I wouldn’t have had the amazing opportunity to be Managing Editor of the No. 1 newspaper in the nation if it weren’t for Chris Richert. Without your guidance and encouragement, I would have left The Chronicle last year without even considering applying for the management team. Your ability to make any situation comical on top of your magical talent of remedying any problem will forever have me saying, “I miss you.”

I can’t find the perfect words to express my love for two-thirds of the blonde Trinity—Heather Schröering and Lindsey Woods—but you ladies are the most talented, whip-smart, beautiful journalists anyone could ever hire. And to Zach, as seen in the comedy issue, you also make the perfect blonde. But goldie locks or not, your skill as a graphic designer is unsurpassed.You’re all going to get jobs like hotcakes! I made the three best friends of a lifetime here, and I can see all of us growing old together, recalling our early-mornings at work and late nights spent downing margaritas at Flaco’s. Which reminds me, Sylvia Leak, I absolutely have to thank you for teaching me how to twerk.

To the rest of the current Chronicle staff:  You guys are sickeningly brilliant, and all of you are 100 percent deserving of being the No. 1 reporters, designers, photographers and videographers in the country.

None of this could be possible without the infinite wisdom of Jeff Lyon and Stephanie Goldberg, who have exponentially helped me through both the newspaper and my courses. Jeff, your gentle words have turned my crappy writing into award-winning work. Stephanie, I am forever grateful for our makeup breaks during production day, and you have inspired me to pursue writing in the cosmetics industry.

Of course, I can’t forget to thank my boyfriend of five years, Chris Richko, for sticking with me throughout my entire college career. The Chronicle is notorious for putting strains on relationships, but look, we survived!

Naturally, I saved the best for last: my mom and dad. You two are such selfless people, and I can’t express how thankful I am to be the daughter of endlessly hilarious, accepting and inspiring parents. Dad, I want to personally thank you for teaching me how to breathe deeply and be compassionate. Mom, I am determined to one day be able to buy you a coach house in the back of my mansion, where we will own dozens of dogs. Love you both
so much.

Two years ago, I spent nine solid months thinking, “What the f – - k am I going to do with my life?” Shortly thereafter, I found myself at The Chronicle, and I haven’t asked myself that question since.

I’ve been guided by some of the most brilliant educators I’ve ever met, including Jeff Lyon and Stephanie Goldberg, two treasure chests of journalistic knowledge to whom I attribute much of preparation for the real world.

In these two years here, I’ve developed a Chicago family almost as nutty as the one I’ve got back home. Chris Richert, my parent-away-from-parents, thanks for being able to sing along to every song I’ve ever belted out in this office … and for doing my taxes these last few years.

To my blonde soul mates: Sophia Coleman, there are few people in this world I’d willingly spend almost every waking moment, and then some, with. Lindsey Woods, you’ve taught me to “unclench my butt cheeks and just do it.” Sylvia Leak, the chocolate filling in my golden Oreo, I’ve got all the sugar you need right here. Alex Kukulka, my little pierogi, you are truly an all-star.

And to Zach Stemerick, the total eclipse of my heart, you’re the reason I ended up at The Chronicle, and I owe you a sweater made of cheddar.

If it weren’t for screaming goat videos and end-of-production victory songs, we probably wouldn’t have gotten through the year.

I’ve had the raddest support system throughout my college experience, and I owe a special thanks to my guacamole gal, Mallory Hawes (and Momma Pam), my adopted brother J.P. Danley, Maxwell “Tsunami Girl” Esposito and my handsome chalupa boyfriend, Adam Jansen.

As I look back on these four years, I wouldn’t have made it here without the parents of the century, who always told me I could do anything I wanted in life.

From Dad driving up from Kentucky in the middle of the night to get me on numerous occasions to Mom’s weekly cards in the mail, you both believed in me when I didn’t, and you didn’t disown me when I became a vegetarian.

To my little-big sister, Ashleigh: You’ve always been there for me to vent, and your unending thirst for knowledge has always inspired me.

