, a recent study looking a the % of grades distributed by private and public colleges over time showed the following:

Rojstaczer & Healy 2010

In 1960, both private and public schools were indistinguishable regarding grade distribution. Furthermore, this distribution shows a predominance of C, with slightly less Bs and few As. There were even fewer Ds and Fs in relation to As, but there is a clear bell curve distribution of grades. I have to admit this makes sense to me. I would not expect a preponderance of Ds and Fs at the college level in 1960. High school graduates were not expected to go to college, so there was a bias to those who did. If you applied and were accepted into college, it is doubtful you were unprepared or not able to handle the work. (Obviously there were issues of overt racism and sexism that played into these numbers, but the point is that college was an 'elite' institution. (It was 'elite' for both democrats and republicans, so shut the fuck up.))

By 1980 a shift occurred, which continued through 2007. In private schools, the % of As and Bs increased compared to public schools. However, this is not the comparison you should make. Rather, see how the private schools compare over time, the green solid (1960) line is your reference. There is a huge shift to the B grade (in 1980) and then the A grade (in 2007). You can repeat this for public schools and see the exact same trend: a shift from C --> B --> A from 1960 --> 1980 --> 2007!!!

The question is why? If we break the data down more finely we see:

From here

Holy crap! WTF happened between 1964 and 1975??? I mean what could it be and why would it matter? Oh wait I know...

The Vietfuckingnam War

The fucking Vietnam War. You may be too young to remember (I am), but there was a draft. A fucking draft, where young men were forced to serve and fight for their lives in a war old white guys deemed necessary. Of course there were exemptions, like: being in college, being a farmer, being in the clergy, being the son of a rich white guy. It is important to remember that almost 60,000 US young men were killed in Vietnam. (Although it is interesting to note that many young men who were exempt from serving in Vietnam were the biggest proponents of the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars...funny that.)

Let me ask you. You are a teacher and the grades you give out will determine whether a young man can stay in the US or have to join the legion of troops being killed in a war justified by a 'weapons of mass destruction' type rationale. The sad thing is that the current wars being fought are not front and center in the minds of Americans, the current wars are being fought by a sliver of a minority of Americans. We might put a magnetic bumper sticker or post some bullshit picture on facebook, but the fact is the vast majority of us do somewhere between jack and shit to support the troops. Rewind a few decades, there is a draft and many men are going to college in order to avoid it. As an instructor in said college at said time, how comfortable are you giving to a fine young man a C, D, or F that may very well ship him off to war if he isn't well connected? I have to admit, I would almost certainly be inflating my grades to protect these young men from war. You can afford to be an ideologue regarding grades in the abstract, but the point is ~60,000 US troops were killed and 150,000 were wounded (FYI the Iraq war amount to 4,500 deaths and 36,000 wounded). As an instructor in the deferment years, you have to own these issues.

A's FTW, from here.

Now that being said, why didn't the GPA drop after the Vietnam War? More importantly, why did it start increasing again starting in 1985 and continuing through today? Remember in private schools in 2007, almost 50% of all grades are an A (compared with 15% in 1960 when the pool of applicants was much smaller and arguable more select)! Look at the left figure, which is analogous to the one above, you can see that the grade of B and F is relatively stable, but Cs and Ds have nosedived and As have soared. You should see that the problem is as bad as possible, the supposedly hardest grade to earn, A, is the most popular grade.

Looking at my school specifically, again this is a national problem not institutional, the trend is similar.

From here, grades for the Fall semester of 2011

This represents that # grades given out in a single semester, Fall of 2011, by year (1000 = freshmen; 2000 = sophomore; 3000 = junior; 4000 = senior; 5000 = graduate). My institution, the bottom row, shows that 38-46% of all grades are As. This is in keeping with national averages. But what does this mean?

My university policy states (see figure right):

from here

So an A is 'outstanding', a B 'significantly above', a C meets requirements, a D fails to meet requirements but worthy of credit, and an F is not even listed. We can assume an F is does not meet requirement and is not worthy of credit.

Think about this. 36-46% of all students in all classes are OUTSTANDING! Presumably another 25-35% are significantly above requirements. This represents 61-81% of all students in all course are significantly above or outstanding! Maybe, just maybe, our bar (and the bar at all schools) is too low.

Why does this matter? Isn't it a good thing that students earn such high grades?

In response let me ask, do you think it was worthwhile to differentiate the A students from the C students from the F students in 1960? I do. It's not that C's are poor, C's represent the student met course requirements. If the course requirements allow most if not all students to receive an A, then maybe the course should have higher requirements.

The problem of grade inflation is important. First, students who really excel in a course should get the recognition associated with that competency. When 25/35 students receive an A, there is no way to differentiate the majority of the students. Are all 25 students really outstanding? What if you increased the requirements would all 25 continue to excel or uniformly show less competency? I expect not, maybe you could identify those truly outstanding students.

Second, what about intercollegiate competition? For example, see below.

From here.

This represents the grade breakdown of some of the different colleges at the UMNTC. CBS, the college of biological sciences, and CFANS, the college of forestry agriculture, and natural sciences, show striking differences in the %A's earned particularly in the undergraduate levels 1000-4000. This means that a student graduating from CFANS with a GPA of 3.25 could be considered a stronger candidate for a job than the CBS student with a GPA of 3.15. However, it is clearly easier to 'earn' an A in CFANS than in CBS, which is not a factor the job interviewer is aware of. (There's also the fact that the average ACT scores of incoming CBS students is higher than CFANS students arguably suggesting that CBS students are generally stronger than CFANS students as a confounding factor.)

Maybe CBS should lower its standards to be more competitive with CFANS. This is probably an issue that promoted the overall spike in grade inflation nationally. The idea that our students are disadvantaged compared to the other university or our students are as good as private school students or our students are better than public school students just keeps driving grades up and up. The problem is that increase in earned grade comes with a decrease in information available with said grade. Which of the several thousand 3.5+ GPA students is truly remarkable in a particular field? Does the job interview distinguish between these candidates or simply identify those candidates that interview well? Of course this focus on job readiness concerns me for different reasons which will be the focus of a future post(s).

Just to bring this full circle and back to teaching at my institution, which I m sure is similar elsewhere. The UMN policy for a credit hour is as follows:

Student workload expectations per undergraduate credit. For fall or spring semester, one credit represents, for the average University undergraduate student, three hours of academic work per week (including lectures, laboratories, recitations, discussion groups, field work, study, and so on), averaged over the semester, in order to complete the work of the course to achieve an average grade. One credit equals 42 to 45 hours of work over the course of the semester (1 credit x 3 hours of work per week x 14 or 15 weeks in a semester equals 42 to 45 hours of academic work). Thus, enrollment for 15 credits in a semester represents approximately 45 hours of work per week, on average, over the course of the semester.

So for a standard 3 credit course, meets three times a week for 50 minutes, the average student is expected to work 9 hours. This is the average college student, not the average human being. You do not get to average in uneducated impoverished people of the same age. Also you should read that statement carefully. It is not simply the average amount of work for the average college student, it is the average amount of work for that student to receive an average grade, in other words a C. 9 hours per week to earn a C in a three credit course. 45 hours a week to run the gamut of C's, if you are an average student. Some students, almost half in fact, will be below average.

The problem is that the solution is hard. I cannot solve it in my courses. If I give a bell curve distribution, even if it looks like the 1960s (it does), then the most I will accomplish is to drive students out of my courses and into my colleagues. This could negatively impact my yearly evaluations (tenure is a good thing). My university cannot solve this problem. If UMN designates a more rigorous grade distribution, the big ten schools (of which there are 14 at last count) could recruit students at a huge advantage over UMN, which would effect enrollment and tuition dollar revenue. Really this problem needs to be addressed at a national level by the colleges and universities themselves. If it is not, it will not be long before state and federal officials look at the numbers I showed above and started questioning the value of a college education. Indeed this is already happening although the focus is not on rigor. This also feeds into the pervasive idea that a college education is a job training education, it's not although it can be (another forthcoming post(s)). If all these A's we are giving out are not helping students land awesome jobs, then why are states contributing to the funding of these colleges?

Racism Alive and Well in America, Example #35,672

2013-01-19T10:41:00.003-06:00

Jason Cole wrote an article on Yahoo Sports (yeah, I know) regarding the absence of any minority hires for any of the 15 available head coach or general manager positions in the NFL. Currently, it is 14/15, with the 15th to come soon (and expected to be another white guy). Those are the facts.

The NFL instituted the 'Rooney Rule,' which requires NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for head coach and general manager, because many owners would simply not bother considering someone with more melanin than their neighbors. That has helped slightly, although there are apparent cases of teams interviewing candidates simply to check off the box. The 'Rooney Rule' has helped minority candidates to at least get a foot in the door and some consideration they often would not have gotten before. One of the continuing problems is that there are very few minority coaches in the coordinator ranks, which is where most new head coaches come from. To address this, the NFL is being asked to expand the Rooney Rule to include the coordinator position and several assistant coaching positions.

The NFL is not being asked to institute a quota system nor are teams being asked to consider hiring unqualified people. What is trying to be done is to have teams consider candidates they may unconsciously (or not so unconsciously) overlook. Why would NFL teams have to be overtly forced to do this? Well, the teams are composed of human beings just like ~~trolls~~ people commenting on Yahoo columns. Let's see what these Yahoo yahoos have to say about the idea (my replies in red).

428 comments

Popular Now
Newest
Oldest
Most Replied

139users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down4users disliked this comment
Scott • 17 hours ago

best person for the job end of story. stop playing the race card
7 Replies
56users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down1users disliked this comment

Scott S • 14 hours ago

Or how about we talk to and hire the best qualified candidates...

But I guess that's not "progressive" enough

6 Replies

Good point Scotts, except for reality. I guess the reason women were not seen in CEO positions in the 60s and 70s is that women are no good at business. Probably the same reason men were doctors and women were nurses. You know it is probably easier to hirer the best candidates, if you did not toss out a large number of football experts based on the color of their skin.
168users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down9users disliked this comment
X • 17 hours ago

how about we expand the rooney rule to say we look at lack of whites as receivers and defensive backs ? Lets see some diversity there too...How about we look at the NBA and make that be 50 percent white on the court at all times? Sound silly too ? Because it is silly ,let those who deserve the... More
12 Replies
73users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down3users disliked this comment

Evan B • 18 hours ago

Ugh, the Rooney Rule is so stupid. Who cares what color any of these people are (and why not require them to interview both genders while they are at it). Skin color has no bearing whatsoever on how good or bad a coach will be. Any team that automatically eliminates minorities from consideration... More

3 Replies

It is interesting that there are no women in NFL coaching positions. Of course it is obviously because vaginas make it impossible to understand and teach blocking schemes. BTW many people overtly care about skin color in the US, remember those lovely 'put the white back in white house T-shirts'? Boy, were those a hoot! Beyond the overt KKK supporters, many more people have subconscious skin color biases (myself included).
68users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down4users disliked this comment
Veedub • 18 hours ago

If this keeps up I'm going to write the NBA and ask for a "Larry Bird" rule, must have at least one White starting player.
3 Replies
46users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down3users disliked this comment
Constructive • 15 hours ago

Lets expand it. There are no starting white running backs and very few white receivers. God forbid we go to the NBA. Their response would be ability. I agree with that but stop shoving blacks down our throat. If a person who is black has the ability and smarts to run a team don't you think... More
10 Replies

No, please go to the NBA. I think your privilege is showing through a little though.
12users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
D • 1 hour 30 minutes ago

Black people wont be satisfied til they are the majority in all postions in all careers or sports. 2 awful coaches get fired who happen to be black....and a bunch of strong white candidates get hired - no one questions whether the best people were hired, no just question whether enough black... More
Reply
49users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down4users disliked this comment
Steve E • 17 hours ago

40 years of forcing blacks down our throats, and race relations are the worst ever.
3 Replies

One wonders why race relations may be the worst ever (probably worse than in 1862 or 1964) after '40 years of forcing blacks down our throats'. WTF Steve?
38users liked this commentPlease sign in to rate a Thumb Up Please sign in to rate a Thumb Down4users disliked this comment

Steve E • 18 hours ago

I think Yahoo Sports isn't diverse enough. Let's replace Cole with a black female, with a handicap.

