The Invisible Dragon

Science Advisory Board is Abolished

2006-04-09T21:30:00.000-04:00

So I was perusing the New York Times the other day and caught this tiny little snippet of a story: Science Advisory Board is Abolished. Apparently, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman has abolished his deparmtent's Science Advisory Board because he judges it to be "unnecessary after President Bush set the department agenda in his State of the Union address."

What?

What does that mean?

And why is it a teeny little article?

More Steriods Stupidity

2006-03-31T08:46:00.000-05:00

George Mitchell, what the hell do you think think you're doing?

You're a former Senator and Majority Leader. You helped bring about the Good Friday Agreement. You do any number of good works around your state. You're still considered for some of the highest jobs in the country.

(I'll forgive your involvment in Disney. A brother's gotta make some bucks.)

And what do you do? You sign up for a job that has you running around trying to find out if Barry Bonds stuck needles in his ass?

All Hail Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. I mean everyone knows that Western Civilization will crumble if their records are surpassed by someone who may or may not have used performance enhancing drugs.

Did you know there's a war going on? Did you know that the President broke the law?

Maybe those things would be a bit more deserving of your time.

Culture Matters

2006-03-30T17:09:00.000-05:00

I found the article that Makigirl put up the other day (two posts ago) to be pretty interesting. I have to say that I largely agree with it.

(Forgive me as I ramble about stuff I have no knowledge of. Well, I already did that with my NCAA picks, I guess.)

The basic point was that culture matters alot, but no one actually does anything about it. All the academics and people interested in education reform just worry about economics. I guess that's at least partially good. There are those people who just worry and complain about the stupid kids. I have little time for them. But, yeah, culture probably does play a significant role into why some groups of students achieve and others do not.

Unfortunately, it's really difficult to talk about. How do I, as a youngish, middle class white guy, talk effectively about different cultures in the US. How do I talk about why some succeed and others do not? It ain't easy. And I think that's one of the reasons why we consistantly fail at education "reform". A great majority of the people talking about it are just like me. We either can't see problems (because of our own cultural blinders), or we don't want to see problems (because we don't want to look and sound like some stupid racist). Conversations never get started and if they do, they devolve pretty rapidly.

I thought it was very interesting in the article how he talked about white kids moving into hip-hop culture, but then having other means of advancement when they needed them, but that culture is all there is for African American kids. I think that's very true. I can use 50cent to make me seem cool when necessary, but I can also leave him at the door and go back to being everybody's favorite geeky white boy. It's very powerful. The inverse situation must carry an equally powerful weight.

I think the solution to educational problems aren't easy at all. I complain alot about the nuts and bolts of particular educational minutiae, but that doesn't really matter all that much. I think that if all kids went through exactly the program that I would design, things wouldn't be that much different. There'd still be gaps and holes. Education is about talking. Education is about mentoring. Most importantly, education is about empowerment, but sadly, I don't think that American culture is much about empowerment.

Leaving the Academy

2006-03-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

Here's a really interesting article about a woman who has decided to leave the tenure track and do something else. What's really more interesting to me, though is the comment thread below.

There seems to be a very large dichotomy in commenters. There are those who really agree with what the author has to say, and talk about how they either want to or have run away from the academic life, and then there are those who complain bitterly about this person's self-focus and lack of appreciation for what the academic world has to offer along with a few "you'll see how bad it is out there, yet"'s.

I think that there's something to be said about both sides, (although I'm not fond of the academic traditionalists) and that makes me sad, because it means that we could probably do something about the larger situation, but we choose not to.

I couldn't handle having an academic job when I left gradschool. I went through alot during my final couple years. Alot of it was wonderful -- getting elected to a University wide office was amazing; helping a highschool student place in the county science fair was empowering; hearing my advisor call me Dr. for the first time after my defense was the best thing I'd ever heard (up until the point my wife said, "I do"). There was also alot that was terrible. I spent too many late nights doing stuff I wasn't interested in, and sometimes wasn't even mine. I felt horrible about myself for not publishing. I couldn't handle going to meetings and thinking that I didn't have a good enough network. My advisor isn't as active, and I didn't have people seeking me out. I didn't know how to do that myself, and I sunk further down.

As much as I loved being in the University world, I just couldn't take doing it anymore. I didn't really apply to academic jobs. I didn't feel like I was anywhere near good enough. I didn't want to move across the country to who knows where, just to teach physics. That wasn't going to wake me up in the morning. Unfortunately, I didn't know what was going to wake me up in the morning. I wanted to get ahold of myself, because I felt like I was coming apart at the seams. I felt run over by an academic world that I thought I understood when I went in to it, but had passed me by somewhere.

After some time, I started getting myself together, but it's still day to day. I'm in the real world, and all I can say is that it's boring, but it pays nice. It seems to me that alot of people have this same experience. I don't agree with all the real-world posters on the comments who complain about how tenure breeds incompetance. The real-world breeds incomptetance too. Any large human system will be largely inefficient. It's what you do with that inefficiency and how you think about it that's important. Yeah, layoffs happen more in the real-world, but most people are able to find a little niche where they can hide and the world passes them by. It doesn't take much work to keep most bosses happy, and at the end of the day you go home.

I miss having an academic world of the mind more than anything. Summer break would be great, but mostly I miss being able to be able to go to coloquium.

I think my time out here has been great for me. I couldn't do the academic world before, so I'm glad that I didn't. I've dealt with a lot of problems that I never could have being a junior faculty. I got to move nearer to my family and my wife's. That wouldn't have been a given. I got to think alot about life, and I don't think that many professors get that.

What I would have liked more than anything in gradschool would have been someone to talk to, and I think the comments in the article point that out alot. Even though I would have hated having someone question my thinking as a brash young first year who knew everything, I look now at how useful it would have been. Like many introverted academics, I took everything on myself. That wasn't healthy. I needed someone to tell me that I was still worthwhile as an astronomer even though I didn't get the fellowships I wanted in my second year. I needed someone to help me figure out how to make the academic connections that my advisor couldn't do for me. I needed someone to tell me how to feel justified in not taking on everyone else's problems (my biggest flaw). I little talking then would have prevented alot of stress now. But I didn't know that then. Oh well. I do now, and that's most important.

I think I'll probably get back into academics again, but probably in different way than I envisioned as a 21 year old. I miss using my mind too much. I'm glad that I've followed the path that I have, even if it doesn't look "perfect" from the outside. But, I still have along way to go, and alot to learn.

A Poverty of the Mind

2006-03-28T08:13:00.000-05:00

Still half asleep this morning I read this article in the New York Times about some different view points regarding the "achievement gap" between black and white young people. I'm interested to hear what you, hoagie boy, think about this. It sounds, suspiciously to me, like they are trying to say "it's their own fault that they're living a life of poverty" or "they choose not to do well in school." Is that really fair?

By the way, I am sending you good tooth pulling luck.

*maki-girl

Isn't this the Coolest?

2006-03-23T17:34:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Carter is one of my heros, and he's posted a diary on Daily Kos. That's awesome. The old fellow can still get around. His son Jack is running for Senate in Nevada. Go check it out.

The Final Four

2006-03-23T17:31:00.000-05:00

Based on the picks that I made last week, here are my final four:

Duke
Gonzaga
UConn
Nova

The final is

Duke
Nova

The winner is

Nova

Philly in the house.

More Basketball Coming This Way

2006-03-23T17:07:00.000-05:00

While I'm waiting for my tooth to be pulled next Tuesday, I'll be watching some basketball this weekend. Here's who you should pick:

Tonight:
Duke vs. LSU - Duke's too good for this one. I don't like them. I never did. I'd love to see them lose, but Reddick and Williams are too much. I bow down to their superiority. Maybe next round I'll pick against them.

Texas vs. WVU - I like Texas. I've heard alot of talk recently that WVU is a tournament based team. They're meant to get hot and run 6 games. I see that, but I also have seen how cold they can get too. Pittsnoggle has been stopped before and I think he will be here again too. The rest of the team just isn't good enough. Go with the seeds here.

Memphis vs. Bradley - Bradley's on my shit list for beating Pitt, so I would tend to pick against them anyway, but Memphis is just way too good for this. I know they're the #1 team that most people are picking to lose, but there's too much talent and experience there. Go with the seeds again.

Gonzaga vs. UCLA - I've switched alot on this. I initially picked Gonzaga, but then I went to UCLA after Gonzaga came too close to Indiana. I'm going back again because I would like to trust my gut, and I think that UCLA was placed in too high of a seed. Gonzaga should win the most entertaining game of the night.

Tomorrow:
UConn vs. Washington - UConn will have no problem until the final 4.

GMU vs. Wichita st. - Alot of people around here are climbing aboard the GMU wagon. More power to them, and I'd love to see them win, but I don't think they're the better team here. They suprised a couple better teams, but now Wichita has had a week to scout. I think Wichita gets to go and lose to UConn.

Villinova vs. BC - BC was one of my picks to the final 4 when I first saw the bracket. Disreguard everything you've read above. I absolutely don't trust myself. I like Villinova here, because I like the 4 guard offense. I like Allen Ray. I like this team's drive. I also don't want to see my friend, the Villanova grad, cry all weekend. I think his engagement party will be much more entertaining if nova's still in the tournament.

Florida vs. G'town - This could be the most entertaining game of the weekend, or the most boring. G'town's been coming on alot lately, but I think they get stopped here. They play good defense and have that nifty offense, but I think that they don't shoot well enough and that Florida is too athletic.

Yes, I'm vanilla again. The only "upset" I picked was Gonzaga over UCLA. Sorry can't help it. I spent most of my youth picking wild upsets, and did it ever win me anything? No. So now I pick the man.

You may doubt that, but if you notice the picks that I made last week, 7/8 of my regional final teams are still around. So there.

The Price of Grad School

2006-03-23T17:00:00.000-05:00

The price of grad school is apparently one tooth. After having one of the most painfilled nights I've ever experienced on Monday, I went to the dentist and was informed that my molar is deteriorated enough that it needs to be pulled.

Now granted, I could have cut back on the sweet tea for the past couple years, but mostly I blame this on my lack of health insurance for a good chunk of 5 years. Something about the concept of preventative medicine makes me think that had I went to the dentist sometime during that time, I would have had a nice filling, but that I wouldn't have had to endure $1000's of dollars of surgury and reconstruction. I could have spent $100 bucks or so on the dentist back then, but I did need to eat and all. Oh well, I guess that's the type of economy this American life is based on.

Thank god for ibuprofen.

More Media Outlets, Less News

2006-03-19T09:58:00.000-05:00

Beep beep beep: We are interrupting sports coverage for just a moment ...

I was just reading an article from last Monday's New York Times about how there is "plenty of breadth in [news] coverage, but not much depth." You can find the article here. The article is reporting on a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It's affiliated with Columbia University and financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The study found many things that I think we have been noticing lately, but it was a little disturbing to read them in black and white. For example, they randomly chose to study May 11, 2005 and found:

-Google News had access to 14,000 news stories, but all were accounts of just 24 news events.