And to the greatest man to ever walk the earth, my grandfather, Charles J. Schroering: You’ve made damn sure I’ve been able to take every opportunity that’s been handed to me, and I’ve dedicated my life to making sure I don’t let you down.

Now, why did I study journalism? Because I want to change the world. There’s a lot to unpack in that answer, but ultimately, good journalists have a lot of power. I want to write stories that matter because it’s not about me—it’s really about you.

I’m prepared for the challenges ahead of me as a reporter because I’ve been lucky to have a lot of gracious individuals rooting for me. I know it’s going to be incredibly hard work for little pay, but when the going gets tough, I just recall what my grandpa told me two years ago when I dropped off my application at The Chronicle: “Cream always rises to the top, baby.”

In the final edition of this academic year, the newly elected SGA President Nicole Carroll joined Klitzke and Campus Editor Alexandra Kukulka. They recapped the April 30 and May 7 SGA meetings, Klitzke gave some last words as president and Carroll told us some of her future plans.

However, roaring cars and buses can be enough to scare anyone away from biking on city streets. The Chronicle’s Kevin Gebhardt shows first-time riders how easy it can be to pedal on city pavement.

Members of Columbia’s part-time faculty union P-Fac, along with staff and students held their signs high May 9 as they protested Columbia’s bargaining practices outside 600 S. Michigan Ave building. Approximately 300 classes taught by part-time faculty members are being cut, and part-timers are losing classes to graduate students.

When asked about P-Fac, the administration emailed The Chronicle saying the college will “continue to engage in good-faith bargaining with P-Fac and hopes to reach a new agreement in the near future.

The proposal would require nonprofits with assets of  more than $250 million to pay their full water bill, with tiered discounts for nonprofits of smaller sizes, as reported by The Chronicle May 6. Nonprofits with assets less than $1 million would not be required to pay at all. While asking nonprofits of a certain size to start paying makes sense, the method of calculating size—based on net assets rather than revenue—could make it difficult for some organizations to pay up.

This proposal comes from Emanuel’s 2012 budget that featured a number of new revenue items, only to be followed by the 2013 budget that didn’t raise any taxes, something Emanuel was quick to brag about despite being in the process of implementing new fees for charitable organizations.

While a nonprofit with $250 million in net assets sounds like it has money to spare, that doesn’t take into account the organization’s yearly budget and revenue. A nonprofit could have very little extra cash on hand but a lot of money tied up in real estate and other assets.

Columbia is a nonprofit organization and a prime example of this. The college has assets well above $250 million, but judging by a steady drop in enrollment and a prioritization process involving budget cuts and consolidation, Columbia isn’t exactly rolling in cash. According to a report by Chicago’s Inspector General, Columbia’s water bill exemption in 2011 was $81,702. While that’s not a significant portion of the college’s yearly budget, it is equal to one or two full-time salaries or adjunct compensation for about 20 classes.

While Emanuel’s initial nonprofit proposal in the 2012 budget included a 20 percent fee exemption for charitable hospitals—a provision that is included in the current compromise—Alderman Bob Fioretti (2nd Ward) wants to fully exempt any organization that is deemed to be a “charitable nonprofit,” a proposal that is backed by the City Council’s Progressive Reform Coalition, according to a May 6 DNAInfo article.

It’s a bit hypocritical for Emanuel to boast that his new budget includes no new taxes, which he did when he proposed it late last year, while the prior year’s budget includes a new revenue-generating fee targeting nonprofits. While a large portion of the water fee revenue goes to maintaining the water system, 20 percent of it is funneled to the general city budget, according to a report by Donors Forum, an association of Illinois nonprofits, making this a de-facto tax on charitable organizations. It isn’t offensive for the mayor to ask nonprofits to pay their fair share, unless he tries to take credit the next year for keeping taxes stagnant.

On the administration’s side, it offered part-time faculty a 3 percent raise on the condition that P-Fac sign a contract by December 2012, according to an April 1 Chronicle article. The deadline was extended twice, but this presents a conflict of interest for the college, by giving them the chance to stall negotiations in order to save the money they would have spent on raises instead of motivating them to work toward an agreement. Pay raises for full-time faculty and staff are offered unconditionally.