4 Replies

I noted several times the potential for unconscious bias regarding race. There is a lovely little online demo run by Harvard that you can use to see if you have some underlying racial preference. If you want to learn a bit about yourself with regards to subconscious feelings on race (you may not like the results) go here and take the Race IAT demo test. My results are below.

You have completed the African American - European American IAT.

Your Result

Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for European American compared to African American.

Thank you for your participation. Just below is a breakdown of the scores generated by others. Most respondents find it easier to associate African American with Bad andEuropean American with Good compared to the reverse.

Many of the questions that you answered on the previous page have been addressed in research over the last 10 years. For example, the order that you performed the response pairing is influential, but procedural corrections largely eliminate that influence (see FAQ #1). Each visitor to the site completes the task in a randomized order. If you would like to learn more about the IAT, please visit the FAQs and background information section.

You are welcome to try additional demonstration tasks, and we encourage you to register (easy) for the research site where you will gain access to studies about more than 100 topics about social groups, personality, pop culture, and more.

FAQs || Research site || Demo site || Project Implicit Home

Does this mean I'm a racist? No (it doesn't mean I'm not either). It does suggest that I have a subconscious bias towards people who appear to be of European descent than of African descent, which may be worth considering when I interview candidates for a research technician. (I specifically used the word 'appear' because person A could genetically be 95% European but have the few traits we associate with African, like more melanin, and person B could genetically be 95% African but have the few traits we associate with European. In this case, our eyes tell us that person A is of African descent and person B is of European descent. However, the reality is the opposite.)

What I Read (2012)

2013-01-09T20:04:00.000-06:00

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

A The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell 15 short chapters discussing various aspects of knowledge, truth, and metaphysics. A great read.

C- Denialism by Michael Specter An important topic that deserves discussion. This one starts well but I found the chapters to lack focus. By the mid-point of the book, there was little direct relationship to denialism. Specter discusses important issues, they just weren't relevant to the thesis of the book in my opinion.

C- The Paradise War by Stephen Lawhead. I enjoyed Lawhead's trilogy retelling the Robin Hood myth (except for the ending) so I decided to give one of his earlier works a try. Have you ever decided a book wasn't worth finishing? This was like that for me, I couldn't relate to the characters and frankly did not like them. However, I have only completely bailed on a book once and this wasn't it. By the end of the book, I found myself enjoying it and wanting to see how things progressed. First half (F) last half (B), overall C-.

B Lords and Ladies by Terry Pratchett Witty as usual and fun to read. Not one of my favorite Pratchett novels but a fun story with the witches.

B The Twelve by Justin Cronin. Solid storytelling, but the ending wrapped up a little too easily for me.

C The Prague Cemetery by Umberto Eco/ I've read almost all of Eco's books. Loved In the Name of the Rose, have not really understood any others, until this one. The narrative was interesting as it was a series of journal entries between two authors who were not clear on their identities and ended up being the same person. (Not a spoiler, it's clear to everyone except the characters.)

A The Dirty Streets of Heaven by Tad Williams. Always have enjoyed Williams stories. This one centers on angels and demons and their interactions with us.

B The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason by Victor Stenger. Mostly things I knew but a good summation of many scientific issues and their effects no religious thought.

B Wards of Faerie by Terry Brooks. A good Shannara story, reminds me of the original books more than some of his other recent trilogies.

B The Shadowed Sun by N.K. Jemisin. A solid sequel (see below).

C Planet of Viruses by Carl Zimmer. A short book of great essays on viruses, emphasis on short. Too short for my taste.

C Robot Visions by Isaac Asimov. A reread from childhood. Enjoyable short stories.

A The Killing Moon by N.K. Jemisin. Set in an Egyptian like world. Great story.

B+ Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett. Gun regulation in Discworld.

C+ The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Never been much of a soap opera fan, book form is not much better. I can see the interest in the book from a historical perspective, but it certainly didn't move me. Better than Crime and Punishment though.

A The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien. My son loved this book and is not happy with me that I won't take him to the movie.

B+ 11/22/63 by Stephen King. Not horror by any stretch, but a great implementation of a simple plot device.

B+ God and the Folly of Faith by Victor J. Stenger. As above, not much new but an easy and compelling read.

A The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest by Stieg Larsson. Great conclusion book!

B The Girl Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson. The first book was a story in and of itself. This one is clearly a part 1.

C Sourcery by Terry Pratchett. Meh, this one just didn't do much for me. Pratchett is clever as usual.

A- Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris. Great sequel covering the presidency years of Roosevelt.

B+ Interesting Times by Terry Pratchett. Fun! My first book with Cohen the Barbarian.

23 books this year, down from the last couple of years. Only 1 was to my son, we've graduated from our evening story (This saddens me somewhat, but he loves to read and does it everyday and we have so many other things we do together). Of the 22 other books: 16 were fiction for fun (and 4 were Terry Pratchett, which makes up for last year), 1 was biography/US history, 4 were philosophy/religion, and 1 was science.

Best Professors List

2013-01-02T21:25:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I discussed a movement to make parts of the course evaluations done by students available to prospective students. Basically an in house RateMyProfessor-like service. During that discussion, I noted that there was an additional movement to establish a 'top 30% teachers' list for students to use in choosing their courses. I am against a 'top 30% teachers' list and want to defend that position here.

The idea for a 'top 30%' list seems to come, at least in part, from the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. The list is based on a University of Illinois List of Teachers Rated Excellent, where the Vice Provost was a faculty member (information from the Minnesota Daily). As an aside, one thing I see much too frequently from the University of Minnesota administration is the 'well everyone else is/was doing it' defense. 'Everyone else does it' does not constitute a data driven justification.

Of course having a 'top 30%' list does provide more information to prospective students trying to plan which courses they will register for (FYI: 'for which courses they will register' sounds stupid, so I'm ending that sentence with a preposition deal with it). But this raises a number of questions that need to be dealt with. Including, is the information meaningful in a way the university intends, or at least how I hope they intend? How do we determine the 'top 30%' of teachers? What are the potential ramifications of such a list?

Is the information meaningful in a way the university intends?

This is a key problem in my opinion. I expect the university wants to identify the individuals that best educate the students, generate passion for the material, and promote students well prepared for their subsequent courses or life outside of college. Does anyone believe that students can effectively evaluate whether the instructors have effectively disseminated knowledge or taught the tools necessary to gain and assess knowledge? Do the students know whether or not they are well prepared for their advanced courses? I doubt it.

In fact numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that course evaluations reflect the predicted grade the student thinks they are getting and little else. Based on this, those courses where most students get A's are more likely to have instructors rated as excellent than courses that show a greater distribution of grades. This is not an absolute of course.

Smaller classes are reviewed more favorably than larger classes, which gives an advantage to instructors teaching upper level courses compared to instructors teaching large survey courses.

How do we determine the 'top 30%' of teachers?

Furthermore, why 30%? Why not 25% or 33%? Regardless how do we establish who the top 30% are? I have my evaluations for the two courses I taught last semester. One was a course for second year students, which I taught for the first time; one was a course for fourth year and graduate students that I developed and have taught for six years.

The surveys list the following 'Core Items' that are scored from: 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). I'll simply give the mean and standard deviations for my two courses for each Core Item.

The instructor was well prepared for class.

5.85 ± 0.36 and 5.94 ± 0.23

The instructor presented the subject matter clearly.

5.89 ± 0.31 and 5.56 ± 0.60

The instructor provided feedback intended to improve my performance.

5.19 ± 0.77 and 5.17 ± 0.76

The instructor treated me with respect.

5.74 ± 0.44 and 5.41 ± 0.84

I have a deeper understanding of the subject matter as a result of this course.

5.67 ± 0.54 and 5.61 ± 0.83

My interest in the subject matter was stimulated by this course.

5.07 ± 0.98 and 5.17 ± 1.38

To make this more meaningful I'll convert those means to %s and an A-F grade scale.

97.5 (A) and 99.0 (A)
98.2 (A) and 92.7 (A)
86.5 (B) and 86.2 (B)
95.7 (A) and 90.2 (A)
94.5 (A) and 93.5 (A)
84.5 (B) and 86.2 (B)

In both courses my overall (all 6 criteria combined from the letter grade) GPA is a 3.67. Four A's and two B's for each course, which seems pretty damn good. Does this put me in the top 30%? It seems likely, but does this mean I am an excellent teacher or maybe I simply have a great rapport with the students or maybe both. What if these scores are not sufficient to be in the top 30%? Does this mean I am not an excellent teacher? Should I make changes to my courses to improve these scores? Note: I am not suggesting making changes to improve the course, but simply to improve these scores.

I am still guessing on how the top 30% is determined, maybe the powers that be will simply choose item #6 or not use any of these Core Items but one or more of the 'student release data' discussed yesterday. This was never clearly established.

What are the potential ramifications of such a list?

As I already noted this kind of scoring system may cause some instructors to change their teaching and/or courses to improve their score. Why would they do this? Well not all instructors are tenured or even on a tenure track. These kind of scoring systems are easy for administrators to look at and say 'Ohhh a number with a decimal point that must be important,' regardless of whether or not the number conveys meaningful information. It is also important to realize that the number of students in a classroom directly reflects the money coming into the department offering the course. If there are two sections of the same course taught by different instructors and one is packed and the other unable to fill all the seats based on these scoring systems, which instructor will likely suffer most during yearly evaluations with their departmental chair/dean.

Will there be competition between colleges? If the 30% is a university-wide figure, then problems can emerge. There are already some serious issues with grade inflation here in Minnesota as observed at many universities across the country. However, the grade inflation is not uniform. The College of Biological Sciences and College of Science and Engineering have much less grade inflation than the College of Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resource Sciences (a post for another day). Based on the evidence that instructor evaluations correlate with student grades, then colleges with more grade inflation should on average have better course evaluations. How does this tell which instructors are the 'top 30%'?

As it stands, I do not see the value added to a 'top 30%' list anymore than the release of some course evaluation data. The point seems to be one of treating the students as customers. I understand that we as faculty and staff have responsibilities and duties to our students and the community as a whole. I am not espousing a view where students are fortunate to hear me pontificate on microbiology. But universities are not corporations like Burger King trying their best to please and appeal to the customer more than McDonald's (aka University of Wisconsin).