-On that day, print and evening network news focused on violence in Iraq, an airplane violating restricted air space in D. C., and protests in Afghanistan.

-On the same day, cable tv and morning news programs focused on Michael Jackson's court trial and a murder in Illinois.

-On the same day, local tv and radio focused on weather, traffic, and local crime.

-On the same day, blogs focused on broader, long-term issues (it did not explain which ones.) However, 94% of the blogs' content was not original.

-While cable news was the "shallowest," newspapers covered the most topics, with extensive sourcing, and with the most angles ... however "perhaps in language and sourcing tilted towards elites."

I think we know what news sources Americans use most often. This quote from the study says it all, "Consuming the news continuously does not mean being better informed."

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled Madness.

*maki-girl

Isn't the Tournament Wonderful?

2006-03-16T14:45:00.000-05:00

Here I am sitting at work, listening to a game on the internet, typing on my blog, and not worrying about anything job related. There really should be days off for this, but since there isn't, I'm going to continue.

I certainly didn't expect Pacific to give BC a game today. Pacific did beat Pitt last year in the first round, so they must be good.

It's amazing how games can turn. This game seemed out of reach a few minutes ago, and now with 3.9 seconds left, BC travelled and gave the ball back to Pacific with the game tied.

Ok, regulation over, now it's overtime. More excitement.

Early upsets

2006-03-16T14:43:00.000-05:00

It seems that I already missed the upset of UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma, and now Pacific is battling BC. Infact it's already tied.

Let me give you my third round picks to prove that I picked BC will lose to Nova

Duke
Texas

Memphis
Gonzaga

UConn
UNC

Nova
Florida

My Second round post

2006-03-16T14:42:00.000-05:00

Well it seems there are a couple upsets brewing, but here were my original second round picks:

Duke
LSU
Iowa
Texas

Memphis
Pitt
Gonzaga
UCLA

UConn
Illinois
UNC
Wichita st

Nova
BC
Florida
Ohio St.

Madness!

2006-03-16T12:18:00.000-05:00

Makigirl's probably rolling her eyes at this post, but since the dance is beginning in all of 2 minutes, here are my first round predictions:

Duke
GW
Syracuse
LSU
SIU
Iowa
Cal
Texas

Memphis
Bucknell
Pitt
Kansas
Indiana
Gonzaga
Marquette
UCLA

UConn
UAB
UW
Illinois
Mich St.
UNC
Wichita St.
Tennessee

Nova
Arizona
Nevada
BC
OU
Florida
Gtown
Ohio St.

I have a couple upsets picked, notably, West Virginia losing, but otherwise, I'm picking the numbers. I'll include my second round picks in a bit.

Too Sore to Run Today

2006-03-13T13:49:00.000-05:00

On a lovely Sunday afternoon, Ultimate Frisbee season began in the DC area. I'm playing in a coed-recreational league that is actually pretty intense. I hadn't played since last summer, so I was worried about being a bit rusty. But, it seemed that the running lately has done me well, as I played alot better than I expected. I have a tendancy to be a little tentative during the first couple games as I get used to the other players styles, but I was agressive this time, and really played my game. I scored 4 on the way to a 2 point win. I had a beautiful throw that should have went for a score, but it got dropped. Oh well. My defence was good, but my game legs aren't quite there yet (also my feet were killing me, becasue of new shoes).

I would say that I'm looking forward to next week's game, but I think it's going to be cold. No fun.

Senator Feingold, You Have My Vote!

2006-03-13T13:16:00.000-05:00

I haven't written much about politics lately. I think I've just been overwhelmed and depressed about the whole situation. I mean, how much shit can W and his henchment pull and still get away with it? Yeah, his poll numbers are falling to record lows, but I'm very worried about the upcomming election. Congressional districts are gerrymandered, and incumbants are hard to beat.

I also haven't been overly swayed by the field of Democratic Presidential contenders. They're all better than the opposition, but no one has spoken to me yet the way that Dean was by late 2002. I've mostly been in support of John Edwards, because I love his Two Americas message so much, but Warner, Richardson, and Feingold have all sort of been hanging right around.

That is until this happened over the weekend. The illegal wiretapping done by the NSA and the administration needs to be investigated and punished. No one has been saying that, except for the lefty blogosphere. I haven't heard it at all on TV. But now, a promimant Senator is doing something about it. I say good deal. It's the right time to talk about these things. Attention needs to be kept on a President who broke the law. It's that simple.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a great pieces as to why this is so important right now. It is completely beyond my belief of how a President could have broken the law this blatently, and still has apologists for him. The members of Congress who still stand behind W on this matter have left their oaths of office behind. They leave the principals of America behind. If there is nothing so American as the ability to criticize and censure a President during a time of war, then I don't know what is. If he has done something wrong then it needs to be recognized and punished. W is not a king.

This may be a bit of craven political opportunism by Sen. Feingold to get people like me to jump on board. No one really thinks this is going to go anywhere. If we're lucky, it will come to a vote on the floor, but it will lose. Oh well. It's the process and the media that is driven the the story that count. Feingold is stating his values, and they are my values. I'm in his camp now. (Although, I will leave the door open for Johnny sunshine to come back if he starts talking similar things.)

---
I did notice in the transcript of Feingold's interview with Stephanopolus that he was asked why he wasn't bringing articles of impeachment. Well, duh, George, Feingold is a Senator. The House brings articles of impeachment, the Senate votes on them. Thus Feingold can't bring articles of impeachment, unless he gives up his seat and runs for a different one this full. Not likely. Also, a censure motion gets the votes on record in the Senate. A vote on impeachment would simply never come to the floor in the House.

It's Warm!

2006-03-10T16:29:00.000-05:00

I'm having some serious spring fever right now. I have my office window open. They're mowing the lawn outside. The birds are chirping. The shrubs are starting to bloom. I'm filled with dozens of memories of previous warm March afternoons. Playing basketabll, hockey, writing my dissertation on my laptop out on the lawn...

Only one more hour left.

Our First Week of Teaching

2006-03-09T16:47:00.000-05:00

So,after my angst filled post of the other day, Mrs. H and I actually got down to some literacy teaching.

First of all, it seems that we have a bit of a scheduling problem with one of our students. It turns out that E has a very strict medicinal schedule, and he probably won't be able to match up to our availability. Isn't it funny how life treats you like that sometimes? You're excited about doing something. You face reality and suddenly, you're anxious about doing it. You work through it. You get interested and excited in the task at hand again. And the task dissapears. Oh.

So we just had N with us a couple times this week. I have to say that I have never been more impressed with Mrs. H than after our first meeting with N. Mrs. H hates public speaking, but she is simply amazing working with people one on one. She has great command of herself, great understanding of the other person, and really shows no fear about interacting. Exactly some of the things I wish I could do.

We tried starting out with the workbook that we were given in our training, and started at the beginning. We were teaching the basic letters with easy sounds - b,d,f,g,c. We found though that the book tries to draw pictures of the letters (they use a bent over bird to make a "b".) Some of these pictures are a bit hokie, and not exactly correct. Our student, because she's English speaking, had a hard time getting past that to work on the letter. Also, I think that we could have reasoned better with someone of "normal" intelligence, where we had a hard time convincing N that a plate was really a "d"ish. One other problem we encountered was that N really likes to guess at the right answers. She wants to move quicker than she's able to, and she wants to please us, I think, so she just jumps in and guesses without thinking. I think it's going to take a long time to work her out of that. Otherwise, though, the session went pretty well for a first meeting. We got to know her a bit better, and it was fun.

We revised our lesson a bit for the second meeting. We dumped the book, for now, so we didn't have to deal with pictures. We had to wait in the library a bit before we got our room, so N picked out a children's book she wanted to read. It seems that sometimes she can sight read a fair amount, but she just gets herself going to quick, and then gets frustrated. I imagine this must be a problem for many students, special needs or not. Once we got our room, we started by writing our letter (b, p, and d since N had the most trouble with those last time) on the left side of a paper, and then had her say the name of the letter and its sound. Then we had her think of a word that began with that sound and wrote it down on the right side of the paper. Then she wrote the letter under the letter and the word under the word, after she had said them again a few time. We repeated each letter about 5 times with 5 new words. Thinking back we probably could have written the words more times.

We ran into a bit of a problem when we were done with our set of letters, and tried to review. We tried to point at older stuff we did, but N got a bit confused and went back to guessing. It seemed that she got a couple words stuck in her head, and regardless of what we did, they wouldn't go away. Probably for next session during our review time, we'll continue the same pattern as the lesson, but mix up the letters. I tried doing some flash cards with N, asking if she saw differences between the letters "b", "d", and "p", but I'm uncertain of the results. I'm not sure whether she sees different or not. When she slows down, she's good, but then she speeds up and the letters merge into one.

At the end of the session, Mrs. H read the Three Little Pigs with N, and we had a great time. N did a great job reading the story her self while Mrs. H pointed to the words. She knew the story already and liked it, so I think that helped alot. I was dismayed that in this book, the straw house pig and the wooden house pig both get eaten by the wolf after he blows their houses down. I had remembered that they ran away and hid in the next stroungest house. How else is the brick house pig supposed to stop the wolf from coming down the chimney without the help of his brothers? Perhaps I just wanted to ignore where pork came from when I was little, but I seriously don't remember any eatings.

We had to stop in the middle, because the library was closing, so perhaps there will be a Jonah and the Whale type reunion at the end of the whole deal. I can only hope.

Next time, we're going to try to do the same thing, but with "c", "f", and "g". We don't think beating on b,p, and d every time is going to be that much fun. but we'll revisit soon.

More Random Sports Musings

2006-03-09T12:08:00.000-05:00

Ok, so for the past two days on both of my drive time sports shows M&M and the Sports Reporters, all the talk has been about Barry Bonds and his problems on the steriod front, sparked by this article in Sports Illustrated. I have been told repeatedly that it is news. I have been told repeatedly that this is one of the biggest things in baseball, sports, other stuff. I have been told repeatedly that Bonds catching up to and passing Babe Ruth's and Hank Aaron's home run marks is going to cause much consternation this year. I have been told repeatedly that people will "Just Not Be Happy" if he does pass Aaron this year. I have been told repeatedly about the motivations of Major League Baseball in not wanting to investigate Bonds or talk about these problems. I have been told that all people who defend Bonds are "Just Crazy". I have been told repeatedly that this all matters.

Sorry folks, I'm just not buying it.

Let me start by saying that if there is someone who dislikes Barry Bonds, it is me. He left the Pirates in '91 when we still had a chance to be good. He took the money and ran to SF. That's his right, but it's also my right to dislike him for it. People called the baseball fans of Pittsburgh racist for booing Bonds when he came back for the All Star Game in Pittsburgh in '94. Bull. (Ok, there are plenty of racist people in Pittsburgh.) However, people were defending their city from a guy who had left and said bad things about it. Oh, and by the way, he sucked in the playoffs. I supported the booing fully. I have never sinced rooted for the Giants in any way, shape, or form. I didn't root for him in his pursuit of the single season home run record.