The college has also taken previously agreed-upon issues off the table and wasted a mediator’s time by reviewing issues already discussed. For a period between February–June 2012, the college flat out refused to meet with P-Fac in person, which the NLRB cited as an example of bad faith bargaining.

For P-Fac’s part, one member of the union, unnamed in NLRB documents, expressed that their leadership’s rhetoric is too divisive and may be harmful to negotiations, according to a December 2011 email documented in the NLRB ruling. The documents say that several union members sent emails agreeing with the unnamed member. An example of this rhetoric is a survey P-Fac sent to its members that had little to do with details of the contract and more about their thoughts on the administration, asking if they “feel respected by Columbia College.”

In a notable example of divisive rhetoric, P-Fac used a February quote by a college negotiator, which compared adjunct faculty to retail employees, out of context to rally support for their cause. The negotiator, Len Strazewski of the Journalism Department, was using the comparison to illustrate that adjunct faculty jobs are closely tied to demand, similar to seasonal department store work, as reported by the Chronicle March 11. Excluding this context, P-Fac has been citing it in emails as an example of the college’s disrespect.

Both sides have been stalling throughout the process. Last year, according to Strazewski, the federal mediator, Javier Ramirez, left the negotiations because both sides were “spinning their wheels on way too many issues,” according to a March 11 Chronicle article.

Earlier this year, P-Fac asked that Chronicle reporters no longer be allowed to attend meetings, to which the mediator agreed. On May 10, a Chronicle reporter was invited by the college to attend a negotiating session, but was asked to leave shortly after arriving. The Chronicle has been cut off from P-Fac, and without reporters at the meetings, the Columbia community may not have access to neutral information about the process unless there is another complaint to the NLRB that would make the details public.

Stalled negotiations hurt everyone. Throughout the process, the college has spent money on litigators that could have been used for academics. P-Fac and the administration should resolve this soon, and to do so they need to start negotiating responsibly. This means raises shouldn’t be conditional, but it also means that P-Fac needs to tone down its rhetoric and let the press back into meetings.

When I was in high school, I had the opportunity to work for an Oskaloosa, Iowa TV news station as a student reporter, which was fun and constructive but overall not really my thing. The summer after graduation, I worked as the evening DJ for the local country radio station, taking requests and talking on-air about music I didn’t really understand. Though these experiences sparked my interest in media, none of it prepared me for my work at The Columbia Chronicle.

I began working here in April 2012, and, to be honest, I haven’t had a chance to look back. I was employed all through the summer when the office was only frequented by a few staff members, and all school year when it was full of 40 loud, opinionated and driven individuals mastering their craft at the best non-daily student newspaper in the country. My experience was a little different than theirs, as I worked on the business end of the paper as the Senior Advertising Account Executive to improve the marketing and sales of our beautiful publication.

I loved my job in the beginning, but after a while I could tell I was starting to burn out, and I hit a slump trying to get businesses motivated to invest their dollars in our publication. That’s when I started to get to know the people whom I spent most of my time with—my coworkers. I found out their positions, why they started working here and what they were most excited about for the next week’s issue. Hearing them talk about their work helped me realize why we are the nation’s best. My peers held the utmost confidence and pride in their work, and they worked hard to make it their best every single week. It wasn’t difficult for me to talk to business owners after that, as I tried to reflect the same pride and confidence in our publication as those who work so hard to publish it.

Now don’t go thinking this is a sappy love letter—there have been a fair share of tears, anger and battles in this little office here on the second floor of 33 E. Congress Parkway, but as the year wraps up, I now realize it was only because everyone cared about our newspaper so damn much. Negatives aside, I have built the best relationships and established a network with some of the most talented people I’ve had the opportunity to meet.