Student Evaluations and Commercialization of Courses

2013-01-01T21:11:00.000-06:00

There has been discussion at the University of Minnesota regarding the release of student course evaluation information to the student body. Last year I was sent an email asking if I would like to have certain aspects of my course evaluation information available to students. I also received an email asking if I thought it was a good idea to release a 'top 30% of teachers' based on student evaluations. Last month the school paper, Minnesota Daily, published an article discussing these issues and the fact that the Minnesota Student Alliance wants more faculty to agree to these releases. Now that my fall course are complete and I have my current student evaluations in hand, I want to comment on some of these issues.

For full disclosure, I declined to have my student evaluation information released and I disagreed with the idea of releasing a top 30% of teachers. Apparently I am in good company because 90% of faculty did not agree to release their student evaluation data and the Senate Committee on Educational Policy ixnayed the top 30% idea. Now you may be asking why did I disagree with the release of information, which is a good question. However, I think it's actually a good second question to be asked, the first being, what is the goal of releasing this information?

Today I only want to deal with the release of student evaluation information.

In regards to the release of student evaluations Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education says that 'the student release questions are designed to give students more complete information about a course and its teacher.' That may be true, let's look at the questions that are up for release (only specific questions on the course evaluation are released to the student body).

There are 9 released questions:

Approximately how many hours per week do you spend working on homework, reading, and projects for this course: 0-2, 3-5, 6-9, 10-14, or 15+ hours/week.
Compared to other courses at this level, the amount I have learned in this course is: less, about the same, more, I have not taken other courses at this level.
Compared to other courses at this level, the difficulty of this course is: less, about the same, more, I have not taken other courses at this level.
I would recommend this course to other students: Yes, No.
I would recommend this instructor to other students: Yes, No.

Rate your instructor in terms of the following characteristics

Is approachable: Agree, Somewhat (SW) agree, SW disagree, disagree, NA
Makes effective use of course readings: Agree, SW agree, SW disagree, disagree, NA
Creates worthwhile assignments: Agree, SW agree, SW disagree, disagree, NA
Has a reasonable grading system: Agree, SW agree, SW disagree, disagree, NA

OK, do these questions yield a more complete picture of the course and its teacher? and is this information only available from these surveys? The answer to question 1 is 'yes and no, but really no' and the answer to question 2 is 'no'.

I want to deal with the second question 'is this information only available from these surveys?' first. The short answer is no. As noted in the article many students use Rate My Professors as a source of information. The director of the MSA's University Policies and Student Concerns Committee noted that 'Rate My Professors isn't a sufficient tool to learn about teachers' and that it 'deals with trivial items like "hotness."' Well here's what Rate My Professors obtains scores on:

Overall Quality
Helpfulness
Clarity
Easiness
Hotness

If I compare the two evaluation systems

Overall Quality = Amount I learned, Recommend class/instructor, worthwhile

readings/assignments

Helpfulness = Recommend instructor, Approachable

Clarity = Recommend instructor

Easiness = Hrs/week, Difficulty, Reasonable grading system

Hotness = Approachable?

Rate My Professor data

Now we can argue over the particulars, but I think the two systems basically provide the same information to prospective students for enrolling in your class. There are more categories (questions) in the university survey, but you should note that Rate My Professors allows the inclusion of comments, which the university survey does not. So you can get information like this:

One of the best professors I've ever had. This is NOT an easy class and there is a lot of work, but I have never taken a more worthwhile course - I learned critical thinking skills that I'll use for the rest of my life. As a bonus, Lorax is incredibly funny and really cares about his students and his eukaryotic microbes.

or this

This man is useless and biased. Class should be renamed "Lab Techniques in Eukaryotic Microbiology."

These are the two comments related to an advanced course I teach along with the scores they gave me in three scorable categories. I would argue that both comments provide some amount of information about the course that is helpful to students and is not included in the university survey. The first comment is positive about me and the course, but clearly notes that it 'is NOT easy'. Also, I'm apparently some kind of comedian (cue Joe Pesci). The second comment is negative although the two statements are not logically linked or correct. I am not useless, at the very least my body is serving as host to trillions of microbes. I am biased, as is everyone, so that's not too helpful either. We could use some context here, but I expect student #1 did well in the course and student #2 did poorly. This latter hypothesis is supported by their inability to make a clear argument. Regardless, a prospective student learns something about the course from the latter comment in the second sentence, which is that we do discuss a lot of techniques used in molecular biology (not eukaryotic microbiology as the student suggested). Again this information is not released on the student surveys.

In my opinion, the reality is that the university survey data in no better than Rate My Professor data. As an aside, I must point out that student course evaluations are of limited value. Numerous studies have demonstrated that a student evaluation is correlated with the student's expected grade in the course and not teaching effectiveness. One of the better studies I've seen takes this correlation to it's logical conclusion:

From a policy viewpoint, the findings of this study are important. As an increasing number of universities use student evaluations of teaching in administrative decisions that affect the careers of their faculty, the incentives for faculty to manipulate their grading policies in order to enhance their evaluations increase. Because grading policies affect student enrollment decisions and the amount students learn in their courses, the ultimate consequence of such manipulations is the degradation of the quality of education in the United States.

So here is one strong reason I did not allow my evaluation data to be released. I think student evaluations are by and large inappropriately used and are of limited value in both positive and negative directions. (I'm getting a sense of deja vu, oh right.) This is why I said 'Yes and No, but really No' in response to the question 'do these questions yield a more complete picture of the course and its teacher?'

It is interesting that there is no consideration that students may in fact talk with each other about courses and instructors. (By talk I mean text, tweet, or otherwise interact in a non-physical forum.)

Two closing tangential points:

1. It was noted in the article that a professor thought the percentage of those who release the data is 'disappointingly low'. However, there is no indication in the article for why this professor thinks it is disappointing. This professor also suggested that the percentage was low because faculty have to opt in and suggests that the system should be changed to force faculty to opt out. I find this to be a cynical and backhanded approach to the problem.

The professor may think that faculty did not realize they had to opt in, but really wanted to. His approach would treat that problem, but that indicates 90% of the faculty are not that bright.

The professor may think that faculty are too lazy to check the box on the form to opt in, but really want to. His approach would also treat that problem, but that indicates 90% of the faculty are lazy shits.

The professor may think either of the two above choices are correct, but really the faculty do not want to release the information. His approach would then get those too stupid or lazy to opt out. This increases the numbers but goes against the wishes of the faculty.

2. All the people interviewed for the article who want faculty to release their student evaluation data were at a loss for why faculty do not release it. Here's a thought. Since 90% of faculty do not release their data, maybe you could fucking ask some of your colleagues/faculty members their reasons. Maybe they are too lazy or they simply forgot to check the box. But maybe, just maybe, some faculty think these evaluation are extremely poor resources to assess the quality of a course/instructor and do not want to contribute to the administrative mind-set that student course evaluations yield useful information regarding much more than the students' predicted grades.

Slaughter in Sandy Hook: What Facebook Taught Me

2012-12-15T16:59:00.001-06:00

'Nothing brings people together like a tragedy' is a phrase we learn early in life, usually after the first tragedy we experience. That's often a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing. Think about how Americans came together after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then think about how some people came together to ostracize people with brown skin assumed to be of the Islamic faith.

Yesterday a young man armed with a number of guns, killed his mother, entered the school she worked in and assassinated 20 elementary school children and 6 adults, before turning the gun on himself. The news spread like wildfire and although there was no new information for hours, updates (saying nothing new) were constantly coming. Of course social media networks blew up as well and then I learned (relearned actually) a number of things about people.

First, people are caring and empathetic to the parents, surviving children, and community.
People are also lazy and unwilling to actually do anything helpful for the parents, surviving children, and community.

For example, my facebook feed was littered with the following prayers and calls for prayers:

Nothing says commitment to helping those in need like hitting the 'share' button. Way to really do something about the tragedy. You can't actually come up with a sound-bite statement on your own, so you use one someone else made. Did you at least take a minute or two to add a comment. Actually no, in fact almost every single one of these posts that were shared (by multiple people) did not contain a word of extra text personalizing the 'share'. So we can click the 'share' button and select OK, because that truly embodies personal caring and empathy to the parents, surviving children, and community. But taking the time to do something useful, well that's just crazy talk.

Looking back on it, these kind of platitudes make some sense. The whole idea is that thinking, praying, or at least acknowledging that some people somewhere are suffering equates with helping in some way. Why do people think that praying is in some way helpful? Do you believe god is sitting around taking a head count of how many prayers he gets? Once he gets the necessary number he will help otherwise, nada. Actually a lot of people do believe this, which is why see people praying for rain in Texas and Georgia.

You want to actually do something to help? Here is a short list I came up with in response to the plethora of empty platitudes.

Donate blood. I know, you may not live in the Sandy Hook area. But your blood is needed by someone. You could actually save someone's life by spending a few minutes at a donation center. You could spend the time while donating sharing how you are actually doing something to help people. You can even pray while you are actually helping if it makes you feel better.

Donate time to the affected families, shovel their driveways, cook some meals, etc. Don't live in the area, donate some time to help a neighbor, colleague, or the community. You know just generally make the world a better place.

Write letters of condolences-support to the affected community. Even a simple letter to the editor of the Sandy Hook local newspaper. (It's the Newton Bee if you are interested.) You could write letters to the Board of Selectman of Newton CT or Sandy Hook elementary school. I expect your letters would reach some appropriate ears.

You could push to change public policy to help avoid these kinds of shootings in the future. You could try to implement tougher gun laws, or make access to mental health services easier, or restrict violent video games, or whatever you think will make a difference. You may be wrong, you may not succeed, but at least you would be doing something.

Spend time with your children, other family, friends. Let them know they are important to you. You should probably spend 10 times more with those you love than you do watching the news waiting for the important new information that comes once every 48 hours or so.

The second thing I learned, people will use any excuse to advocate for their favorite cause.

The two big ones I saw were gun control and not enough god. Yes, gun control would help. Yes, now is a good time to discuss it. No, empty platitudes regarding guns are about as helpful as praying. The second picture about gun control is even counter-productive. Anyone looking at it should realize the problem, it is not controlled for population. If we assume the numbers are correct, the fact that there were almost 11,000 handgun deaths in the US compared to almost 50 in Japan is meaningless unless you already know that the population of Japan is one-third that of the US!

Then of course the persecuted Christians who are at war for Christmas need to screech about god and schools. Please just shut the fuck up. Your kids can pray before school starts, between classes, at lunch, recess, whenever they damn well want as long as it doesn't inhibit the learning of others. What you don't get to have is the government forcing every child in the school to have your preferred beliefs indoctrinated into them.

But really?!?! You worship a god who is so insecure that unless he is constantly being told how great he is, he will send a young adult to kill someone elses' kids. That is the take home message of the above picture. I see where that viewpoint comes from, the Abrahamic religions were founded on the story of a dad who was told to kill his son and was happy to do it (of course the prank was called off at the last minute). Hell, the Noah's ark story is the complete genocide of every man, woman, child, infant, and baby on the planet except for 8 adults (not called off).

The third thing I learned is that some people to realize the importance of community and that we should care about each other.

Now is a good time to remind our children that these tragedies are extremely rare and that they have friends and families that love and care for them. Of course, this is also an empty platitude unless it is acted upon. Saying you love your kid, but ignoring the problems they have is useless love. Telling someone you are there for them and not being there, the same as nothing. (Remember this the next time you see someone with an "I support the troops" bumper sticker. Feel free to ask them how, 99 times out of 100 they simply put a bumper
sticker on their vehicle and maybe prayed a bunch.)