But, when it comes to him using or not using steroids I could care less, and frankly in my book, it's still not proven whether he did or not. (FYI- I still say the Juice is innocent.) Yeah, there is enough circumstantial evidence that says he probably did. But, there is no medical test that says he did, and whatever he did a few years ago was perfectly legal under baseball anyway. So, get over it.

Really, it doesn't matter much to me whether he did or not, anyway. Barry Bonds is the best baseball player, ever. No question. I consider myself lucky to have seen him play way back when. He was probably the greatest then (except in the damn playoffs) before he had even considered getting near steroids. I used to have my opinion of him covered by my dislike of him. I thought he couldn't be that good, because I hate him so. But I was wrong. I admit it. He is that good.

What does steroids get you in baseball? In my book, not a whole lot. Yeah, you might get strong enough to turn a few long fly outs into HR's, but there's still a whole lot of baseball to be played. In his record breaking season, Bonds came to the plate 476 times and got 156 hits. 73 of them were HR's. (He walked 177 times and was hit 9 times). These numbers, other than the home runs (and associated RBI's) actually aren't all that out of place with the rest of his carreer. Yeah, he hit for power, but that was only 1 out of every 9 times he came to the plate (a little less than once every other game).

The rest of the time he was crippling his team by being on base and not being able to run like he used to -- In 2002 he scored 129 runs, but 73 of them were the result of his own homers. So, when he didn't home run, he rarely scored. In 1993 he also scored 129 runs, but he had only hit 46 home runs, meaning he was turning his teammates hits into runs, which is far more important if you're interested in winning games.

On defense, his fielding percentage that year was .977, and right in line with the rest of his career.

To me, the whole steroid thing is just a wash. It didn't help his other stats, and it didn't help his team win a championship (The Giants lost in the WS in 2002, but Bond's HR numbers were much lower).

I say give it a rest. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but we'll never know for certain. The whole topic only comes up because of some over glorification of sports and sports records. Who really cares in the long term how many HR's Bonds had or not. I think also, this is an example of "news people" covering the easy story. Bonds' problems are something that can be talked about by a bunch of people with no knowledge of the situation. Everyone has an opinion on the issue, and every opinion is equally valid. You can argue till you're blue in the face. It's great for TV and talk radio ratings, because some people will get upset over the whole deal, and everyone loves gossip. However, while we spend time on this, we miss other seemingly more important, deeper stories like the new labour agreement in football, or the Stadium deal in DC. These stories have layers that expose who we are and what we really think about ourselves within our society. Is $615 million really a reasonable amount of money to be spent on a stadium? What happens when the people of a city aren't so in favor of a stadium deal, but the suburbanites really want it? Are our sports allegiances more important than our personal beliefs on labour practices? What are our beliefs on labour practices? Is the NFL deserving of a monopoly? How much money is enough money to spend on sports? Why does MLB have rules on the direction of a stadium, such that the one in DC won't be able to look out on the Capital? (Ok, that one isn't that important.)

Hopefully, you get my point. Bonds = easy story. Other less talked about things = maybe more important, and certainly more interesting, but harder to explain to the talk radio audience.

I guess in the end, you have to wonder if we are consumers or citizens, and who is going to decide that for us?

Fourier Transforms are Cool

2006-03-08T09:23:00.000-05:00

Never thought I'd say that before, as I associate them with one really terrible lecture series/summer school out in New Mexico during my second year of grad school. Well, I guess I have always enjoyed Fourier Transforms. It was just that this particular lecture series was so bad that it still shakes me just to think about it.

PZ Myers at Pharyngula does a great job in illustrating the technique and then applying it to the human genome. Hmmm. I wonder if it would be possible to do a general physics 101 class based on the Fourier transform. It would be an interesting central principle to base the course in -- "All things are harmonic". And you could get the students to see real (and current) applications to what they were learning.

Bloggered

2006-03-07T17:05:00.000-05:00

Wow, those images really f'ed up the last post. I'll leave them for the shear joy of it, but I guess I'll have to write more soon, so that they scroll off the page.

-update: All fixed now.

I Need to Go West

2006-03-07T11:06:00.000-05:00

Here is my map of visited states:

create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.

Here is my map of visited countries -- Only 5% :(

create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands

via Dr. B.

What I Meant to Write Yesterday

2006-03-07T09:49:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Holland

Mrs. H and I have spent the past two Saturdays training to become literacy tutors through this organization. I've been itching to do some teaching lately, and we wanted to get more involved in the community, so we thought that this was a good solution. Because of the demographics of Montgomery County, the program tends to be heavily ESL, as opposed to basic literacy. The schools are pretty good here, and the region is one of the #1 destinations for immigrants, so you tend to get people in the program who don't know any English, as opposed to people who never learned how to read. We knew about these demographics, but Mrs. H really wanted to work with a native English speaker who hadn't learned how to read, anyway -- someone who the system had missed. She felt more emotionally attached to that situation, and I was for it too. Well really, I guess I didn't have an opinion either way, I just wanted her to do the program with me.

We survived through our two days of training. I put my other educational instincts on hold to make it through. It was a lot of lecture about phonics and pronunciation and other stuff that generally went right by us (the people at our table felt much the same way). For only a little bit on the first day did they actually have us practice the lessons on each other that we were supposed to do with the students. I felt a bit at a loss, and our teacher's book is fairly hard to understand. I know, though, that I'm an "in the moment" sort of teacher anyway, so I was confident that I would figure it out once we got into a real session. Really, even though I thought that the sessions could have been run with a lot more organization and more foresight into what we would eventually be doing, I still had a fun time. We sat with a table of fun people who were our age (the rest of the class was pretty old), and we managed to entertain ourselves, despite (or maybe because of) the antics of some very odd people leading the classes.

So, by the afternoon of the second Saturday, we were ready to meet our tutees. We had received some information about them on a sheet earlier in the day, but it's hard to tell what a person is like from their intake sheet of a literacy program. From reading the sheets we could see that they probably had some strong learning differences, and neither could really read or write that well. I was still very excited about the whole endeavour, though.

We had one last session where our instructor told us about more high level reading and writing techniques. It was all stuff that I had known before, so I could have been bored, but I sat there thinking about how it will be cool to help our students someday learn to read and write to a high level. We'd discuss books some day, and talk about the news paper, and think about science and all that other cool stuff. I was really excited.

And then the plane touched down in Holland. Mrs. H reminded me of that story later in the afternoon when I was processing my feelings of what it was like to meet our new students. Both of them (N is a woman and E is a man) weren't what I was expecting. -- They both are special people. They live in group homes. They have differences in the way they interact with others. They may or may not have mental retardation. It was hard. It was probably silly for letting myself get caught up into what I could do instead of what my students might actually want me to do, but that probably would have been hard. I went through a real strong reaction after we met our students. I was angry. I was anxious. I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do. I wasn't trained to be a special ed teacher in two Saturdays. I felt like I really didn't know what I was going to do, and I didn't know if I wanted to continue anyway. Luckily, I had Mrs. H around to handle all the details with our students and set up times for our meetings and stuff. I really think I was out to lunch for a bit.

It was more the shock than anything. Had we known who we were going to be given as students, I don't know if we would have requested someone else. Well, we probably would have. Even having met with them twice now, we still don't feel qualified or knowledgable to do a good enough job. But it wouldn't have been a shock. We would have known where the plane was going. I think they're both really great people. N is in a play. She has a job. She graduated from highschool. E got himself to the library on Saturday by bus. He rides around town on his bike. They're both really competent. They both deserve to learn how to read. They both deserve people to help them with that. I was thrown a bit, and I'm really suprised by how much I was. I like to consider myslef as all-tolerant and exposed to and comfortable with many different situations. And here I was reacting like an ignorant fool, and I couldn't believe myself.

I think one of my biggest fears when we met E and N was the amount of emotional work that I would need to do to carry on conversations/class. Often times when I'm interacting with people, I let the other person do that. I sit back and react to them. I let them be who they want to be, and then that draws me out. With little children, and often with people with special needs, that doesn't happen the same way. If I don't become friendly and put myself out there, then we don't interact. I recognize this, but it's really hard for me, and often it puts the fear of god in me as well. So when I met E and N, on top of everything else, my own fears of interaction made me that much more nervous about the whole situation.

Mrs. H and I processed alot after we got home. I talked out my feelings, and she had many of the same as well. (Of course, she's much friendlier than me, so doesn't have the same interaction fears that I do. You should see her with kids.) I'm back to feeling comfortable with the situation again. I think that we can do alot of good for E and N, but it's going to be a different sort of good than what I was naively expecting while sitting in class. It's going to be a real sort of good, and I think it's going to be the type of good that teaches me alot more than E or N will ever get out of this situation.

We had our first lesson last night, but I'll write about that in another post.

Healthcare for All

2006-03-06T13:27:00.000-05:00

A really powerful case for single payer health insurance here from Krugman and Wells in the New York Review of Books.

I find myself nodding my head the whole way through, particularly at the end. It is interesting how "mainstream" liberal interest groups are not interested in pushing for real health care coverage for all Americans. It's left to the more crazy leftists who otherwise would be protesting for things like this to advocate for single payer systems. Thus the idea is taken even further off of the table. Perhaps if normal liberals actually said what they thought, regardless of what big Pharma and big Insurance thought, then we might get somewhere.

Random Sports Musings

2006-03-02T09:20:00.000-05:00

I started listening to sports talk radio during my commutes about 3-4 months ago (I listen to WTEM 980. My commute lines up with Mike & Mike in the morning and the Sports Reporters in the afternoon (I listen more for Andy Pollin than Steve Czaban, whom I really just don't like, but that's for another post). I used to listen to NPR, Air America, and Democracy Now, but I found that I got enough news reading blogs during the day, and it was just too depressing. I enjoy keeping up to date on sports (which would otherwise be hard since Mrs. H and I don't watch TV), and it's mind numbing enough to make the drive home go quickly.

This morning, on Mike & Mike, they were discussing the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) talks in the NFL. Here's a nytimes article about the whole situation. The basis for discussion was that if football fails to sign a new agreement, then there will be no salary cap in football for the 2007 season. (If you're a non-sports reader, the salary cap means that the total salary that a team pays out to all it's players is limited - about $95 million in 2005.) If it comes to pass that there is no salary cap in the 2007 season, and the season is played, then it is highly unlikely that the players will not sign another CBA which includes a salary cap.

I mean really, could you blame them? Most normal people would never work for a company that essentially limits how much you can make. We go into a job knowing that a company doesn't have inifinite resources, but also knowing that if we continue to perform well, we will continue to get raises. If the company can't give us a raise, well, then we'll look for other employment. There are thousands of companies that hire programmers and scientists, but unfortunately for football players, there is only one company that they can work for - the NFL.