So this is to you guys: all the journalists, designers, photographers, fellow marketers and videographers with whom I have spent many hours slaving away to maintain our spot as No. 1. This is to my managers, Chris and Sylvia, for constantly pushing me to do my best, regardless of my stubborn spirit.  This is to my parents, for without your constant support I wouldn’t have had this wonderful opportunity, and
for embedding in my brain at an early age to never give up and always try my best. Working as hard as we do, it’s no wonder we have such a highly respected publication, and I hope that all of my post-graduate experiences will be as educational as this one.  So thank you, I’m truly going to miss you all.

However, it should come as no surprise that a billionaire with a questionable résumé has joined Obama’s cabinet considering the variety of bankers and lobbyists who currently work for the President and have been in his administration in the past.

There’s Jack Lew, the recently appointed treasury secretary, who worked at Citigroup from 2006–2008 managing investments in the Cayman Islands, according to a Feb. 13 Wall Street Journal article. As treasury secretary, part of Lew’s job is watching over banks like Citigroup, which received $45 billion in bailout funds, according to the WSJ article. Lew is unlikely to be tough on big banks after making a considerable amount of money working for one. Other Obama cabinet members have worked at “too big to fail” banks, including Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who worked at Washington Mutual—one of the banks that engaged in aggressive subprime lending—from 1995–2000, according to OpenSecrets.org, and former Chief of Staff William Daley, who served as Midwest chairman of JPMorgan Chase.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan worked at the mortgage division of the large bank Prudential Financial, which is a big conflict of interest considering his department’s involvement in housing.

There are also a number of former lobbyists holding key positions in the president’s administration. Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman worked as an attorney from 1996–2001 at the lobbying firm Hogan & Hartson, which represents numerous energy companies, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was a partner at Dorsey & Whitney from 2007–2008, right before he was appointed, according to OpenSecrets.org.

This list certainly isn’t comprehensive. Underneath the department secretaries are employees who are also involved in the revolving door of regulators who have worked or will work in companies that they regulate.

Considering Pritzker’s substantial donations to Obama’s presidential campaigns, one has to ask why she was chosen for commerce secretary. In total, she donated more than $180,000 to Obama and the Democratic National Committee in 2008 and 2012, and she raised more than a half-million dollars for him, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Obama has gained considerable support for his tough talk about Wall Street and K Street, a street in Washington D.C. with many lobbying firms, as well as his stellar background as a community organizer and civil rights attorney, but his cabinet appointments tell a different story. It’s strange that a president who campaigned on a platform of change appointed a treasury secretary who helped Citigroup shelter money from taxes, or an interior secretary who worked a high level job at WaMu, one of the banks that caused the financial crisis.

Questionable relationships between the private and public sectors have been going on long before Obama took office. One of the most prominent examples of government officials being a bit too close to the private sector is Dick Cheney, who served as CEO of the defense contractor Halliburton in between his time as defense secretary for George H.W. Bush and vice president for George W. Bush.

Many states have laws preventing former state legislators from working as lobbyists or otherwise representing a client to the body of government in which they worked for one or two years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ website, but there is very little federal regulation. The laws only apply to officials after their term of service and only limit lobbying, ignoring the conflict of interest that arises when people move from top jobs at large corporations into regulatory roles.

There should be more regulations to stop the revolving door of politics, but we should also be able to trust our elected officials to appoint people who are aligned with the mission they claim to be on. Obama campaigned as someone who would shake up the system and make government better, but his appointments suggest he is just as close with bankers and lobbyists as his predecessors were.

When I moved to Chicago from suburban Orange County, Calif. 2  1/2 years ago, my expectations for attending Columbia and living as a big-city girl were, perhaps, misguided. I had this naïve idea that I was going to be like Hunter S. Thompson, writing about my run-ins with rock stars and my contempt for politicians while spending the rest of my time downing whiskey shots at all the hippest spots. Can you tell I watched “Almost Famous” one too many times in high school? Eeek.

Boy, I have had a rude awakening from my starry-eyed pipe dreams. My time at Columbia hasn’t been glamorous or easy—it has been eye-opening, and I have learned more about myself and other people than I ever thought imaginable. I could self-indulge and list my accomplishments, but honestly, I’d rather thank the people who truly deserve this little space in the paper.