So if you want to help, then do something. Otherwise, Ill go on assuming you are just trying to make yourself feel better by letting everyone know you really care by sharing empty platitudes.

The 2012 Election: My Assessment and What Comes Next

2012-12-05T19:41:00.000-06:00

My Assessment:

President:

My preferred outcome came to fruition, Romney lost. That is not to suggest that I supported Obama. Obama’s white-washing of criminal torture (we signed a treaty which is binding law), use of drone attacks, support of warrantless wiretaps, prosecution of whistleblowers, increased federal raids on medical marijuana clinics compared to Bush, and other examples of executive overreach made me extremely unsupportive of Obama. However, Romney would have maintained, at the least, and done much worse in these areas (reinstituting torture).

Legislature:

I almost ran the wish-list table here as well. By and large, the far right wing republicans were sent home. Richard ‘rape is a gift from god’ Mourdock and Todd ‘magic uterine powers’ Akin lost to not insane candidates. Also Allen ‘only my religion counts’ West is unemployed. The legislative IQ average increased by 6.4 points with the loss of Akin and West.

Locally, I was most heartened that my senator is still Amy Klobuchar and my representative is still Betty McCollum. Furthermore, Rick Nolan defeated Chip Cravaack. I was less heartened that Michele ‘swine flu is a democratic plot’ Bachmann was reelected again. However, there is a rainbow with Bachmann’s reelection. Based on redistricting, which made the MN 6^th district even more conservative than it was previously, and the fact that she spent 10 times more than her opponent, Bachmann should have won in a landslide. She won by 1.18% (4207 votes). On a positive note Keith Ellison was also reelected. As an actual Muslim, you know that has to chaff Bachmann’s hide.

State Legislature:

In this case, I ran the table. My senator is Bev Scalze and representative is Jason Isaacson. More importantly, both houses are in DFL hands as is the executive. Maybe some things can get done.

Amendments:

Two No’s for victory! The constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as one man:one woman failed. The religious right used the meme that gay marriage was a redefinition, but as far as I can see marriage has been a moving target since its inception and has until recently in the US been a mechanism of property control (the property being women). In an example of cognitive dissonance the party most aligned with ‘traditional marriage’ also flocked behind Mitt Romney whose own religion supported polygamy until the US army threatened to squash them out of existence.

Secondly, the voter ID amendment also failed. This was a strategic plot to disenfranchise voters most likely to vote democratic, veiled in a logical sounding sound bite.

The Way Forward:

We all know the election results, it’s old news. So now what? Do we wait until the 2014 election hoping things get done? The short answer is ‘no’, or at least I want to suggest you should not think the answer is no. Now is the time to actually try and get something done. The politicians we just sent to office are now, at least unconsciously, beginning to think about reelection. So if you were motivated before, stay that way. Now is the time to start writing to your senators and representatives at the state and federal level. Tell them what you think and why. Do not simply say that you are for or against something, tell them why you are for it or against it. Give them the evidence/ammunition to use to help deliver what you want.

Insist on rationales. If your senators and representatives are for or against something, then have them explain why. Even if your preferred candidate didn’t win, contact your senators and representatives. They must understand they represent you, not simply those who voted for them. If your candidate is against tax cuts on the job creators, ask them for evidence that the tax cuts will create more jobs or that the job creators actually create jobs. You might even use evidence to bolster your questions. Did you get an answer you do not like? Write a letter to the editor in the local paper. Do some shit.

Do you have a skill set or expertise? Contact your senators and representatives let them know and volunteer your expertise in the event an issue comes up that you might be able to help with. Are you a licensed plumber? Let your congress people know that. Maybe a bill will come down the pike on regulatory issues related to pipe joining compound that your expertise can provide insight. Likely this wouldn’t be the case in a major federal law, but the state representative you help out next month might be your next US senator. Remember: one hand washes the other.

Were you like me and voted against the Minnesota marriage amendment? Well, all we accomplished was to make gay marriage not exceedingly difficult to legalize. The fact is in the state of Minnesota, the legal rights associated with civil marriage are not available to a significant number of citizens. I did not support the NO vote, simply to have gay marriage be illegal. I supported the NO vote as a necessary first step to legalization as was done in Maine and Maryland in this very election. There are numerous issues the Minnesota state legislature has to deal with and two days after the election the DFL stated that they are unable to multitask. Bullshit. Now is the time to keep their feet to the fire. The state has already concluded that gays and lesbians should not be constitutionally relegated to second class citizen status, but they are relegated to second class citizen status by law. Now is the time to change that.

We just completed an election cycle where sanity beat out insanity. But you know what? In the off-cycle elections the more moderate voices stay home, which is one of the reasons we saw massive wins by the tea party in 2010. The founding of the tea party had some reasonable voices that made points worth considering, but these were quickly lost by the right wing fringe that showed up and took over the tea party. They most extreme factions vote in droves in the off-cycle elections, so now is the time to maintain your involvement because it's the best chance you have to accomplish things you believe in and/or support. Now is the time to make sure your legislators hear your voice often. (FYI: a letter saying thank you when a legislator supports your position is always appreciated.)

Powerball drives traffic to AbC: a Repost

2012-11-28T18:25:00.002-06:00

Here's a post I wrote last year that I am rather proud of for two reasons. First, I think it is well written and makes the relevant points effectively. Second, it pissed off a idiot and ended up spawning several follow up posts. Regardless, I noted that this post is receiving a bunch of traffic because of Powerball. So without further ado...

A friend of mine asked me the following ‘I just learned that mathematicians assert (not necessarily in an argument to support God) that there hasn't been enough time for the theory of evolution to be viable. I'm making an assumption you have been aware of this given your profession and scientific mind and I'm curious of your take on this.’

My initial response was along the lines of ‘I don’t have time for a substantive response at the moment but the short answer is that some mathematicians are dumbasses.’

This represents my more substantive response because I know she is interested in an actual answer. A problem comes from the nature of the question itself. I do not know the context with which these statements of mathematicians came up. Was the discussion with an actual mathematician or is this some second hand remark made by a stealth-creationist. (Although the conversation may not have been directly related to a god concept, I am unaware of any general concerns with the theory of evolution that is not steeped in religion.) What was the conversation that led up to this point? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I have a couple of educated guesses what the context was, but if I am far from the mark my friend can let me know and I’ll add another post if needed.

So my two thoughts on how a conversation related the issue of mathematics and time for evolution can be grouped into the following categories: 1. Historically Inspiring; 2. Tedious Probabilities.

Historically Inspiring (please be this one).

The theory of evolution is a dramatically different beast from that first outlined by Charles Darwin in the 1859 publication Origin of Species. (This is not a drawback of science, it’s a feature. Science progresses.) When Origin of Species was written, geologists had calculated the age of the Earth as 20 - 400 million years old. By geologists, I refer to Lord Kelvin of absolute zero fame. My friend may remember Lord Kelvin from Mr. Daigle’s chemistry class as the person who calculated absolute zero as -273°C or 0°K (the K stands for Kelvin). Anyway, Lord Kelvin calculated how long it would take the Earth to cool to its current temperature if it started as a molten ball and came up with a range of 20 - 400 million years in 1864, 5 years after Darwin published.

Kelvin ultimately settled on a more narrow range of 20 - 40 million years. Regardless, Kelvin believed this was too short for evolution to explain the diversity of life on Earth. You know what, Charles Darwin concurred. Darwin knew that his theory requires that the Earth to be extremely old. In the first edition of Origin of Species, Darwin argued that the time necessary for erosion to form the Weald in England is at least 300 million years (But we would also need to factor in the time to deposit all the material to be eroded among other things, which brings us to an age of billions of years). However, based on Kelvin’s calculations, Darwin removed these arguments from later editions of Origin of Speices and referred to the problem (or Kelvin) as an ‘odious spectre’ in letters. To be clear here, both scientists had data to back up their claims, but Darwin was quite cautious in his claims.

Smarter than me, but

still totally wrong

The interesting point is that Kelvin was flat out wrong. Based on what was known at the time, Kelvin’s approach was defensible. However, this was before we knew about radioactivity. The Earth did cool, but it is not simply a loss of heat issue, as assumed by Kelvin. Radioactive decay generates heat, and there is a lot of radioactive decay within the planet. Kelvin thought the Earth’s core was solid and that all heat transfer was by conduction (wrong on both counts).

By making a number of assumptions, which were defensible at the time, Lord Kelvin mathematically derived an age of the Earth that undercut the Theory of Evolution as well as most of geology. However, data was already in existence that suggested the Earth was much older than the age calculated by Kelvin. As more knowledge was gained, it became clear that Kelvin’s assumptions were invalid and thus his calculation wrong. Turns out the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, which is plenty of time for geological formations to arise and giraffes to evolve. Interestingly, molecular geneticists have calculated that the last common ancestor of life lived ~3.6 billion years ago, which is not long (relatively speaking) after the planet formed. Supportive evidence for these dates comes from the earliest fossils, which are ~3.4 billion year old bacteria.

(Point of reference, Kelvin, a faithful Christian, calculated that only a moron can believe the Earth is a few thousand years old.)

Tedious Probabilities (probably this one)

Another common way to try and use math to disprove the theory of evolution is to misuse probability. The idea is to come up with a probability statement and then use that to show there is not enough time in the age of the universe for life to have occurred. If the odds against an event happening are so huge, it is impossible for the event to have occurred within the time frame the universe has existed. There are two problems with these approaches. First, it is trivial to come up with probabilities that sound impossible for events to occur even those for those events that have already happened. Second, those making the probability statements make assumptions that have nothing to do with biology or reality for that matter.

Making big numbers to impress those not used to big numbers.

Let’s start with a simple probability idea and work our way up. If we get a penny and flip it, the chance of it coming up heads is ½ or 50% (the other possibility being tails of course). The odds of getting heads twice in a row is ¼ (½ x ½) or 25%. Similarly the odds of flipping a coin and having it come up heads and then tails is also ¼. We can take this a little further, the chance of flipping a coin 10 times and having it come up heads each time is 1/1024. 1/1024 is the same as 0.0009765 or 9.77x10^-4 or ~1x10^-3_. It’s about 1 time in a 1000. The important thing here is that the odds of getting any specific combination of heads and tails in 10 flips is about 1 in a 1000. However, if you flip a coin 10 times, you will get a specific combination. I just flipped a nickel 10 times and got T(ails), T, H(eads), T, H, T, H, H, T, H. Was the chance of that happening 1 in a 1000? Well, it was before I flipped the nickel the first time, but now that it has happened the chance that it happened is 100% or 1/1.

When making these kind of arguments, the person picks a really big number to be awe inspiring, like the number of atoms in the entire universe. The number of atoms in the entire universe is ~1x10⁸¹, which is a 1 followed by 81 zeros. Everyone knows the universe is really fucking big (what’s bigger?) and atoms are really fucking small, so it makes intuitive sense that the number of atoms in the universe is probably the biggest big number of them all. So, if you can come up with a probability that is greater than the number of atoms in the universe, it must be impossible right?