I've always been ambivalent about sports unions. I'm very pro-union otherwise, so I identify with the players. It doesn't take alot to see how much owners can make on professional football teams. The players are the reason that owners can make so much, so they deserve a large chunk of what the team takes in. Also, the average fan doesn't appreciate how risky professional football is to the players. The average career length is on the order of 4 years. A player needs to go in to the league and get as much money as he can, because he doesn't know what's going to happen. This is illustrated by the story of Gabe Rivera (You'll have to read down the article a bit, and Rivera's fortune is sadly entwined with Dan Marino in Steeler fan's memories, which overlooks the tragedy of the whole thing).

So, I definitely feel for players who are trying to get everything that they can. At the same time, I want to watch my team be good. I want my team to be able to keep the best players that they can. I don't want to see a good team get broken up by some already rich player going for even more money (see: Neil O'Donnel). So as a fan, I lie a bit more with the owners. And really sports unions are such a weird thing anyway, becase as I said before sports are run as monopolies. What to do?

Baseball doesn't have a salary cap, and I think it's one of the reasons that I don't like it. The Pirates are never going to win another world series. It's that simple. The same few teams every year are going to make the playoffs. Yeah, there'll be a Marlins or a Twins from time to time, but you already know that Boston, New York, Atlanta, and St. Louis are going to be there this year. It's boring. It's boring because teams aren't forced to break up from time to time and spread their players /money around to the rest of the league. In football the money is spread and the seasons are more interesting. Hopefully I'll be able to show that with the data I've been working on.

I do believe that football is not as good as it was in the past (I can be curmudgonly at times). Yes, the athletes are better trained and simply better now, but the teams are not because you can't accumulate an unequal amount of talent on one team now. So, no, there won't be the types of games that you saw in the 70's and 80's in the playoffs between two really outstanding teams, but now more teams will actually have a chance to make the playoffs, and I guess in the end that's what's most important. (As a related topic, it's not actually goals scored in hockey that matter. It's goal scoring chances that keep fans involved.)

So I really hope that the two sides in the NFL are able to come together on a new CBA in the near future. I would hate football to become baseball. I have a low enough opinion of sports these days anyway (another post). As much as I complain about the Patriots of the past few years being the kings of "Slightly Above Average", I'd rather have the interesting seasons that we've had lately. It's hard for me to say that, but I think it's true.

(If you made it this far, congratulations. I apologize for the varied and uncontrolled track of this post, but it's what happens when you start and stop and start again.)

Eatin' My Corn

2006-02-28T16:52:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I am and always have been a sucker for hot country singers, and Shannon Brown is no exception. Her new album "Corn Fed" (of all things) is pretty decent once you get by the jesus/simple country values talk. Although, I do think "Can I get a witness" is one of the best songs she has. It's a bit too much country as opposed to folk for me, but I made it the whole way through the album, and that's saying something for me. "Good ole' Days" is also an interesting country/funk/disco combination, worth at least one listen.

One thing I found fascinating was her tour schedule. Normally people tend to play at places that I would consider going to. She's singing the National Anthem at a rodeo this weekend, and then later in the summer, she's playing at a "Family Camp Ground". Guess I won't be seeing her anytime soon.

Google Maps are Cool

2006-02-28T10:26:00.000-05:00

The lovely Mrs. H. sent me an email with a ton of links to sites that do stuff with google maps. They are so cool. Here's a sampling (with her commentary):

http://www.poststar.com/specials/earth.asp

----------You're going to love this:
googlesightseeing.com

----------This is cool, too:
googlemapsmania.blogspot.com

----------And I bet you'd love this:
www.runlondon.com

----------So fun!!
www.stolasgeospatial.com/seinfeld.htm

---------How interesting:
www.mibazaar.com/extras/fortune100.html

----------Birth places of presidents & first ladies:
www.mibazaar.com/ushistory

----------Wow:
www.mibazaar.com/apprentice/index.html

----------I don't totally get this, but you'll find it interesting:
www.roadsignmath.com

----------Hmmm:
www.bloglander.com/scavengeroogle/

----------Amazing:
www.mapyourancestors.com

----------Weird but very funny:
www.daveloveselizabeth.com

----------Pretty:
http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/%7Epesti/night/

----------Who knew?
http://mygmaps.com/mygmaps.cgi

----------Unbelievable:
www.maptalk.co.nz/infographics

Couple New Links

2006-02-28T10:21:00.000-05:00

I added a couple things to the links on the right. First of all, I have an accquaintance who writes for capitalweather.com and I've been really enjoying thier site for the past couple days. They do a good job reporting, you can find significantly more info than at the weather channel, and they're pretty honest about what they do. Now, only if they could continue to make it warmer.

Also, I added DC Foodies which is a blog about, well, food in DC. I don't know the guy who writes it, but he does a great job, and I enjoy reading it.

That's it.

Physics Exams

2006-02-24T08:59:00.000-05:00

I was reading this post at Cosmic Variance about a E-M test that one of the authors gave recently. The test seems interesting, and I think he did a good job trying to match it to his students' abilities and time constraints (certainly caring at all about that is a step above many physics professors).

What I found more interesting, though was the discussion in the comments about open/closed book tests. There are certain conventional wisdoms that exist in the physics world about these types of tests. For example:

-Open book tests are generally a bit harder, because the professor knows you have a book.
-Closed book tests prepare you well for graduate school, because you really have to know the material.
-Closed book tests ignore the reality of life after school, when no book is closed.
-Closed book tests make the student focus more on thinking about the problem as opposed to searching through the book for an answer.

Certainly, there are more, and it really gets complicated when you weave in the take-home vs. in-class dichotomy as well.

We all carry this stuff around, because I bet things like this have been the conventional wisdom for at least 100+ years in physics (or at least since teaching classes has become more important than individula mentorship/apprenticeship in entering the field). However, we're physicsts/astronomers, not psychometricians. I wonder how much is real, and how much isn't. We take into the course and tests certain beliefs as teachers and "defenders of the sanctity of the field" (and there's nothing wrong with that), but someone who is a disinterested observer may see something very different. I also imagine that since more and more physics/astronomy students (even graduate students) are no longer ending up as physicists or astronomers, the outcomes one would look for after system of testing are significantly more varied than they were 30 years ago. I think that, although it would be incredibly hard to do, investigating the teaching practices and their outcomes in student achievement and success, in upper level science courses would be quite an interesting project.

Mmmmmm Chili

2006-02-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

It was National Chili Day(Scroll Down) last night at Hard Times Cafe. Even though I'm nominally vegetarian, I can't resist the Texas chili at Hard Times, especially when it's free. Typically, I have the chilli on top of Fritos, but last night I had chilli mac. It was pretty good, but I would have rather had it in a bowl as opposed to on a plate -- too hard to eat. I think the Fritos are a better option anyway, because they suck up the grease better than the spaghetti.

At some point, I'll have to get around to entering my chili in a competition. As much as I like the Hard Times chili, I think mine is a ton better. Really, I make mine more like a stew. It has a lot more tomoatos, cheese, and other special ingredients, and is just generally thicker. Some people, I guess, wouldn't call it chili, but I do, and I like it.

19 Bazillion Birds Outside my Window

2006-02-23T09:00:00.000-05:00

I guess spring is upon us soon. I'm happy about that. I know the cat running around outside in the parking lot looking up at all the birds is happy about it too.

I haven't been writing much lately, even though there is so much going on, like the Olympics. Although track is my favorite olympic sport, I think the winter games are so much better. One, there's alot more competition. The Americans, across the board, aren't simply far and away better than everyone else. Sure, there's particular events in the summer games that Americans aren't good at, but if you pick out a random sport in the summer, you're going to see an American medalist. I don't believe that's true in the winter, or at least it doesn't seem like it (Maybe I should spend some time looking at the statistics of that too.) And also, the games are just so much more exotic. Downhill and luging aren't something that I could just walk out my backdoor and do. I haven't ever snowboarded on a halfpipe, so it just seems that much more amazing when I see the olympians do it. I just really love it. I wish they went on for a couple more weeks.

BTW, Chad Hedrick needed to shut his trap this past week. Shani Davis beat him twice, end of story. It's not Shani's fault that Chad didn't win 5 gold medals. That's only Chad's fault. He needs to stop playing the victim here.

To tell you the truth, the only victim of the olympics were the people who had to suffer through the ice dancing commentary. I have to say that I enjoyed ice dancing this year more than ever before, but Dick Button needs to shut up even more than Chad Hedrick. All they did the whole time was complain about how bad people were doing. I understand that it's good to point out for the viewers at home how the judges will be making their decisions, but can you be a bit more negative? Also, going on and on about how the Israeli team wasn't dancing to Bolero as well as Torville and Dean was just sickening. Ok, T&D competed some 22 years ago. The skaters might not even been born then, and probably about 5% of the audience know who they are. Certainly T&D weren't skating in this olympics, so just shut up about it.

I'll now return to my documentation.

My follow-up Steelers Post

2006-02-10T08:44:00.000-05:00

Before the Super Bowl, I posted this about the suprisingly consistant ability of the Steelers to get into the playoffs. I said some things in that post that I later wanted to check on, and I wanted to correct the fact that I left the Bills out of my initial graph. So, again. . .

The first image shows the playoff histories of all teams in the NFL since my birth. Notice that the Steelers, Cowbows, and 49ers are farthest to the left and have the most amount of playoff appearances. At the very far right is the Texans who have yet to be in the playoffs. Realistically, the Panthers, Jaguars, Ravens, and Texans should not be considered in this "study" since they have only been in the league for a few years, and one wouldn't expect them to have the same total playoff appearances as other, older teams. This means that the Cardinals are the epitome of ineptitude during the course of my lifetime. (FYI, I combined the old Browns with the new Browns rather than with the Ravens, simply because it made my counting easier, and to make the graph contain the whole league. By doing this, I put a 5 year gap into the Browns history, but I don't really think it's that big of a deal, and hell, I'm not getting paid for this.) In addition, the inclusion of the Seahawks and Buccaneers might be a bit biased, since they entered the league in my birthyear, and one wouldn't expect them to make the playoffs in their first couple years. However, it's been 30 years now, so I think it comes close to all washing out (again, see the comment of me not getting paid for this).

From looking at the first graph, one can see that the average number of playoff appearances is about 10 - 11 years. If you actually calculate it, you come up with a number of 10.3 (+- 5) where you include the Texans, Ravens, Jaguars, and Panthers are included, and a number of 10.9 (+- 4) where they are not. The median is 10.5 and 11 respectively. Those averages match very well with the probability of making the playoffs in the NFL. Here's a brief history of playoff selection during the past 30 years:

1976-1977 - 4 playoff teams / conf., 14 teams / conf.
1978-1989 - 5 playoff teams / conf., 14 teams / conf.
1990-1994 - 6 playoff teams / conf., 14 teams / conf.
1995-1998 - 6 playoff teams / conf., 15 teams / conf.
1999-2002 - 6 playoff teams / conf., 15.5* teams / conf.
2003-2005 - 6 playoff teams / conf., 16 teams / conf.