First, I want to thank all of my professors in the Journalism Department. I would still be living in a fantasy world had some of you not imparted your blunt-yet-impassioned wisdom onto me. Sharon Bloyd-Peshkin, I would especially like to thank you for your compassion, your unending knowledge and your dedication to your students; it is inspiring.

To everyone at The Columbia Chronicle, thank you for more than a lifetime’s worth of laughing, crying and farting (I know nobody is supposed to know that, but we can make this one exception). I didn’t really “belong” anywhere at Columbia until I started working there as a meek little copy editor. Vanessa Morton, thank you for taking me under your wing, showing me the ropes and being my “girlfrand.” It made a bigger difference than you know. To all the managing ladies, congrats on all your success and thanks for putting up with my late-night tirades. I remember when we all started out together that first semester, and it’s been truly awesome to see you grow into your roles. Chris Richert, I believe someone once said you are a God among men. I concur with this statement. Jeff Lyon and Stephanie Goldberg, thank you for helping me all those times with my commentary articles. I know it couldn’t have been easy!

And with all my heart, thank you Shannon Anastasia Page, my best friend and surrogate sister of 14 years. We promised each other when we were two dirty little 10-year-olds that we would go to college together, and now we’re graduating together. You have become an amazing photographer and woman, and I know we’ll have many more years of adventures.

Lastly, I want to thank my family—Mom, Dad, Zack and Jack, especially. When I had severe homework-induced panic attacks, was about to starve to death from lack of funds or was freezing to death in my apartment, you sat patiently behind a computer screen on Skype or on the phone and eased my worries. Thank you for all your love and support during these past five years. It has been a long road.

“Create change” seems like a dumb slogan for a school to have. And, to a certain extent, it is. It is very nondescript and vaguely positive, and it looks nice on hoodies and sweatpants. But in my final year at Columbia, I’ve realized that there’s some wisdom to it.

To create change in the high-minded sense of changing the world is a bit too idealistic and perhaps pretentious. But I’ve found that my best work at Columbia has had the potential to create change by reaching an audience outside academics. Columbia got me involved in my community, giving me the chance to create change just by participating in the real world.

The Chronicle has been one of those opportunities. To be involved in a weekly newspaper that is distributed across the city has given me the chance to produce content that transcends the boundaries of Columbia’s campus. It has been an honor to work alongside the staff of The Chronicle, who work much harder than I every week to create this paper.

Then there’s the idea of a “creative posse,” a ridiculously unfashionable phrase. Vice President of Student Affairs Mark Kelly has become famous among Columbia students for saying that if he saw you without a creative posse, there would be problems. Four years after hearing this, I realized my creative posse, my improv team on campus, has gotten me to where I am today. There’s value in having a family of people with whom you can create art and who will support you. There will be times when you need people to go to, and there will be times when they need you. I hope my posse continues to create a loving family on campus, and I hope others can find a group of people with whom to share their college experience.

All the nonsense they say at orientation boils down to one idea: If your time at Columbia begins and ends with your classes, you’re wasting your time, so find a group of cool people and do cool stuff with them. Try fitting that on a pair of sweatpants.

Racers jump over fire April 20 at a Rugged Maniac 5K Obstacle Race in North Carolina. Obstacle races have become increasingly popular during the last several years, according to Matt Davis, editor-in-chief of Obstacle Racing Magazine, a publication that started in the U.S. in 2010. Courtesy RUGGED MANIAC LLC

Navigating a threatening environment is just one challenge athletes encounter while competing in the sport of obstacle racing, which has exploded in popularity during the last few years, according to Matt Davis, editor-in-chief of Obstacle Racing Magazine, a publication in the process of switching to an online format that reports news on U.S. obstacle racing.

Davis, who said an estimated 1.5 million to 2 million people participated in an obstacle race last year, attributes the growth in popularity partly to people developing a community of friends with whom they race. Davis said the sheer fun of the sport also draws crowds.

“I’ve jumped in freezing cold water, I’ve gone under barbed wire and I’ve jumped off platforms,” said Davis, who has competed in about 20 obstacle races since 2010. “You just get into it and [it] becomes a blast.”