Remember when we flipped the coin 10 times above? The odds were ~1/1000 (a 1 followed by 3 zeros) that any specific sequence would come up. Well if we flip that coin 270 times, the odds of it coming up heads every time, or any other specific sequence, is 1/1.9x10⁸¹. If I flip that coin every 15 seconds, it will take me just over an hour to get enough flips to get a sequence of heads and tails. If we calculate the odds of getting that sequence ahead of time, we get a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe! Using the creationist logic, then it was impossible to get the sequence of 270 Heads or Tails we just got.

Catnip for dumbasses

Maybe a more current analogy is in order. Powerball! The odds of a specific set of Powerball numbers coming up is 1/1.9x10⁸ (1 time in 190,000,000 tries. Face it, while someone will win occasionally, you won’t). The odds that the last 3 drawings would give rise to the numbers 13,28,49,51,59, 33; 2,24,46,52,56, 19; 4,19,33,41,59, 9 is 1 in 6.86x10²⁴. However, these numbers were in fact drawn. On Dec 9^th the odds were 1 in 6.86x10²⁴ now they are 1 in 1 or 100%. The difficulty with thinking about these types of calculations is that we forget that although any specific event may by improbable, a specific event will happen.

Just to get a number bigger than the number of atoms in the universe, the biggest big number, let’s go back 12 Powerball drawings, which would be drawings that occurred over roughly the last month (11/9/2011 - 12/17/2011). The odds of all the specific numbers being drawn were ~1/2.21x10⁹⁹ which is more than the number of atoms in the universe by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times (10⁹⁹ - 10⁸¹). Ergo, those numbers could not possibly have been drawn! But these odds were only true before the Nov. 9^th drawing. Again, the odds today are 100%, because this event already happened. It’s pretty easy generating really big numbers to sound impressive, but just because someone has a big number doesn’t mean he knows how to use it right.

Which leads us directly to the second problem here, the assumptions.

The assumptions used to make the calculations regarding evolution in the first place are suspect (wrong is a better word, fraudulent is the best word because those making these arguments have had it explained to them before). For example, the assumption in these types of calculations is that there were a bunch of chemicals and then ...

...these chemicals came together to form the first cell. First, no scientist worth her salt has ever made such a claim, although a lot of creationists have. I don’t want to get into a discussion about the origin of life in this post, but I do want to stress that I have never seen the absurd idea that cells just poofed into existence fully formed from scratch except by creationists. Irony alert: creationists think life zapped into being en masse by god, but ridicule biologists for thinking cells zapped into being en masse by evolution (even though biologists don’t think that).

The ‘calculations’ I have seen use assumptions like the following. Let’s assume that a cell needs 100 different proteins to survive and a protein is on average 100 amino acids long. (This is great because then the creationist can then honestly state that these are conservative estimates. As far as we know a cell needs more than 100 types of protein to live and proteins average length is more like 300 amino acids. This serves to make the result of the creationists argument that much more impressive.) With these (wrong) assumptions, what are the odds that the 20 kinds of amino acids will randomly come together to form all these proteins simultaneously to allow for a viable cell.

Using these assumptions, which have nothing to do with reality, the following ‘calculations are made. The chance of a single protein randomly assembling is 1/1x20¹⁰⁰ the denominator, as you know, is a number bigger than the total number of atoms in the universe. Add in the factor that you need this to happen 100 times (for each protein). It ain’t never gonna happen! CHECKMATE biologists, the theory of evolution is impossible.

Of course, no biologist thinks or suggests that the above happens. But why let reality interfere with your delusions.

To summarize:

There was a legitimate concern about the age of the Earth and whether there was enough time available for evolution to explain the diversity of life (and geology to explain the geological formations around us). This concern was resolved soon after by physicists and geologists.

Probability is poorly understood and can be used quite effectively to convince people of erroneous ideas. This provides a chance to reinforce the importance of critical thinking and skepticism.

It is easy to demonstrate something cannot be true if you are comfortable being a liar. First, misrepresent the position you are arguing against. Second, make up a bunch of bullshit premises you state represent the position in question. Third, show why the position is wrong because the bullshit premises are bullshit.

If that does not address you question, please let me know.

Regardless, if it wasn't clear enough, here is what the Rolling Stones have to say on the matter.

Thinking about the vagina

2012-11-26T22:16:00.000-06:00

I spent the better part of several days last week discussing a fungus that lives in the vagina. I invited a seminar speaker, who studies Candida albicans colonization of mucosal surfaces, which includes the mouth, intestine, and vagina, among other sites. C. albicans is a normal part of the human flora that does not appear to be detrimental or beneficial (a commensal). During our discussions, which usually took place a local watering holes, it became clear to me that different mammalian species can vary markedly when it comes to the indigenous flora and ultimately the physiology of the vaginal tract.

In women, the vagina is a fairly acidic environment. This is due to the action of Lactobacillus, a bacterium that grows well in the vaginal tract. Lactobacilli generates copious amounts of lactic acid from the metabolism of complex sugars. Lactic acid, as the name suggests, is acidic. The acidic pH in the vagina, due to lactic acid accumulation, inhibits the growth of most other microbes with the notable exception of C. albicans, a fungus. Fungi are extremely tolerant of acidic environments, at least in comparison to many bacteria.

Although C. albicans can grow reasonable well at the pH found in the vagina, it’s growth is limited by the vast abundance of Lactobacilli. Nutrients are not unlimited, so the faster growing Lactobacilli outcompete the slower growing C. albicans. Not surprisingly, if the Lactobacillus population is reduced, for example by broad spectrum antibiotic use or douching, then C. albicans can flourish, which can result in a yeast infection. (It can also lead to bacterial vaginosis, but this is less common.)

What is interesting, at least to me, is that vaginal pH of a female mouse is neutral. Based on this bit of information, you may not be surprised to learn that the murine vaginal tract is not colonized by Lactobacillus (therefore no lactic acid made and no vaginal acidic pH). Since the murine vaginal pH is not as acidic as a woman’s, you might expect C. albicans to do well there (as observed in women with a less acidic vaginal pH). However, C. albicans is not a normal colonizer of the mouse vagina. That being said, we can infect the murine vaginal tract in the lab with C. albicans. Indeed, when we do this, it appears that mice respond similarly to C. albicans as women with a yeast infection. What this tells us is that in the vaginal trac, C. albicans does not appear to be concerned with the environmental pH in regards to disease symptoms. This actually makes sense as recent studies have shown that women who have recurrent vaginal yeast infections (3 or more incidents a year during their child bearing years (yes hormones play a big role here)), the problem is how their bodies respond to C. albicans not due to anything specifically the fungus is doing.

To someone who works on how C. albicans responds to environmental pH, these results may seem disappointing. However, I for one find them intriguing. One primary reason we study the C. albicans response to environmental pH is that environmental pH has a dramatic effect on how this fungus grows. In acidic environments, C. albicans grows as a yeast indistinguishable from the Bakers yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) you can buy in the grocery store. In neutral or alkaline environments, C. albicans grows in the hyphal form (analogous to the hairy mold growing on the bread you baked but left sitting around too long). Besides being a striking phenotype, the transition between the yeast and hyphal growth forms is critical for disease and presumably for colonization as a commensal.

In summary, the ability to switch between the yeast and hyphal growth forms is critical for disease and environmental pH directly controls morphology. The problem or point of interest is that the environmental pH in the vagina of two distinct mammals varies markedly yet disease appears similar. This suggests that other environmental factors contribute to morphogenesis (true) and/or that within the vaginal tract C. albicans morphology is not important (potentially true). Support for this latter idea comes from Candida glabrata, a yeast that commonly colonizes the vaginal tract that is closely related to S. cerevisiae (the one you can buy in the supermarket). The key here is that C. glabrata only grows in the yeast form and is readily able to cause yeast infections.

A couple of accessory points. 1, A picture may be worth a thousand words, but some posts are not amenable to google searches; 2, You can get some interesting looks from patrons of the local watering hole discussing the microbial contingent of the vagina.

A Reason to Vote No on Nov 6

2012-10-27T08:59:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine posted an impassioned argument to Vote No on the marriage amendment on Facebook. She wanted to get her message out, so I offered to share it here and she said yes. I have copied her post in its entirety. So without further ado...

This is not spam, this is not meant to seem like a mass message, (although I sent it to a mass) this is a personal message that I, Jenny, am sending, with good intent, to you. Whether you know me well, from the past or only in passing, I REALLY want you to read what I have to say regardless of your opinions or lack there of on politics.

I'll try to be brief!

In 11 days we will all have the option to cast a vote. I don't care which party/person you vote for. That is none of my business or concern. What I care about is how you vote on the marriage amendment.

*Please don't stop reading*

I've talked to many people that I consider friends and even casual acquaintances about the marriage amendment and I've heard a startling amount of people tell me that they intent to vote "yes" to approve the amendment. Not because they claim to be bigots, not because they're particularly religious (which shouldn't matter regardless), but simply because they "don't care" or "don't know any gay people".

Voting to permanently deny rights THAT THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE to a large population of our neighbors is barbaric. I can't believe that at this point in history we're wasting our time with something of this nature and even more, can't believe that people that I know are entertaining it!

This is not a gay rights issue. This is a HUMAN rights issue. You don't have to know any gays to recognize that.

Without going into sob stories about anyone that I know I want to talk about practicality. If you are religious and feel like that is the reason you should vote "yes" please do me a few favors: #1- Please remember that church is supposed to be separate from state. Your religious establishment will never be required to marry anyone that it doesn't want to, as churches (synagogues, ect.) are exempt from discrimination laws. It's also not fair to impose your religious beliefs into law. #2- God will not cast you down. I'm sure that you've 'sinned against him' in many ways, like fornication, birth control, using his name in vain, coveting your neighbor... you can still make it up to heaven. #3- If gays earn the right to marry (which is not what we're voting on.. they still will not have equal rights if you vote "no") it will not affect the sanctity of anyone's heterosexual marriage! That's like saying your flower garden is no longer beautiful because your neighbor planted flowers in their yard too. Your garden is NOT less beautiful!

If you are voting "yes" because you don't know any gay people, please (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) recognize how asinine it is to try and prevent rights to a population just because you don't know them. In fact, if you don't know them, even better! It will affect you less than people that do know gays!

And lastly, if you intend to vote "yes" because you just don't care, then do me an immediate favor: go to my page directly, find the friends tab, and select delete. I do not want to be so much as a casual aquaintence with anyone of your sorts. In fact, if you intend to vote "yes" for any reason, do that please.

All moral ambiguity aside, can we not all see the economic benefits to gay marriage?! Weddings are expensive! More weddings means more venues being booked, more dresses/suits being sold, the food industry, the booze industry, jobs, taxes on marriage certificates, the cost of lawyers for the divorces... think about it. You don't even have to like the idea of gay marriage to like the extra flow of cash that would go into our economy.
Recognize, friends-that-despise-politics, that you DO NOT have to vote for a candidate to vote on the marriage amendment!!! If you so choose, you can check only one box and submit your vote. If you are one of these people, then I beg you to do so. Do it for your neighbors. Do it for any LGBT person that you know. Do it for the ones you haven't yet met. Do it for our children, that need to know that no group of people deserve to be bullied for something they cannot change. Set the example.

This amendment has passed in 39 states. This amendment is not the kind of thing that Minnesotans pass. It's not how we treat each other. It's just not nice.

PLEASE register to vote, even if it is the only box you check, vote "NO".