*The Browns were the 16th team in the AFC during this time.

If you do a weighted average of that, you find that the dumb luck probability of a team entering the playoffs if all games were decided by a coin toss would be 0.37. Multiply that number by 30 years, and you find that the most likely amount of years a team would be in the playoffs is 11.2.

One thing that I wanted to check was whether you could do a dumb luck random flip determination of whether teams could get into the playoffs. For example, currently in each conference there are 4 divisions. The teams with the best record in each of these divisions automatically make the playoffs. Then the next two teams (Wild Cards) with the highest records are selected, bringing the total to 6. But, what if there is a 7th team that has a better record than one of the division winners, but does not make the playoffs because it did not have the best record in its own division, and did not have a better record than the two Wild Cards. This team would be in the top 6, but not make the playoffs, seemingly throughing the probabilities a bit off. This could happen, but does it happen alot?

I looked back into the old standings, and found two times that it certainly did happen, the 1979 NFC and the 1985 AFC. (I believe it was the Vikings and the Browns that were the division winners to get in. Further, the '85 Browns were the only team to ever make the playoffs with a 8-8 record.). There were a further 6 occurances where the lowest division winning team was tied with the 7th best team in their conference. Without going back into old game records it's impossible to know who would win these tie breakers, and I didn't feel like doing that. So, without any good reason, I'll assume that in three of these situations had the 7th team actually finish with a better record than a division winner. That brings our total of 5 times where the best 6 teams didn't go to the playoffs out of a total of 60 (2 conferences x 30 years) playoff draws, or 8% of the time. Since it's under 10% and I'm an astronomer who likes to deal with order of magnitude calculations, I'm going to ignore this effect, and assume that the probability of entering the playoffs is the probability of being one of the best 6 teams in a team's conference.

Now, after all that, the question that I was really interesting in answering is whether the Steelers being in the playoffs so many times a function of dumb luck (i.e. if you flip a coin enough times eventually, you'll get 50 heads in a row) or some real effect. There was some research done on this about basketball player's (and some other sports) hot streaks. It turns out that the
streaks don't really exist, and it's more human perception putting added emphasis on low probability events. I read somewhere (I think Gould) that the only streak that holds up to this type of analysis and is truly statistically unlikely is Dimaggio's consecutive game hitting streak. So, are the Steelers doing something right, or is it dumb luck?

The second graph is a histogram of the number of teams who have made the playoffs a given number of times. You can easily see the peaks at 8 and 11 indicating that we do have some sort of Guassian, or really in this case a Poisson distribution since entry to the playoffs is a discrete thing. So, I ran a Poisson distribution centered at 11, and that is in the third picture (I normalized the model Poisson distribution to have it's highest value be 4, for easy comparison).

There is a long low end tail (where the teams haven't made the playoffs much) in the real data. Alot of this is due to the inclusion of the Ravens, Texans, Jaguars, and Panthers. If you remove these teams results (at 0, both at 3, and one at 4), the bottom of the histogram matches the Poisson model well.

It is on the upper end, however, that we see something odd. By simple dumb luck, there should not be so many teams in the playoffs 16, 17, and 18 times. The Poisson model says that we should have maybe one or 2 out that far, not 10. This region is out past the 1.5-2 sigma range of the Poisson distribution, so we really shouldn't see a signal so strong. I believe that if these were stars, we'd be claiming detection.

Of course the sample is small. There are only 28 teams with a 30 year history, and really the time scale is low. Thirty years isn't alot. But, it seems to me that several of these teams in the high end of the distribution are doing something that is enhancing their probability of making the playoffs. It's not dumb luck that's got them there this many time. (One could also say same thing about some of the teams in the bottom of the distribution.) I'm planning on running a simulation of some random seasons to see what kind of distribution I come up with, and how that affects the distribution. But for now, it seems that for all of the talk about parity in the NFL, it is isn't there yet, and that several teams have found a way to be good and stay good.

I'm looking forward to doing this again in a few years.

It's come to this. . .

2006-02-10T08:41:00.000-05:00

My morning affirmations:

I am going to have an enjoyable day at work.

I am going to be myself today.

I am going to leave work today feeling satisfied in who I am and what I accomplished.

(I guess all of this may be made easier by the fact that I'm leaving early today. WooHoo!)

A couple posts that I found very interesting

2006-02-09T12:39:00.000-05:00

These are a set by Arthur Silber. They really caused me to re-think some of my views on foreign policy. (Which I'm reminded by a conversation I overheard in the hallway, should not be set by scientists)

Part I on Iran

Part II on Iran

Part III on Iran

Part IV on Iran

and

Part V on Iran which I am about to read now in an attempt to ease my boredom.

This Day is Dragging

2006-02-09T12:34:00.000-05:00

I wonder if it's possible to be a bit more bored today? I mean I can only actually entertain themselves by reading about physics, math, and programming so many hours of the day.

At least I'm taking off early tomorrow.

A Republican Criminal (Shock!)

2006-02-08T17:03:00.000-05:00

While I was writing about the Steelers, I came across this article from the PG. It turns out that Rep. Habay decided that his relection was important enough to pay his staff state money to work on his campaign. The judge disagreed, and now he'll be doing 6-12 months.

He comes up for trial on witness intimidation and making false anthrax claims later this month.

And while I'm at it, I found this article about the state GOP
offering to pay his legal fees if he switched to the Democratic party. I guess that didn't work out so well.

And of course, like all good law-breaking Republicans,
he was honored by W at the Whitehouse for cutting taxes. He says that he's always trying to save his constituents money.

It's a real shame then, that he used the money he saved Pennsylvanians on their taxes to illegally pay his staf.

You know, it's been said many times before, but how is it that the Republicans can be the party of "morals", when they're the ones who are always being indicted, arrested, and convicted?

Guess I need more kool-aid, stat!

Super Steelers

2006-02-08T16:47:00.000-05:00

I'm a bit slow in writing this, seeing how I am a Steeler fan and all, but now is my time to gloat. What a great game.

Ok, so it wasn't the greatest game ever, but the Steelers won the Super Bowl, and that makes it the greatest game I have ever witnessed. I never really believed that this would happen. They won when I was three. They lost when I was 19. But I didn't know if they'd ever make it back again. How amazing is that.

I didn't enjoy this game as much as I did the playoffs. I don't think they played anywhere near the same level that they did against Cincinnati, Indy, and Denver. The team that won those three games was one of the best that's played in a long time. Th team that won the Super Bowl was a better than average one that needed to be a bit lucky to get by. Sort of like New England the past few years. Still, they deserved the game. People have been complaining about the officiating, and it may not have been the best in the world, but the calls that were made were right by the letter of the rules. Frankly, Seattle only has themselves to blame for this one. They missed two field goals, and we're more confused than a highschool team at the end of the first half. If it had been 7-6 at half, the entire complexion of the game would have changed. But it wasn't. The Steelers won. Get over it.

The Bus is cool. He's Mrs. H.'s favorite player, so it's a shame that he's retiring now that she's just gotten into football. Probably Troy Paulomalu will be her next favorite, because he's easy to pick out on the field. And, he's pretty nice too.

Here's a set of pictures of Steeler fans for you to enjoy. I do enjoy being from that city.

(photo credit: Post Gazette - Lake Fong)

February. . . the Month of Hills

2006-02-08T16:41:00.000-05:00

At least that's what the old track coach used to say, before he would take us out and run us until we cried. In honor of that, I put in some wee hills again today. 3 miles and 5 x 75m hills. The DJ in my head was playing "Doo Wop (That thing)" by Lauryn Hill. It was a nice grove to move along to.

What I Can Do with too Much Time on My Hands

2006-02-02T16:59:00.000-05:00

Since I only have a couple days left until the Super Bowl, I've been doing alot of thinking about my own history as a Steeler fan.

I'm a bit too young to remember the glory days. I don't remember watching any of the Super Bowl wins during the 70's. My first memory of football actually comes from the '81 season. So, my formative football years were spent watching the Steelers decline and bottom out during the 80's. Despite a fun playoff game where we beat Huston during the '89 season, there wasn't much light until the 90's.

-One aside- I firmly believe that Bill Cowher's early success with the steelers (say '92 - '95) was largely a result of good drafting by Chuck Noll. Had Knoll not been too old to want to coach any more, he probably would have taken the team back to the playoffs those years. Cowher's success now is his own making, and I give him credit, but I'd say at least 15 wins during those first three years weren't his. Had Noll not built a good team and had them on the verge, Cowher might have been run out of town pretty quickly. But I digress --

So, from my perspective, it always seemed that the Steelers were pretty bad during the 80's, and that over the course of history, other teams were much better - remember that the Steelers first sucessful period isn't in my direct memory. Certainly, over the duration of all football history, the Steelers are pretty bad. From their founding in 1930something until 1972, the Steelers had played in like one minor playoff game, and I believe didn't have a winning season. But, the other day while I was thinking hard in the shower, I started to wonder who the best team was during my lifetime.

I decided to make my metric the number of seasons in the playoffs, since the NFL has always done a good job of having a limited (but not overly limited...hi baseball) playoff system compared to other leagues. Over the course of my life, an average of 38% of NFL teams have made the playoffs (compared to the over 50% in the NHL). As opposed to winning Super Bowls, which either takes a great deal of talent or alot of luck, being in the playoffs is a reliable estimate of solid goodness.

My initial thought was that the 49ers or the Cowboys would be the best teams, given how many superbowls they won during my formative years, and potentially the Raiders just because they just always seem to find a way into the playoffs. I was right, but you'll notice (in the figure) that the team furthest on the left there in a tie with the Cowboys and 49ers is my Steelers. Who knew? I guess the 80's didn't really count for much after all.

I think I can chalk this up to selective memory. The Steelers had three really bad seasons (85, 86, and 87), which must have felt long and hard to me, surrounded by a couple mediocre seasons where they sneaked into the playoffs ('84 and '89). Then they didn't stick in the playoffs until '92 - '97, after I was in HS and college, meaning that their image as a bunch of losers was well burned into my head.

In reality, the Steelers made the playoffs 18 out of my 30 experienced football seasons. That's a pretty good 60% of the time. A very naive gaussian distribution indicates that a team playing in the AFC central would have made the playoffs about 40% of the time. So the Steelers really have beat the odds.

Additionally, I'm surprised by the 5th and 6th place teams in this calcualtion. The Oilers/Titans have actually been very good, even though they've only played (and lost) one Superbowl. The Vikins as well have been good for a long time. Remember that being in the playoffs 15 or 16 times during my lifetime is doing much more than putting a few good players together. 15 years is something like 3 times the average carreer of a player. In order to put a team in the playoffs that many times you have to consistantly acquire good players and give them good schemes. More power to the Oilers and Vikings.

So, what's the long and short of it?

The Steelers are winning one for the thumb on Sunday!

Here we go Steelers, Here we Go.

Lost My Mind Yesterday

2006-02-02T16:55:00.000-05:00

Not in a bad way, I just forgot to post my running-ness.