Davis said no governing body or obstacle racing league exists in America, though one is needed primarily for safety concerns.

“You can’t have these cowboys who throw up these races, and the average person sees a half-decent website and thinks it’s going to be a decent race and then they show up and it’s not safe,” Davis said. “Someone needs to validate safety.”

Injuries happen during races, Davis said, but some occur as a result of poor obstacle design, such as water obstacles that are too shallow, which can lead to broken ankles and legs.

According to Davis, Spartan Race, a race series established in 2005, offers four different courses of varying difficulty. Its races are put on worldwide, in countries such as Australia, Mexico and Hungary.

Davis said Spartan Race is one of the big three race series and is joined by the Tough Mudder, a race designed by British Special Forces, and the Warrior Dash, a race produced by Red Frog Events, a Chicago-based entertainment event planning group.

He said these races believe they can operate independently. However, the medium-sized, successful events, such as the Rugged Maniac 5K Obstacle, could conceivably join together to start a league.

Rob Dickens, chief operating officer of Rugged Races LLC, producer of the Rugged Maniac 5K Obstacle Race, said his series has become more popular as it heads into its fourth year of existence. He said only one race was held in 2010, and this year 20 races are scheduled, including an Aug. 3 event at a ski resort in Wilmot, Wis., which serves the Chicago and Milwaukee communities.

“It’s just an evolution of the outdoor sports industry,” Dickens said. “People can do all of these obstacle races where they crawl through mud, jump over fire, scale 50-foot walls, do water slides. It’s a much more immersive experience and challenges you much more than just taxing your legs and your cardiovascular system.”

Last year’s event in Wilmot had approximately 5,000 participants, and as of press time, 6,000 people are registered for this year’s race, according to Dickens. He said registration fees alone fund the festival and the licensed contractors that construct the obstacles, which he said separates his race from unsuccessful ones.

“If they can build a wall, that’s great,” Dickens said. “But that’s completely different than accepting registrations from 10,000 people and making sure that everything runs smoothly.”

According to Davis, it will take a few more years for the sport to weed out the poorly planned races. He said the quality of a race depends on its obstacles and volunteers, who are responsible for tasks such as registering racers and directing participants at obstacles.

Chicagoans can participate in the June 8 Urban Warrior Dash, which runs from the Museum Campus and Soldier Field south to 31st Street, according to Michael Coco, the event’s operation director.

Coco said the Urban Warrior Dash, which held its first event March 2 in San Diego and currently has 2,000 people registered for the Chicago race, is a cousin of the regular Warrior Dash, which launched in July 2009.

Though the Urban Warrior Dash does not have barbed wire, mud-crawls or fire, Coco said it might be more difficult than an event with those obstacles, largely because the Urban Warrior Dash requires more upper-body strength.

Coco said one of the harder obstacles is the “daily grind,” which requires athletes to shimmy down a pair of sloping poles, all the while keeping their feet off the ground. “Urban Summit” requires participants to scale a slightly angled wall by rope, Coco said, adding the wall is 15–18 feet high.

According to Coco, new experiences accompany every race, which is part of its appeal.

“It’s a thrill both to work in and participate in,” Coco said. “It’s always a rush, always something different, so it keeps me coming back for more.”

Age: 18 

Team: Poms

Zanah Thirus, captain of Columbia’s Poms team and a senior marketing communications major, has a lot on her mind. On top of the stress and excitement surrounding graduating in the fall, it is her duty to make sure the team is prepared for five Manifest performances on May 17. Thirus said the team has been working overtime to make sure it is ready, and she is excited to show Columbia students what it has prepared.

Kevin Gebhardt | THE CHRONICLE

Thirus said when she leaves Columbia, she plans to attend graduate school at DePaul University to study communications. Still, she has time for one of her life-long loves: dancing.

The Chronicle sat down with Thirus to discuss why she started the team, typical practices, her favorite dance style and her future career plans.

The Chronicle: When and why did you start the team?