The online registry is: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

Thank you for reading my words,
Jenny

http://mnunited.org/

No Rape Republicans: Dumbasses

2012-10-25T19:19:00.000-06:00

Republican Assholes: 2nd recipients of this prestigious award

For some reason it seems that an entire major US political party has unilaterally decided that rape does not exist. Or maybe it is better to say that true rape does not exist, it's probably just some liberal media myth like climate change and intellectual honesty. I realize not all, and maybe not most, republicans share this worldview, but this is the problem you get when you embrace fundamentalism.

The patriarchal fundamentalist does not believe in rape, because a woman does not own her body. A woman's body belongs to her father until such time as he bequeaths it to her husband. This is why we, as 21st century first-world Americans still spend time worrying about the hymenal status of the bride, but could care less how often the groom shot his rocks off. This is what a large proportion of the gay marriage ban community means by traditional marriage. Women are property damnit.

Since women are property, they cannot be raped, because it isn't up to them what happens to their bodies. OK, maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic. It does seem like some ~~douchebag~~ fundamentalist republicans acknowledge that rape is at least theoretically possible. Todd Akin acknowledges legitimate rape. However, if a woman becomes pregnant it can't be rape because the magic uterus prevents all the sperm cells from finding the egg and fertilizing it (note: this magic effect must occur pre-fertilization or otherwise an intact whole human being would be aborted and that would make baby Jesus cry.). Ron Paul noted that there is honest rape, which you can identify because the woman goes immediately to the emergency room, does not pass GO nor collect $200. Paul Ryan identifies forcible rape as a possible event, as opposed to those non-aggressive or maybe unenforcible rapes.

Regardless, most republicans seem to agree that the sex that occurs between a man and a non-compliant woman is really the woman's fault. That's why Roger Rivard noted that some girls just rape easy. Probably the only way men can be expected to not rape those women is to cover the 'easy rape women' from head to toe in some dark garments. Oh wait, Muslims already do that and they are evil, so we'll have to come up with another plan.

Potential devil worshiper

With that recent history, we come to Richard Mourdock republican douchebag fundamentalist du jour. His actually disagrees with Akin and suggests that a woman can be become pregnant from a rape, however that's ok, because it's a gift from god. Mourdock might be right, if Mourdock worships the devil. Let's consider the ramifications of Mourdock's viewpoint. If a woman is forced to gestate and deliver a resulting baby from a rape, then why not force her to raise it. Also don't expect me or anyone else in society to help you raise your rape-baby, because that's just socialism or something.

What about the rapist? Can we prosecute him? I mean what if the woman was an 'easy rape' and how can we tell? Hell, if the rape-baby was Mourdock's devil-god's will, then can the rapist be held responsible? Obviously not, the rapist has no free will here, it was devil-god's decision, Mourdock said so. If anyone knows what the devil is thinking, I expect it is someone like Mourdock.

My Book Has Landed

2012-10-24T19:47:00.000-06:00

I am super-excited! I won a copy of 'Species: A History of the Idea' by John S. Wilkins and it just arrived this evening (Can I get a BOOYAH)!

Of course that means I need to clear some things off my reading plate ASAP. I'm already sporadically reading Origin of Species (with 2 chapters for blog posts in the cue), Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and The Problems of Philosophy and I cannot take on another serious non-fiction book at the moment. Probably will whip through the rest of Russell's book in the next week or so and then I can crack the binding of 'Species.'

As an extra special bonus, my copy is signed by Dr. Wilkins, which I was not expecting and reflects my total awesomeness I'm sure.

Finally I want to plug 'Evolving Thoughts' as an excellent site to gain insights into the history of biological thought, biological philosophy, and definitely check out the basic concepts posts for primers on various important scientific topics.

Quote of the day

2012-10-11T05:00:00.000-06:00

"Every event, or appearance, or accident, which seems to deviate from the ordinary course of nature has been rashly ascribed to the immediate action of the Deity and the astonished fancy of the multitude has sometimes given shape and colour, language and motion, to the fleeting but uncommon meteors of the air."

Written more than 200 years ago about a mindset common 1400 years before that. Have things changed at all?

Quote from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon.

On the Goal of Student Seminars

2012-10-08T16:12:00.001-06:00

A requirement in most, if not all, biology related graduate programs is that the graduate students give seminars on their research progress several times during their training. In the two programs I am affiliated, students do this in their second and fourth years of training. (I am not including the oral thesis defense required to obtain the Ph.D. and I am only discussing Ph.D. programs as I do not have much experience with Master's programs.) Why do we have these requirements? Or maybe the better way to state the question is 'What is the purpose for having students talk about their research?'

A seminar (not given by a student)

This post is inspired by a recent minor conversation going on around our program. I was not going to post on it, because some of this conversation can be considered private. However, I have heard about this conversation from so many diverse people that the conversation is readily in the public domain. The conversation centers around the idea that specific faculty members are mean to students during their seminars. Seems simple enough, but we should probably define what ‘mean’ means at some point. Regardless, it is useful to establish the purpose of the student research seminar in order to determine what is and is not mean. So back to our initial question...

What is the purpose for having students talk about their research?

There are, of course, numerous purposes for the student seminar and I’ve listed four below. More purposes could be added and these four are not mutually exclusive, but these are the four I want to discuss.

1. It allows program-wide evaluation.

2. It sets foreseeable goal posts for progress.

3. It is great practice.

4. It allows for self-assessment.

1. The student seminar allows for program-wide evaluation.

Usually students discuss their research with an extremely narrow group of professionals. Namely their advisors, the lab head, and the members of their lab. Often there are joint laboratory meetings between a couple of research labs that work in similar areas, so there may be a few more professionals involved depending on the student. Regardless, students professional interactions with other scientists is limited.

The student research seminar allows the student to explain her research to a diverse group of professionals and other students still being trained. Conversely, is allows the program as a whole to see what is going on within the confines of the program. Our program has close to a hundred research faculty working in disparate areas such as bacterial biofilm formation, pain-associated with cancer, development of natural killer cells, etc. So it is unlikely that any one faculty member has a good sense of what is going on in the other ~99 labs. Here’s a dirty little secret, not only is the student being evaluated, but the laboratory the student comes from is being evaluated. How well prepared was the student, are the research questions being addressed solid or trivial, etc. This has longer term consequences that do not necessarily matter to the student, but does matter to the research group.

It also matters to members of the program, if the quality of the research being done falls off overall, those researchers doing high quality rigorous research may be less likely to participate or it may be difficult to recruit these researchers to join our program. Over time the prestige of the program can suffer making it more difficult to recruit the highest quality students. None of this rests on the shoulders of an individual student or group of students. It rests on the program and the student research seminars provide a window into the current health of the program.

2. It sets foreseeable goal posts for progress.

As noted above, students generally meet often with their advisors and lab members in the semi-formal setting of a laboratory meeting. However, some advisors may have trouble keeping up with the progress of their trainees and scientists on a day-to-day level. If numerous exciting things are happening in the lab, it can be easy to overlook areas where things are stagnating. Students are also required to meet with their committees every year, but my experience is that this happens more like every 1 – 2 years and often not until year 3. Again these tend to be more informal presentations.

The student research seminars are formal presentations that are given in year 2 and 4. For the second year talk, the student has been in the laboratory a year or more, has defined the area of research they will work on, and should have made some preliminary experimental in roads to define their proposed research. The current format in our program is that students give a 20 - 25 minute presentation for their second year talk. Much of the talk is generally background defining the primary problem and specific research area the student is interested in and the preliminary studies setting the stage for the proposed research.

For the fourth year talk, the student completed their preliminary exams two years earlier and have been working full-time on their research for at least two years. The student should have a large body of experimental data devoted to their research question and have at least one ‘story’ well in hand. The current format in our program is that a student gives a 45 – 50 minute presentation for their fourth year talk. Here, much of the talk should relate the new findings generated by the student, of course with appropriate background information and a clear establishment of the specific question to be addressed.

The students know about these seminars when they enter the program and they serve as important ‘deadlines’ to measure productivity.

3. It is great practice.

Science is not complete until it is communicated. Usually we think of the communication of science as the peer reviewed manuscript in a scientific journal. However, we also communicate orally at scientific meetings, during workshops and courses, and as invited speakers. Much like writing a scientific paper, giving a talk is a work of art and skill and takes practice. Ever been to a horrible seminar? Again, students frequently present their research at laboratory meetings, but this represents an extremely narrow focus. Everyone at the laboratory meeting knows the background and research area, so there is no need to logically and effectively lay out this information. Laboratory meetings tend to be informal, even ‘formal’ ones are informal compared to a research seminar. There is no need for the student to worry about acronyms and speaking in jargon, since everyone in the room speaks that same language. Your peers probably know, at least in a general sense, what you are doing so if there are issues with data presentation (labeled axes) it is often missed. Furthermore, there is a certain ‘lab-think’, where everyone is basically on the same page regarding the research and different ways of thinking about a problem are difficult to generate.

It is critically important for students to present their research to a diverse audience of scientists, because they might have the chance to present at a meeting or might even have a job interview at some point. I interviewed at a bio-tech company before taking my faculty position and I was asked to give a research seminar. Unlike the laboratory meeting where troubleshooting and hashing out experimental details is being done, in the seminar you are telling a story. Either a 20 minute story or a 45 minute story for our students. This is not trivial or easy and takes time to do well. Much of this can be done with your laboratory, but remember the issue with laboratory-specific language and mindset? That doesn’t go away. Our student seminars used to be much more hit-or-miss until the students took it upon themselves to practice with each other as a class. This brought diverse perspectives to the practice presentations, which helped the student learn what was actually general knowledge and what was laboratory-specific knowledge. The overall quality of the seminars improved several-fold. So in the relative safety (see below) of the departmental seminar, students can hone their skills for those times when the cost and payoff of their seminar matters most.

4. It allows for self-assessment.

We have established the importance of the student research seminar as practice for the high impact presentations that the student will have to give. However, there is an immediate benefit, which is the ability of the student to self-assess themselves. When I give a seminar, as soon as possible afterwards, I jot down the questions/comments that were raised during the talk. This is useful for several reasons, it helps me hone my presentation and be better prepared for the next one. Was the question something I could or should have dealt with in the talk proper? Did I leave out some important details? I also assume a similar question will come up in the future, so I know to be better prepared for it.

Based on the questions and comments, you can identify weaknesses in the data, whether it is simply with how the data is presented or more substantial like the lack of a control. You can also identify weaknesses in thought. Is there a similar paradigm in another system you were unaware of? Did you overlook a body of literature that already addressed the long-term goal you propose to accomplish?

With those ideas in mind, we can now address the idea of members of your audience being mean. Again we need to establish what is meant by 'mean.' If an audience member interrupts your presentation with a question and prefaces the question with 'Hey dumbass...', that can be considered mean. Maybe a question/comment includes the phrase 'I have never heard anything so stupid in my life.' Obviously, the person making that comment can not be serious (unless they do not have children or have not taught undergraduates) and therefore can be considered mean. In my ten plus years of attending student seminars, a few of which were atrocious, I have never heard any such question/comment.