4 something miles, at a reasonably moderate pace. Nothing extra.

I have to say that I hate running at this time of year. It's so hard to predict what the temperature is going to be. It wasn't overly cold yesterday, I just knew it wasn't warm. But just as I was going to go out at lunch, I realized that I forgot my long sleeve shirt. I was considering not going, but I had my wind pants, and I figured I'd be alright. It was a bit windy, so I was cold at the beginning, but by half-way, I was regretting not just wearing shorts. But I know that I would have been too cold to even think about starting had I done that. I can't wait for summer.

No excercize today, since I had to be around for a few guys fixing our computers. So not only did I not run, I had to sit and watch other people type. Completely sucky.

Neither my white shoes nor my white shirt are white now

2006-01-31T15:03:00.000-05:00

It was cold and windy today on my run, but I still had a good time. I went about 3ish miles at a slightly slower pace than yesterday and did 5 x 150 sprints on the nearby soccer field. I was going to do sit-ups, but it was too damn wet (hence my now brown shirt and shoes).

No songs were going through my head. Mostly I was just reliving past glorious races that I've been in. But, near the end when I did stop to think that no songs were running through my head, "Since U Been Gone" appeared out of nowhere. Go figure.

Back to the tedium . . .

What I've been listening to lately

2006-01-30T17:08:00.000-05:00

Here's the playlist that's been stuck on my computer lately:

1. Sometimes.............Holly Williams
2. Fallen..................Sarah Mclachlan
3. Times Like These....Jack Johnson
4. Hung Up................Madonna
5. Wish I.................Jem
6. Babylon................David Gray
7. Jet Lag................Joss Stone
8. Boyfriend..............Ashlee Simpson
9. I Don't Want to Be....Gavin DeGraw
10. Since U Been Gone...Kelly Clarkson
11. J'en Connais..........Carla Bruni
12. Sometime..............SiSe
13. Saint Lucy............Catie Curtis

I know it's probably wrong on so many levels, but I just have that girl meme going again. I can't help it. I like Madonna's new album, and Ashlee really speaks to me in a real teenager type way.

And just so you know, both "Fallen" and "Wish I" are live tracks off of Rolling Stone EP's, and are particularly good.

Running man

2006-01-30T16:53:00.000-05:00

What a wonderful day. It was like 60 at lunch today, so I knew that I had to break out of my winter slumber and run a bit. And spending over $100 on new shoes (pictured) made me feel guilty for not running last week.

Let me interject that the "Beast" from Brooks has been my running shoe for the past 6 years or so. Shoes never fit me much, because I have very flat feet, but these ones are amazing. It seems that they changed the sizes a bit, because now I'm between a 12 and 12 1/2, where before I was a 12, but they still feel better than anything else I've ever had.

So, taking a hint from Sam, I thought I'd start posting my running up here, so that potentially it makes me recognize (and feel horribly shameful) when I don't work out.

Today: 2.5 - 3 miles (part of the trail isn't marked, so I can't tell how far it really is) somewhat quick (I had a guy behind me for the first half, and I just hate, hate, hate getting passed). In the middle there was 5 x 75m hills.

I don't like to listen to music when I run. In the old days of walkmans, I found them too heavy, (Maybe with a nano, I would change my mind) and I get real uncomfortable when I sweat on earphones. Ick. So for the most part, I get songs stuck in my head, and hope to god that they're somewhat decent. Today was "Saint Lucy" by Catie Curtis. Not too bad.

I haven't seen much of Richard Feynman lately. I hope he's ok.

A Weekend

2006-01-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Collecting some thoughts from the weekend...

Mrs. H.'s brother came to visit this weekend. That makes him my brother-in-law. As an only, I have to say that being married and having new family is weird enough, but having a new sibling is just very odd. I like him and enjoy hanging out with him, but there's all this family stuff too. I think it's been good for me being much closer (physically) to Mrs. H.'s family, since I'm forced to interact with them. If we didn't live here, I'd probably just consider them all a figment of my imagination.

He's considering a job in Baltimore, so he was looking for apartments with his girlfriend. We actually didn't spend alot of time with them, but we had two really good meals. On at Straits of Malaya and the other at Baci Vini. We had been to the first one before with Makigirl, so I was glad to go back. The second one had a great atmosphere, and the food was good and cheap. I had gnocci for 12 bucks (with a good Chianti for somewhat more). There's a more barish version upstairs called anzu, which I'd like to go to. I'm a sucker for "chic minimalist decor" and deep house night, even though most people don't expect that from me.

Speaking of which, Mrs. H. and I were out looking for sofa's on Sunday but couldn't find anything we liked. Furnature is very tough, I've decided. First of all, we don't neccisarily agree on style (she's more a traditionalist, see the last paragraph for me), and it seems like anything out there for less than several thousand is better than what I had in my dorm. Add to the fact that we wouldn't mind having a pull-out, and just forget about it. Of course, there's always IKEA, but is there only IKEA?

This weekend also marked the "one week left until the Steelers win the Superbowl" point. Check out this article for links to the best of Steeler songs. N.B. Stay the hell away from the "Here we go" song. It sucks to high heaven. Personally, I believe that it is the reason why the Steelers lost the championship game in '94 to the Chargers. How could anyone play well after listening to that song?

Who's going to hell in a handbasket?

2006-01-23T22:50:00.000-05:00

I was happy to read hoagie boy's news this morning that the Steelers are going to the Superbowl! I know he's very excited about this.

But I was very saddened to read that it looks like Stephen Harper will be Canada's new Prime Minister. Yes, the Conservative Stephen Harper. The Stephen Harper who would like Canada to cozy up to the U.S. Thank goodness it's only a minority government.

*maki-girl

Who's going to the Superbowl?

2006-01-23T16:54:00.000-05:00

No more feelings,

Pittsburgh is going to the Superbowl.

(photo credit to the P-G)

The Limits of College-level Science Education?

2006-01-20T15:36:00.000-05:00

Ok, four images for this post, and this time there are no correct answers. The top two images are the pre and post test for a question about how confident the students were on this particular assessment. The second two are the pre and post test for a question about the students ability to do science.

Interestingly, we see a large change in the students' confidence to answer the questions on this particular test. I think that says something good about the teaching. This particular question is after all of the content material, so if they didn't feel good about answering the questions, they would have not said so. Also, they students did only see this assessment 3 months early, so one would hope they'd feel better the second time around.

The other question about thier ability to do science shows no change. So, even though the students do feel confident answering a few questions about astronomy, they don't see themselves as scientists yet. This effect has been seen before here and here, although in these studies they did use a separate assessment from the ADT to gauge student feelings towards science.

Why does this happen? In the Zeilik article he discusses that while we may have the best of intentions to improve attitudes towards science during a class, one semester may just not be enough time to do it. This probably is the main key. Students only meet with a professor some 40ish times during the course of a semester, during which they're trying to cram a bunch of facts in their heads as well as deal with all the other junk that goes on during college life. We could expect them to learn a few things, but could we really expect them to change their fundemental views about themselves (such as - "I can do science")?

I'd also like to think that in the typical astronomy class (and really even the vast majority of redesigned active ones), learning is rather passive. Student's don't act like scientists, and aren't reinforced that they are acting like scientists even if they are. The other paper that I linked to shows no real difference between the active and traditional classes in this respect, but I wonder if we've gone active enough, and whether we can go active enough by the time students get to college.

I think largely data like this points to the need to be doing real science education as early as possible. Not sitting and absorbing factoids, but real inquiry based science learning, with teachers telling students (and showing them) that they're doing similar methods of learning to real scientists. Because of several recent posts by others, don't think that in anyway I'm saying that current elem/secondary teachers are doing a bad job, because they're probably just as much a victim of this as are their students. They weren't taught that they'd could be scientists as well. It's really up to the scientists to get into these classes and exhibit what it is that they actually do. Habits of mind, I think, are best learned by example.

I'd like to see some real research done on students in science classes that are very active learning environments, and see what would come of questions like this.

Next Question

2006-01-20T15:13:00.000-05:00

You know, I was thinking that I should probably post these over at the other class site, but since I'm logged in here already, I'll just stick to what I'm doing. Perhaps Makigirl will complain to me at somepoint.

Nonetheless, here is a slightly less "things up in the sky" and more of a "how do we do astronomy" question.

(SPOILER) The correct answer is the grey one (SPOILER)

As if I would be posting this data if the entire class got the answer wrong on the post test.

A solid minority of the class doesn't get the question right the first time around, but on the post-instruction assessment, they all get it. 100% right is a very good thing in my book (although again there's a few students missing from the pre-test). And it's good that they all went out of this class with this answer right. Putting telescopes on the tops of mountains and in space is one of the most important concepts to understanding why astronomers need to occasionally spend money. If all telescopes were at sea level, we wouldn't know 1/10th of what we do today. This question is about making good citizens.

And I was thinking further about the previous post. . . the instruction on the structure of the Universe occured early on in the semester, so it's really nice to see that the concepts stuck in the kids head's all the way through to the last week when they took this post-test.

One more set that I want to think about out loud.

An Exhibition of Makigirl's Teaching Prowess

2006-01-20T14:36:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I've been working on the paper that Makigirl and I are creating from the poster we made last week at the AAS. In the astronomy ed world, there is something called the Astronomy Diagnostic Test that most people use to judge conceptual gains in an introductory class. I have my issues with it. Which probably would take to long to write about here. Anyway, the pictures represent the responses to one of the questions pre- and post-semester.

(SPOILER)The correct answer is the "red" response.(SPOILER)

As you can see, the students did improve, and improve well, which is a good thing as the structure of the Universe was a topic that she spent a good deal of time on. The sample size is small here (about 25 pre and a bit less post), but still a definite good result.

I'll put a few more up in the next few minutes.

Shrinky Dinks

2006-01-20T08:40:00.000-05:00

Last night, the lovely Mrs. H and I went to the Corcoran Gallery of Art for an Andy Warhol activity. Apparently, it was some sort of coloring party that Andy (a Pittsburgher by the way -- Go Steelers!) used to do with his friends. Last night they were making shinky dinks, and you got to have some wine and chocolate and hang out. Unfortunately, the museum expected 400 people to show up and got something like 700. Thus, they ran out of shrinky dinks before Mrs. H and I could get there.

Not to be detered, though, we walked around the gallery, and were really impressed. I had never been in it before, but it turned out to be a really amazing space. They had one exhibit on the banjo in American art (Mrs. H really liked the Wegeman at the bottom of the page. Cute, floppy, melancholy dogs are her thing.) It was very informative and well laid out. And then, there was the Sam Gilliam retrospective on the main part of the second floor. Wow. I was really taken with his art. I honestly had never heard of him before (am I admitting too much of my unrefined-ness?). The images on the webpage don't really do justice to their feeling within the gallery. They're so big and alive. There was a large rotunda in the main hall with 5 or 6 draped colorful sheets hanging down from the center of the room. It was visually so interesting. The lines and folds in his pieces were so vibrant. I wanted to sit and learn to draw just so that I could try to capture them. My favorite piece was one that in shape looks like the one on the front page of the website, but was multi colored, and then I guess he used some type of acrylic paint and a spackling type knife to create these huge parallel ridges all over the piece in a variety of colors. I really would like to try to create something that imitated that someday when I get a workshop.