Zanah Thirus: I started the team last fall, and I danced ballet for nine years, and I was a cheerleader at my junior college before I came here. I realized Columbia was the only school in the Loop that did not have a dance team, and we are a private arts college. I found out how easy it was to get involved in Student Engagement and start a team, so that’s where that idea came from. We have a fabulous choreographer, Michelle Rodriguez, who choreographs the entire routine.

What do you do during a normal practice?

We practice Mondays and Thursdays from 6–9 p.m. [From] 6–6:30, we go over announcements. I let them know of upcoming performances, upcoming events, just kind of briefing the team on what to expect for the practices. [From] 6:30–7 we have stretches and warmups, and then 7–9 we are running the routine. Now, because we have so many performances at Manifest, we’re just going through the routines over and over and over again, and it’s nice because everyone knows the choreography. It’s tiring—it’s very tiring—but I have to make sure we’re ready to perform back to back so we’re not passing out.

How many performances do you have in a school year?

It all depends. This year we did the basketball tournament and we opened the show for that. We got asked to do a few performances, but they didn’t quite work out with everyone’s schedule. Usually with performances I like the whole team to be there because the routines are made for that number of people.

What is your favorite style of dance?

I really love the upbeat hip-hop routines that our choreographer is doing because they really show our strengths. It shows the range that we can do. And it’s to “Starships” by Nicki Minaj, which is such a fun routine, and you’re able to get the crowd involved because there’s so much movement.

What career path do you hope to pursue?

I’m not sure yet, and that’s why I’m not taking a break, I’m just going to go through school and get that out of the way and then go from there. I do have an internship this summer at a talent agency working with their marketing department, and that helps because I’m an acting minor. So I could see doing something in entertainment public relations or something along the lines of that, like
entertainment marketing.

Robot researcher Tracy Mitzner (not pictured) said 61.5 percent of surveyed healthcare professionals said they would prefer a robotic assistant over a human. Courtesy KEITH BUJAK

Nourbakhsh, who specializes in human-robot interaction, said robots are evolving much faster than humans and are becoming more social than previous models. He said this development marks an important point in history.

“The only species we have [social] interaction is other people,” he said. “And we’re adding kind of a new species—robots—to that mix.”

Nourbakhsh said people tend to prefer robots to perform menial or labor-intensive tasks that they would not like to do themselves. Tracy Mitzner, co-author of a study presented April 27 at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Paris agrees. She has investigated the acceptance of robotic assistants for healthcare.

According to Mitzner, her study asked 14 healthcare providers if they would prefer humans or robots to perform tasks such as light housekeeping, meal preparation, bathing and showering of patients, among others. Providers generally showed a human preference for tasks that involved interacting with patients, but overall, 61.5 percent of healthcare providers would prefer a robotic assistant to a human, the study showed.

“The pattern showed that tasks where there’s a lot of human contact or physical contact, they prefer humans,” she said. “Some questions come from that in terms of why. Is it because they think [robots] can’t do those tasks, or is it that they think the care recipient doesn’t want robots to do those tasks?”

Nourbakhsh said that preference may come from the lack of standardization of robots.

“There is this incredible amount of diversity with robots,” he said. “When somebody faces one in the workplace, there’s no easy way to [answer], ‘What are the kinds of interactions I can have with it?’ [Its capabilities are] unknown, and what we’re going to need is really good design. We need designers to think about what our real need is for robots.”

Mitzner said her research is primarily engaged in what tasks robots should be assigned to perform.

“We want to be able to say, ‘This is how you maybe should be designing these robots, these are the tasks they want or need,’ instead of developing robots just to do things without thoughtful consideration of what they should be developed to do,” Mitzner said.

Nourbakhsh said people are less likely to be comfortable with robots that appear to be human-like, but he predicts that won’t stop them from becoming popular in the future.

“It might make sense to create robots at an appropriate level of intelligence, not always striving to make them ever smarter,” he said. “But who knows? In the future, will I be wrestling my 8-year-old’s robot out of my yard because it’s messing up my tomatoes?”