So what else could the students consider 'mean'? In my experience of attending student seminars, there are a handful of faculty members and other professional scientists who almost always ask questions, a set of scientists that often ask questions, and a cadre of scientists and faculty who rarely if ever ask questions. From my perspective this latter group could be considered 'mean'. In what way are they contributing to the four points described above? The quiet bodies in the room are not helping the student identify what works or doesn't work with the talk. They are not actively helping the student prepare for professional talks that carry a much greater risk. It's akin to giving a document to a colleague for feedback and the only thing you get in return is a great job or smiley face....how is this helpful?

What about the two categories of professionals who ask questions? Based on what we just discussed, it seems unlikely these people could be considered 'mean' could it? For the sake of argument let's entertain the possibility that one of these groups contains the 'mean' scientists.

Maybe we should consider the types of questions that could be asked. Questions can be considered either passive or a aggressive. Passive questions are like 'What do you think about X?' or 'Have you thought about doing X?' Basically questions with no correct answer and a plethora of valid answers. These questions have value, but are also the kind of questions used car sales reps have no trouble dealing with. For example, a well trained and prepared student can take these questions and provide some important insights, but a poorly trained student who does not really understand the field they are in can often song-and-dance their way around an answer. (Of course it's the kiss of death for a student that can not handle these softball questions at all.)

Aggressive questions may prevent this.

Aggressive questions are different in nature. Aggressive questions are those that call into question the data or interpretation of the data. Aggressive questions challenge the student to explain something they failed to or did not explain well. Aggressive questions confront the student with poorly presented data, such as graph lacking labels or presented in such a way as to mislead the audience (see data from FOX gnus). Aggressive questions bring up other systems or data sets that contradict the point(s) being made by the student... Actually those scientists asking aggressive questions do sound like a bunch of assholes calling out the students and challenging them, but are they?

Remember our four purposes to give a student seminar? Let's see how they hold up against the asshole accusation.

1. The student seminar allows for program-wide evaluation.

By asking questions that challenge the student it is possible to assess how the well the student understands their area of research. It is possible to ascertain the depth of understanding in the experimental details including the intrinsic limitations with an experimental approach. This serves to promote programmatic rigor, but more importantly let's other students know that the program has standards and there are scientists who will ensure those standards are maintained.

2. It sets foreseeable goal posts for progress.

Aggressive questions do not truly apply to this purpose, neither do passive questions, except from the standpoint noted above. By seeing what the expectations are in the second and fourth year, students in the earlier years can be aware of where the bar is and what to work towards.

3. It is great practice.

Absolutely aggressive questions are relevant here. If you are at an important meeting and one of the leaders in the field notes your experimental deficiencies (in the presence of every other leader in the field) and you cannot respond, you are fucked. If you are criticized or contradicted, what are you going to do? Explain why you are correct or at least most likely correct or tap your shoes together muttering 'there's no place like home, there's no place like home.' Don't you think being able to handle aggressive questions will help you in a job interview?

4. It allows for self-assessment.

Most students, I have found, want to be top notch scientists and appreciate challenging questions. Even those students who are not necessarily aggressive themselves, understand the importance of being able to handle themselves under pressure. Most students either understand or are taught why they should value the challenge and how it helps them improve.

You are
a winner!

The conversation that inspired this post, much like previous conversations along these lines, is driven by the newest students, not the more experienced students. Presumably these newer students are not used to the actual practice of science. It makes me wonder what they think the purpose of the student seminar is. Maybe they think the student seminar is simply a trivial hoop they need to jump through with no other purpose than to get a free snack or lunch. If so, they probably feel they'll deserve a big high-five for taking time out of their busy days to grace us with their presentation. If this is true, it suggests the program needs to do a better job explaining the purpose of these requirements and not simply assuming it is known.

For full disclosure I consider myself to be one of those scientists that almost always asks questions. If I don't ask a question, it generally means that the presenter has convinced me that it is not worth my time to ask questions (the other possibility is that I dozed off).

47% Pride

2012-09-18T22:32:00.001-06:00

As basically everyone knows Romney came out to a bunch of his multimillionaire buddies. Well he didn't come out as in he admires Paul Ryan's abs o' steel or anything. He came out as a heartless bastard that really doesn't understand the real world. Of course he isn't elitist, you have to be educated to be elitist (at least in republican circles).

One of the key comments Romney made is:

"Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that-- that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that's-- it's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

And-- and-- I mean the president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40-- or he-- he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every-- every four years.

And-- and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion. Whether they like the guy or not. What they-- what it looks like. I mean the-- it's the-- the-- when you ask those people-- we do all these polls. I find it amazing. We poll all these people, see where you stand in the polls. About 45% of the people will vote for the Republican and 48% or 49%--"

Let me tell you a story.

My mom is a personal hero of mine. She embodies all those family values republicans supposedly cherish. She raised two kids, I was one of them. She's a single mom, because my parents got divorced not because she was one of those 'women who have lots of unprotected sex to make babies for the government to support' that republicans love to fantasize about. I realize many with the republican mindset still feel my mom is deficient because she was unable to keep her marriage intact. Regardless, she raised my brother and I and we both went to college (ergo we're elitists and use words like ergo). She worked full-time while raising us, while my dad did not pay court ordered child-support. She found time to attend my after school functions including marching and jazz band events. So I think by most criteria my mom fulfills those 'real american' values republicans love to crow about. Hell, my mom even voted republican for many years (she got better).

My mom is also one of those 47%ers Romney dislikes and discounts. She is also one of those 47%ers many non-rich Romney supporters dislike and discount.

From the earliest time I can remember, my mom worked full-time. The first job I am aware of is as an assistant nurse type job at a nursing home a few miles from our home. I remember that she worked the overnight shift, at least for a time, and I didn't get to spend much time with her. I also remember going there numerous times to see the patients and getting to know a few of them pretty well. I was probably 4 or 5 at the time. The owners of the nursing home stopped running it and went into real estate, Century 21 if I recall correctly. So my mom found a new job in a secretarial or accounting capacity, I think, at an advertising company, the kind that put up billboards. I also remember going to the office on weekends some times so she could do some work that needed doing. I got to wander around the garage area and mess around with stray supplies. I also encountered my first swimsuit calendar there, I was in the 6 - 9 range. Then she started working at a semi-conductor factory closer to home. She worked there until around the time I graduated and went to college when the plant shut down. Not exactly sure what she did there, she wasn't a floor worker but wasn't a front office secretary either. I think she was an assistant to the management team or something along those lines. She then did a short stint in a nursing assistant type position, before taking a position at an eye clinic. That was the last job she had, which lasted close to 15 years. She was always trying to better herself, to learn new things, gain new skills (elitist!). Towards the end of her tenure with the eye clinic, she was trying to become a technician in order to do certain aspects of the examination.

My mom owned her house outright. She paid off the mortgage and although it needed a bunch of work, it was hers. She basically drove the same car for as long as one could drive it and when the time came to replace it, she bought a used one. In fact, I recall only one new car being bought which occurred when I was real young and my parents were still married. My dad totaled it shortly after we got it.

I remember lay-away plans for Christmas gifts and the Christmas clubs through the banks. We never had many of the bells and whistles associated with solid middle class living, but we had a nice house in a nice neighborhood, I had toys to play with, though my next door neighbor always had much better toys (which is probably why I spent so much time at his house as opposed to vice versa). I probably would have benefited from more attention and guidance with schoolwork, but single mom remember?

But I also know we did not have to use food stamps or access welfare services. Unless we consider free/reduced school lunches of course, in that case I was one of those victimized 10 year olds who felt they're entitled to food.

So although my mom raised two sons to be at least reasonably successful. She paid her own way and paid income tax until she stopped working. (She also paid payroll taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. just like all those other 47%ers who 'don't pay taxes'.)

But you know what? My mom has succumbed to Alzheimer's disease. She had early onset which started in her early 60s. This is ultimately why she lost her job at the eye clinic. She could not reliably function, she forgot how things were done and made many mistakes. She also had extreme problems filling out a check to pay a bill. It wasn't like she didn't try to pay her bills, she would go to the counter at the cable company and not know how to fill out the check! She frequently could not even understand how to pay using money. As far as modern medicine is concerned, she had no control over her disease. She did not 'do anything wrong' to cause this disease. She had been a smoker, but had quit cold turkey about 20 years earlier. She drank a little wine or a beer occasionally, but there were no puritanical reasons to assume my mom brought the disease on herself. It just fucking happened. She did not have the fucking option of taking responsibility for herself. I took on that responsibility.

I moved my mom out to Minnesota from her only home in Maine about 10 years ago. My brother and I sold her stuff and sold her home. Her savings, retirement, and essentially everything she ever earned over a life-time of hard work was liquidated and used to pay for her healthcare. I wonder if Romney has ever wondered what it would be like if after a lifetime of work all his children had to remember him by were a few trinkets and pictures. I expect not.

So my mom paid taxes for decades and sold off all her assets to cover her expenses. And you know what, she hasn't paid income tax in a fair number of years. She is the 47%. Apparently you should despise my mom more than the other members of the 47% because she isn't even using her government freebies (social security) to buy things with the added sales tax. My mom spends her day sitting in a chair or laying on a bed, requiring a nurse or nurse assistant to move her between the two. She cannot feed herself or in anyway take care of herself. This is who she is now. As Romney said:

Who are dependent upon government, who believe that-- that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that's-- it's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.

I guess it fact my mom doesn't think she's a victim or that she's 'entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you name it.' My mom doesn't think many thoughts, if any at all. She doesn't recognize me or her grandson, she hasn't been able to speak in quite some time. But I think that. I think as a citizen of the USA who contributed her entire life, raised a family, paid taxes on so many levels that she deserves access to the riches of this country. I guess she didn't build those businesses she worked in, but she contributed to their success. Maybe if I think her government should support her now, I should take over my mother's care. I guess that makes some sense. Im not qualified in healthcare, but I could probably figure out the simple things. Of course my mom requires 24/7/365 day care. So I could quit my job and stop paying taxes to take care of her. Of course that means my son will now be living on the street and not getting 3 square meals a day. Im sure not having a sense of security regarding housing and food will be a character building exercise for him.

Obviously to be an upstanding citizen and father, I won't let him have government paid for food, he can forage from garbage cans. Ill also take him out of school since we won't be paying property taxes. I'll have to do this based on Romney's logic, because I don't want him growing up thinking of himself as a victim entitled to "healthcare, food, housing, you name it." Hmm, you know what, that sounds fucking insane. How about this greatest country on the planet stop fucking whining about protecting its citizens.

I have told numerous people that I am not voting for Obama because I consider him the lesser of two evils, which is still evil. Obama has done some good things in my opinion, but those do not offset the truly horrible things I think he has done: warrantless wiretaps, allowing torture to pass by unperturbed, DOJ raiding marijuana clinics at record levels, eliminating due process, and other aspects of executive overreach. I know it is near impossible to do anything with Congress as it is, but ultimately Obama does not represent many of my views. So, I was not voting for Obama, I also wasn't voting for Romney because he is evil, great big evil.

Well Im voting for Obama now. In fact, I just donated to his campaign for the first time this election. I will do so again. Not because Obama is now a great candidate, but because Romney convinced me that he is such a complete douchebag.

So when you go to vote remember Romney's viewpoint

And-- and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion. Whether they like the guy or not."

Those people is my mom. Romney is not worried about her. Romney thinks my mom didn't take personal responsibility and care for her life. Romney thinks he can convince 5 - 10% of voters that are independents that my mom thinks "they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they're entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that's-- it's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

Well I got good news for you Romney, my mom cannot vote. So, she's one of the 47% who is not voting for Obama. Unfortunately the bad news is that I am one of the 53% that now is voting for Obama.