Anyway, we had a great time, and it was a smart move on behalf of the Corcoran to get people like us in there in on a weekday evening when the museums are typically closed. Personally, I just love museums, and I don't think that I've been going enough lately (especially since I live here with all these great ones). The empty space and the quiet is so wonderful. It also really takes me back to my childhood when I would go constantly to classes at the Carnegie in Pittsburgh. I think I'm going to try to make an effort to go to more stuff like this, and then when I retire again, I can spend all day in them.

A Night at the Funnies

2006-01-18T16:53:00.000-05:00

Last night Mrs. H and I went to the DC Improv and saw Jake Johannson. I actually haven't been to a comedy show in quite some time. (I think I was in London about 10 years ago. It was a small backroom of a bar, and the comedian was about to lay into the Yanks. But first he asked if there were any in the room. My friends and I managed to hide somehow. And that was before the GWOT.) It was alot of fun. His humor was very paranoid, which is something that I really enjoy. It was also interesting to see how much more polished he was than the opening acts. I thought that they were all funny, but the delivery was just so much better with the more experienced comics. I guess only having watched stand-up on TV glosses over the real human interaction that goes on there.

All in all, it was a good time.

Since I'm on an entertainment kick again, Sam has his album picks up for 2005. They're good, but there's no Ashlee. What's up with that?

And speaking of girls that I'm stuck on, I've been listening to Holly Williams a ton lately. I found her album last year sometime, but as I wasn't listening to much music then, I didn't really appreciate it. Now, I have it on repeat alot. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to be on tour much lately, so I can only hope that she's in the studio recording new stuff especially for me.

And lastly, my cousin's band Four Barrel Ghost won their opening round match up in the Emergenza Competition in Pittsburgh. In fact, they got the highest vote total of any band in the whole first round. Pretty good for a cow-punk band. The next round of the competition is in May, but on a Thursday night, so I won't be able to go. But, if you're in Pittsburgh, check them out and show them some love.

Pittsburgh's goin' to the Super Bowl. I got a feelin'.

Let's Begin at the Beginning

2006-01-16T20:56:00.000-05:00

I don't blog much over the weekend. Well, I don't blog much at all, but since today was a holiday, and I'm trying to occupy myself this afternoon, I thought I'd add a post.

I'm feeling better from Friday, if you're wondering. I relaxed a bit, but it was still hard. I'm very hard on myself, and I don't let myself say what I want. It will be something that I have to work on in the upcoming future. I still want to move away to the distant wilderness, but I am a bit better.

Maybe I could find a nice country high school to teach physics at.

Continuing on with the conference recap, I found it interesting that during our poster day, the one topic that came up more than any was, "Do you really begin your astronomy class with the big bang?" Everytime, Makigirl had to answer "Yes, I really do." Note that this had nothing to do with what our poster was about.

For the unwashed, the vast majority of astronomy classes begin with some sort of discussion of our place in the universe and some basic Earth-centric facts. Here are the first chapters of a couple popular astronomy books:

Chaisson - "Charting the Heavens"
Comins - "Discovering the Night Sky"
Bennett - "The Universe Discovers Itself"

Makigirl's first week is spent talking about the nature of science (i.e. what is a theory), and then the second week begins with the beginning of the universe.

One can look at the typical astronomy book as largely defined by distance from the Earth (or some scaling parameter), as the three books mentioned above start with the Earth and then move to the planets and then to the more distant universe. However, mixed in there is their distinct chapters on physics -- Light, matter, gravity, telescopes and the like. In my opinion they don't fit. They're typically taught at the beginning before the student knows any astronomy, so there's no connection to the cool stuff out there in the universe (I think we can all agree that the blackbody function is boring). And, more importantly, they're decontextualized. Gravity, in my opinion, means alot more when you're discussing why a galaxy cluster looks the way that it does.

In order to solve this problem, Makigirl and I talked about having the class organized around a different guiding principle -- time. Here the course is explicitly designed around a fundemental parameter of astronomy. The universe began at a certain time, and then we follow it's course. Now, there are some places where that's difficult. The universe has been pretty boring for the last 10 billion years or so, but with some finagleing, everything can be made to fit logically, and the physics concepts can be more easily taught in line with the astronomical entities out there in the universe.

The other problem I see with the typical astronomy course is that it's also designed around a historical approach. Two of the three books mentioned above talk about pre-Keplarian astronomy (astronomy where the Earth is at the center of the universe). From my point of view, who cares? Well, if I was teaching a history class, then that would be great, but in a class where I only have 14 weeks to teach about astronomy and science to people who aren't going to be astronomers or scientists, why would I waste my time on stuff that we've known is wrong for at least 400 years?

The intersting thing about the conference was the number of enlightened teaching astronomers who were suprised that Makigirl arranged her class the way that she has. I would expect "Average Joe Astronomer" who's more concerned about research than teaching to teach straight out of the text. But, it was even the people who are supposed to be the leaders of astronomy ed, who had never thought of doing it this way. They teach out of the book, and that is sad. Astronomers are supposed to be scientists who question stuff. "Why do we teach this way or that?" Why is it that we're the first people to really be teaching this way and trying to compare it to other classes?

Then there were also the un-scientific rejections of this teaching methods as well. One textbook author told us that by admitting (on the first day!) that we didn't know what happened in the first .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second after the big bang, we were admitting weakness to our students, and that they would not listen to us for the rest of the semester. Got any data for that, son? Well, no, of course you don't. But let's think about that. We're supposed to be teaching the students that scientists aren't textbooks, that we are constantly reviewing and updating our theories, that we don't know everything, that you don't have to be some memorizing god to be a good scientist. I say that this class does a good job of that by coming straight out and saying it. Whether you lose your students or not has more to do with your abilities as a teacher during the rest of the sememster. Further, I find it interesting that a older, white male teacher (who really pulls of the professorial look with a big white beard) is interested in maintaining authority of knowledge with his students right off the bat. I say let the kids fight it out. If they were going to, they were going to anyway. At least it will be more interesting this way.

I fear that my text is becoming long and unruly. I will continue tomorrow.

Oh, and Makigirl is now in another country for a few weeks. Hopefully, she'll be able to stop by and read.

Real Bad Drive Home

2006-01-13T18:47:00.000-05:00

So, I guess I was feeling particularly anxious when I left work today. I don't know, maybe another day of not doing anything in particular. I spent along time reading and programming on my own, but it gets kind of frustrating when I have to sit there and act busy even though I'm not. I should be enjoying the time that I don't have anything to do. I mean how many people actually have that chance. I can sit all day and just read and write and think, but it's very hard. I guess I don't feel that comfortable when everyone thinks I'm busy. Hello, you need to actually give me something to be busy with. But whatever, and when I do try to mention that I'm not busy, they act like I'm stupid for not knowing what I'm supposed to be doing. ?

So I tend to leave work in an anxious state. I feel bad about myself for not complaining more that I don't have more to do, and I feel bad that I haven't done more in the day and how am I ever going to get another job if I'm not doing anything in this one? I looked at a couple job postings today, and I guess they just set me off. I really want to do them, but I feel that I don't measure up. Why? I don't know. I know inside how good I am at stuff, but I have a hard time of allowing myself to do a good job. I always want to be so perfect, that I don't often try.

Life's tough.

So on my way home today, I yelled at my wife. I got a call from an old friend, whom I accidentally hung up on, and then couldn't get back in touch with. That made me even more mad, so I yelled at my wife again. I was just totally a major dick.

After I got home, I was able to release a bit, and we went to see some friends for Shabbas dinner, so I began to feel better. I still feel on edge, though.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to the "world's largest walking pile of anxiety". More normal stuff later today.

Cooling Flows

2006-01-12T17:19:00.000-05:00

Continuing on with my day late and dollar short coverage of the AAS, I went to a session on "Cooling Flows in Galaxy Clusters" on Monday afternoon. It was very interesting. I had always been unsure of what goes on in clusters. I know there's alot of xrays there and radio emission, but it hasn't been something I've paid attention to. Also, with the cooling flows added to the mix, this session promised to be heavy on the hydrodynamics - never fun. But, I wanted to prove to myself that I was still a real astronomer, so I went.

A galaxy cluster is a big collection of galaxies (as you'd expect), and here is a picture of one. Kind of cool. Galaxy clusters are enormous, covering millions of light years, and can appear to be bigger on the sky than the moon. (We don't see them with our eyes because they're so far away and dim.) Because of all the mass present from all those galaxies, there is alot of energy. The central galaxy of a cluster is often a very large eliptical (here, I'm showing M87), that is usually an active galaxy (something like a quasar).

Even though we think of space as a vacuum, it really isn't. In between the galaxies of a cluster is a warm very low density gas called the "Inter-Cluster Medium" (ICM). This gas is heated up by the energy released by the central galaxy, and then tries to cool off by emitting radiation and moving away from the center of the cluster (much like the water in a kettle rises when it's boiling). We can see these cooling flows of gas when we observe the cluster in X-Rays. But, as you can see in the picture, the gas doesn't cool by moving spherically away from the center, it actually forms long filaments. The structure of these filaments is what the talks I saw was about, and it's actually pretty interesting.

Apparently, in the x-ray observations of the cluster, you can see bubbles being formed, where the density of gas is much lower. This is somewhat apparent in the above image, but might be a bit easier to see here. The structures in the gas are not well understood, and nor are the processes of the filaments. But, if you model the way that air bubbles rise through water, and what the water does underneath those bubbles, you find that it actually looks alot like these X-ray bubbles.

That's all I can say, since I don't know enough hydro to start giving you equations, but I find it pretty cool when processes on Earth resemble processes half-way across the universe. There is but one physics.

Here's a link to the session page. The abstracts are through the links in the paper titles. The last paper didn't actually happen in the session that I saw.

More later.

If I teach you poorly, how well are you going to teach?

2006-01-10T11:46:00.000-05:00

The first session Makigirl and I went to was the yearly session on how to improve introductory astronomy.

Well, first we had to register. I didn't much enjoy that. Standing in line with a bunch of astronomers makes me very nervous. My tolerance for eccentricity is low, particularly when I'm with astronomers. I guess that I've always been worried that I'm one of them. I am, unfortunately, even if I don't wear t-shirts with astronomical cartoons on it. I also wasn't looking forward to running into people I used to know, and I was very glad that I didn't.