From the Tax Policy Center

On behalf of my mom, my hero, who I knew well before the Alzheimer's took her, FUCK YOU ROMNEY! And fuck you Romney supporters who think the 47% represents those mythical lazy shits who do nothing but live high on the hog and not the elderly, the working poor, and the unemployed. (You really can't forget about the unemployed, you cannot blame them for not having jobs while at the same time blaming Obama for not making jobs. You realize that if there are fewer jobs available than unemployed people, then some people have to be unemployed?)

How to Study: a Repost

2012-09-02T19:10:00.001-06:00

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 to 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 Im 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, red 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!

Class dichotomies

2012-08-31T17:16:00.001-06:00

Not sure what to make of this. Classes start next week and the two classes I am teaching have online moodle sites. Student access to both sites has been ~10 days ± 5 minutes. To date my senior/graduate level course has 3.3% of students accessing the website; my sophomore level course has 18% of students accessing the website. That's a 6x difference!!! Are my sophomores more motivated than my seniors/graduate students?

Does it matter that the raw data is 1/30 students and 5/28 students respectively?

Why the Marriage Amendment is Asinine

2012-08-15T20:45:00.000-06:00

The citizens of Minnesota will be voting on Nov. 6th on whether to amend the state constitution on the issue of gay marriage. I've been holding off on commenting in depth on this issue because I've been busy with other things and because the time until the issue came to a head was big enough that I could put it off. I am well aware of the numerous reasons ~~bigots~~ those who support the amendment make and I think it is time to deal with the reasons. Face it, at this point and time the reasons are not going to change. This is the best they've got.

Now to be clear the amendment reads as follows:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"¹

Before we get to the reasons against homosexuals getting married, we should first define marriage. I am not talking about the bumper sticker 'one man, one woman' bullshit, but what we actually think marriage is. This is where I think most of the problems come in.

Marriage is both a religious institution and a legal institution. Unfortunately for many (not all) Christians religious reasons and legal reasons are not the same, in Iran they are, but here not so much. I care little about the religious aspects of marriage because those are not what we are talking about. Let me say that again, the religious definitions or aspects of marriage are not at issue here. What we are talking about are the legal issues, the secular definition and meaning of marriage. If you want to make this about religious marriage then you are either in favor of a theocracy (of your religion's specific flavor) or you received a poor high school education and do not realize that words, like marriage, can have a variety of meanings (in other words language is fluid). I wrote about this religious vs secular issue last year and will not rehash it here. I'll assume you know what I'm talking about and carry on.

OK, so what are the rationales to prevent gay men and women from marrying?

1. Marriage is historically one man one woman.

OK, but history is often (always) not the best. What is the number one reason to study history? It's so we don't repeat it (Just ask George Santayana). But this is a fact based statement. Marriage is historically one man one woman. Is it? Maybe, but based on my reading of history men of means usually supported the multiple-wives version of marriage. I mean look at David or Solomon in the bible. Hell, Muhammed notes that Islamic martyrs will have 70 virgin wives in heaven (Im guessing Muhammed never had sex with a virgin).

Or let's look at how women were (are) treated historically. The dowery was a payment of the brides family to the man who married said woman. The dowery was basically a payment to take this woman off the parents' hands, a way to improve the status of the bride's family. The woman was a piece of property in all sense of the word. In the progressive USA, women could not vote until 1920, which is about the time the entire world was realizing women were not akin to donkeys. So historically, until the early-mid 20th century, marriage was simply passing a woman from the parents to the groom with a few bucks to grease the wheels.

So if we accept that historically marriage was one man, one woman, it was a shit institution from the aspect of women's rights. It was also only one man, one woman from the poor man's perspective.

2. Children need a father and a mother.

This fails at several levels. First, post-menopausal women can get married as can eunuchs and men that have had vasectomies. So child rearing is not, I repeat not, required for marriage. Second, do children require a father and a mother living in the same house sharing the same bed? If so, I know a fair number of marriages that must be dissolved. If it's true that children do better in two parent households, I assume the pro-marriage amendment supporters are in favor of forced adoption of children of single mothers and fathers. Once a divorce is in place, the children are available to any and all one man, one woman households. No? Didn't think so. Do children do best if there is a vagina and a penis as parents or do two vaginas or two penises suffice? Are Mitt Romney's kids worse off because there was basically two vaginas raising them while the penis was off working hard? There is actual data on families and child outcomes. Unfortunately these studies are difficult so it's fairly easy to find data that supports your position². Overall the data clearly says that stable households are best for children. Even divorced families can raise children successfully as long as the parents work together for the good of the children. Homosexual parents act similarly. (As an aside, remember when Hillary Clinton said 'it takes a village to raise a child'? Remember the blow back from the right wing regarding those words? I wonder how many of people who despised Clinton for stating this fact are now trying to make sure children of gay parents are dispossessed.)

Let's be clear about the repercussions of this amendment. If a 7 year old child of two gay women has one of their moms die (let's say of breast cancer), then the bigoted grandmother of the dead mom could potentially take the child and prevent it from ever seeing the living parent again. Anyone think this could affect the child's development? If there were adoption papers, this probably wouldn't be an issue, but remember this is not even an issue in a heterosexual marriage. What if the bigoted grandmother said the 'spouse' could not visit her wife in the hospital while she lay dying of said breast cancer? I guess it's better to suffer alone than with the one you love.

3. The marriage amendment is about freedom of religion

Except it's not. You don't want homosexuals being married in your church, don't marry them in your church. That's your right as a religious institution. But your freedom of religion does not give you the right to impede the secular state rights of others. Maybe it's against your religion to allow women to divorce. You know what, if a woman divorces you have the right to kick her out of your church, you do not have the right to force her to stay married to the abusive prick who paid 6 donkeys to her dad. (Trust me, the threat of being thrown out of the church is sufficient for many people to do what they're told.)

It's just like me being able to say 'Fuck Jesus.' You may not like it, you may want to outlaw it, but that's my freedom of speech. It does not impede your ability to believe the Jesus hung around with a bunch of guys and told them to abandon their wives but was not gay. Now if there was a movement to force churches to conduct gay marriages if said churches did not want to, I will write a blog post about the fuckheads who do not understand that churches do not have to conduct marriages of homosexuals. Except that isn't happening, we're talking about marriage from a legal standpoint and the rights conferred upon the spouse concomitant with marriage. I didn't get married in a church or by the clergy, but Newt Gingrich did, all 3 times. Who's marriage is more real or legal?

4. Homosexual marriage is unnatural.

From here

As stated by someone who knows jackshit about biology. What is natural? Because there are numerous examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (and don't even get me started on fungi or plants). Did you know that bacteria exchange DNA between members of different species and even phyla? It's even worse than a person getting it on with an oak tree, but it's totally natural. Almost all animals (our closest relatives) do not exist in monogamous relationships. (Factual aside: almost no humans exist in monogamous relationships.)

5. Slippery slope

I dealt with this previously, but suffice it to say that there is the issue of consent. Children, non-human animals, and plants can not consent. Therefore they can't marry an adult. Therefore, this is a non-issue. A red herring if you will.

6. The bible says....

First, it doesn't matter. Not everyone in this country believes like you do. I'm sorry that bothers you, but I can live with you believing bullshit, and until you destroy the constitution and replace it with your version of a holy book you have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with you (and even if they did, you have to leave room for a hypothetical person to disagree with you).

Second, what does the bible say? Tell me book, chapter, and verse what the bible says? Really, I hear this biblical justification often, but I have a bible and studied it for quite some time, I don't see a biblical definition of marriage. Here, maybe Betty Bowers can give you some help.
Third, I, and none of the other 300+ million citizens of the United States of America have to follow your religion. It's right there in the first amendment, you might have missed it on your way to the second. So, until you establish a 12th century theocracy, you'll have to accept the fact that other people can believe differently than you.

7. It will destroy the institution of marriage

How? I've seen this argument, but never a defense of it. Did two guys in Des Moines ruin Newt's second marriage or was that the younger hottie Callista, nah must have been gay guys. Will the divorce rate increase significantly in this country over the ~46% it currently stands at. (Divorce really increased in the 70s when women actually became able to take of themselves. It has been going down since 1980 probably because all people are more empowered to make their own decisions without religious white guys telling everyone what to do.)

Finale (that's French for the last section):

So, I'm happy to entertain other reasons to vote YES on an amendment to make something that is already not legal, still not legal. Please leave those rationales in the comments, but until I see one, I'll assume those voting YES are either small minded bigots or people who find guys doing it (but not women based on most issues of Penthouse) icky.

Totally gross

Totally awesome3

¹wording from here
²Bullshit study
³For some reason our society is really hung up on the left picture, but can't seem to get enough of the right picture.

Marriage, as explained by Mr. Deity

2012-08-10T05:49:00.003-06:00

Got to love Mr. Deity, everything becomes so clear once it's explained.

A Curious Night

2012-08-05T17:31:00.000-06:00

COUNTDOWN CLOCKS

I was too young to appreciate (or be aware of) the moon landings. After that was the space shuttle generation. I can appreciate the space shuttle, but when all is said and done, and it is, the space shuttle was a glorified jet. The missions, while impressive, were not the kind to stimulate and invigorate a young mind. Probably the greatest accomplishment of the shuttle was repairing Hubble. Now the Hubble telescope is impressive, the pictures and information about the universe is without peer and rival the awe that is leaving the city for the first time to see the stars without the light pollution.

NASA / JPL-CALTECH

But really, there have been no space missions in the last 40 years to rival that which really begins tonight. Tonight at 12:30AM my time, Curiosity (hopefully) lands on Mars. Obviously, we've already landed two robots on Mars, Spirit and Opportunity, which were themselves massive successes. So, what's all the hubbub? Well, to me Spirit and Opportunity make Curiosity that much more exciting. These robots did so well and exceeded all expectations that it's hard to not to have huge expectations for Curiosity....

The biggest selling point of Curiosity is its ability to test for evidence of life. We have already been tempted with the possibility of life having occurred on Mars, although this has not held up. (And no, I'm not talking about little green men.) But Curiosity can directly test for evidence. Will it be definitive? Possibly, but probably not. But the point, for me at least, is that this mission could provide strong evidence that we are not unique, the life is not some specific characteristic of an oddball world near the edge of yet another galaxy in the universe. If we find evidence of life here in our own solar system, then this tells us something profound about the propensity of life. It tells us something profound about our own place in the universe. It teaches us something profound about humility, a lesson many on this planet need to learn. Of course, Curiosity may not find evidence of life, but Curiosity will tell us much about Mars (and thus about ourselves and our planet).

I do not know what tomorrow holds for us, but I do know I'll be awake early tomorrow waiting with bated breath to see if Curiosity survives the seven minutes of terror.

On Voice: My Defense

2012-08-02T17:26:00.001-06:00

It seems that ~~many people~~ creationists are often put off by the use of language that may be deemed socially inappropriate. I noticed this when dealing with Cornelius Hunter and now I had anonymous (the most popular commenter on blogs) note that:

You're an associate professor and find it necessary to load up your argument with all kinds of expletives and mocking, defamatory comments?

So why do I resort to using expletives and mockery?

Thanks Prof. Bacteriality