Never the less, I survived and went to the session. It's supposed to be a yearly continuing dialog where all of those people who are interested in improving the way that non-scientists learn about science (through the astronomy intro class) are able to get together and share ideas. That's why the session is on Sunday afternoon before the majority of the attendee's get there. That's why about 50 people show up to a session of about 3100 registered participants. That's why astronomy education never changes. But still, I've been to several good sessions in the past. Typically they focus on one topic out of the myrriad in astronomy education. One year focused on pre-service teachers in intro astronomy. One year was on technology. One year was on active learning techniques.

This year was on, well, it was on what one guy who got suckered into running the session was able to come up with in the 30 minutes after he found out he was running the session. Ostensibly, it was on how the teaching of "science" is done in an astronomy class (as opposed to astronomy concepts), and how we should respond to the intelligent design and creationist types.

We did alot of free form talking without much direction, but there were some interesting things I learned from the session.

-Even among people who are interested enough in the teaching of astronomy to come to this session, there is very little knowledge of the pseudo-science that exists out there. Most of the professors had a very limited understanding of creationist and ID claims, and even fewer felt comfortable responding to those claims. Largely this is a function of subject matter. Most ID/creationist claims happen in the biological world, and revolve around genetics and bio-chemistry. We aren't taught a whole lot of that in grad school. Still, most ID claims aren't that well thought out, and a only a fairly basic understanding of biology is necessary (as well as a good grasp of google). It seems that a basic evo-bio session would be a good thing to do in future AAS meetings.

-Astro professors are very mushy when it comes to dealing with ID/creationist students. There weren't many PZ Myers or Dawkins in this session, at least. Is that based on belief of teaching method, or lack of exposure to a more strident style? Which is truely better in an educational setting?

-Creationist claims about astronomy are limited. No one really seems to no of any arguments. Is this because astronomy is too hard for the IDers? I think I might spend some time catologing these in the near future.

-Many new astronomy professors need good professional development and mentoring as they begin teaching, and they aren't getting it.

-Makigirl teaches a hell of a class, compared to what goes on in other places. Every time someone got up to say what cool thing they were doing in their class, Makigirl was already doing it. She's the bomb.

Time to go back to the meeting now.

When Makigirl comes to visit

2006-01-10T11:38:00.000-05:00

I haven't been writing for awhile. I just haven't been feeling it. I've been bored at work during the day, and that just sort of slows me down entirely. I'm looking for new stuff now, but I do find it hard. I'm not entirely certain it is that I want to do with myself, so I don't quite know where to look. I think I also have an overwhelming anxiety of what I am able to do. I'm afraid of letting myself go and just do what I am probably good at. It feels very restrictive.

But, this week, Makigirl has been visiting us. She's here for the American Astronomical Society conference. I decided to go too. It's not every day that I get to be an astronomer again. We submitted a paper on material we both enjoy, but I'm not going to tell you which one it is.

It's been great to see her. I'm very tired though. We went to a cool Malaysian restaraunt in Dupont Circle on Friday, went to Glen Echo on Saturday, got way too drunk on Saturday night in Cleveland park, was way too hung over on Sunday, and then the meeting started. --And the Steelers won!--

We were at the meeting all day yesterday, and it goes on until tomorrow, but I had to come in to work a bit this morning. I'll talk about the sessions I've been to in the next couple posts.

Listen Up

2005-12-13T16:35:00.000-05:00

There's some really good music here:

The Best Songs You Didn't Hear 2005

Go read, download, and listen.

(Personally, I'm proud of myself this year for finding some of these tracks before they went on Sam's cd.)

Feeling Lucky Today?

2005-12-09T11:19:00.000-05:00

The lords of physics have granted us some time to live:

How likely is a Doomsday Catastrophe?
Tegmark, M. and Bostrom, M.
(a pdf)

The highlight:

"Life on our planet is highly unlikely to be destroyed by an exogenous catastrophe during the next billion years".

I guess maybe my retirement plan will reach maturity after all.

What a beautiful Day

2005-12-05T16:18:00.000-05:00

Of course, I'm sitting inside at my computer so it's not pretty here, but outside right now it is snowing so perfectly. It's just beginning to get dark now, and I just love this time of day when it's snowing. Everything is just so peaceful outside.

In fact, it does make me enjoy my work alot more knowing that it's so pretty outside right now. I can't wait to get home and see the woods behind our house. Well, it will be dark when I get home, but I'll get to see them tomorrow morning.

Now, to work on a plan to have it snow while it's 80 degrees outside.

Am I Losing Touch with the Girls?

2005-11-17T11:50:00.000-05:00

Well, one could say I've never really had a touch with the girls, as I've never been much of a cassanova. However, here, I'm more specifically talking about Lorelai and Rory.

I've been a long time devotee of the show. It's hard to remember because it's been so long now, but I think I started watchin Episode 3 of season 1. I introduced the lovely Mrs. H. to the show. I've convinced many of my other female friends to watch the show. I've tried with my guy friends, but with not so much luck. Makigirl came to the show independantly, but I'm certain that my fervor has kept her much more entertained with the show than she would have been on her own.

The writing has always been entertaining and cute. I feel that it's the one show where the writers/actors are trying to rely on my intelligence to enjoy the show. Things are meant to fly by without me getting them, and I appreciate that. I also have to say that Gilmore has been a rite of passage for me. It was really the first show where I was more attracted to the older female character than the one nearly my age.

Unfortunately, my problem lately, is that I don't feel so connected with the show. There was a time when the lovely Mrs. H, Makigirl, and I would discuss for hours on end the relative merits of Rory's boyfriends. It really meant something (bad) to me that she would choose Jess over Dean. That was dumb and done purely for ratings, but it really mattered to me. I felt very older brotherish to Rory, and I didn't want to see her get hurt by that fool. Makigirl on the otherhand actually liked Jess. She has no taste. In all honesty, I didn't really like Dean either, but at least he was a reasonable guy. You see how much I could get into this, don't you.

Well, the other night, Rory and Lorelai were finally reunited after several months apart. It should have been touching. I should have cried. But I didn't. Maybe it was just because the lovely Mrs. H. was away, and I just wasn't as into it. But I think I just didn't care as much. And as cute as the writing was about Luke's new daughter, I just didn't feel it the way I used to.

The thrill is gone. I mean how long can you watch a tv show? Gilmore has already passed the Dawson line. Both shows started with sophomores in high school. Rory is now a year older than Dawson was when he dissappeared. Maybe I'm suffering from separation anxiety. Maybe I'm focusing on my own family now that I'm married. Maybe you just can write that well, that long.

I don't know, but I'm lamenting.

Here's to you, Stars Hollow.

Another Astronomy Paper

2005-11-16T05:40:00.000-05:00

Today's paper is:

"Three-Dimensional Bar Structure and Disc/Bulge Secular Evolution"
Bureau, M., Aronica, G., and Athanassoula, E.
astro-ph/0508616v1
2005

This paper (by some of the top people in the galaxy dynamics world) deals with boxy/peanut shaped galaxy bulges. Yes, peanut is an astronomical term. Compare the previous picture to the central regions of these images.

Alright, I guess you have to have an astronomer's imagination to see it, but trust me, the central regions of the galaxies do look like a peanut.

In the paper, the authors discuss near-infrared observations of 30 galaxies with this type of peanut morphology. They are trying to determine how bars and bulges form in relation to the disk galaxies that they are in.

--Oh, in order to see the peanut, the galaxy has to be viewed edge on, since the peanut is caused by matter moving up and down away from the disk. This galaxy could have a peanut structure (althought it probably doesn't), but we can't tell, since we're looking down at the disk.--

Back in the old days, people divided disk galaxies into three parts. First there was the disk. Well, duh, there has to be a disk in a disk galaxy. Second there was the bar (unfortunately not labled in this diagram, but you can consider the nucleus to be the bar). And third there was the bulge/halo. As Bureau et al. discuss in their introduction, bulges were thought to be a mini-elliptical (inside the larger disk galaxy) that were created through accretion of smaller galaxy. Everything was thought to be a separate entity that really didn't interact much with each other.

Well, times have changed. Now, we're more worried about secular evolution (try this definition to ensure you that I'm not bringning religion into this discussion).

It seems that numerical/computer models show that anytime you set up a disk of stars, and a bar forms at the center (another story entirely), the bar evolves into a bulge - it sort of spreads out and up/down out of the plane of the galaxy. In the astronomical vocabulary, the bar heats up and becomes a bulge.

The observations made by the authors point to this same scenario. Obviously, no one can observe a galaxy evolving. To see any real change in a galaxy, you'd have to sit around for at least 10,000,000 years, and even then, you wouldn't see much. What we can do is look for circumstantial evidence of change. With very sensitive images, the authors found that galaxies with peanut-shaped bulges had evidence of stellar orbits related to bars.

What are orbits related to bars? (Now this part would get really technical if I wanted to write it, but here's a link to a technical page on disk galaxies written by one of the authors). Think about it for a second. A bar/bulge is composed of stars that are rotating around the center of a galaxy. If the stars were moving about randomly in the disk, they wouldn't be able to hold any collective shape -- the stars would melt back into the disk. But bars are special. Bars are formed because stars get trapped on certain orbits that look much more ovalish. These are called x1 family orbits. As long as most of the stars in the bar region are on one of these orbits, you see a bar.

The observations of bulges in this paper observe bar orbits in the bulge. Thus, the conclude that the bulge is actually a result of the evolution of a bar.

Here's the sequence: disk -> disk with bar -> disk with bar and bulge -> disk with bulge

Now, this never really struck me as odd, but apparently, it has been a tough leap for the astronomical conclusion, namely because it's very esoteric and no one studies it, but also because the observations are so hard to make. You'll notice that the authors used near-infrared (K-band) observations of the galaxies. This is because near infrared cameras can see through the dust at the center of the galaxies, and they also see the older stars that have settled onto the well formed orbits. Really, near infrared observations have only been good for 15 years or so, so galaxy dynamics is an evolving science.

Things to take away:
1. Everything inside a galaxy is connected. Even though we might label a galaxy as having a disk and a bulge, they're really part of one big hole.
2. Bars and bulges are formed by stars on particular/well defined orbits around the center of the galaxy. Bars/bulges would never appear if stars moved randomly about a galaxy.
3. If you want to see the inner parts of a galaxy, try to observe in the infrared.

Next time, I'll try to write about something a little more exciting.

Notes from the Education Trust Conference

2005-11-10T11:48:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so I've been a bit slow in posting these. Mostly because I had such a good time last Friday, but also, because I've been doing some extremely tedious document revisions for the past couple days. Sometimes, I just want to get the hell out of my job. Well, maybe that should read all the time.

Anyway, the first presentation I saw was:

"Redesigning College Math - Pre calc/College Algebra"
by Math instructors at Georgia State University

The topic presented in the session was one very near and dear to my heart - remedial/introductory college classes where loads of people fail, and those that don't probably don't learn anything anyway. They started out the presentation by putting up data of the grade distribution in the class. The pre-calc and college algebra classes at this school average 15-25% D's and F's, and another 18% of students in the classes withdraw. Stunning. They don't have data from other schools, but one of the presenters was a dean who had discussed the problem with administrators at other schools and had heard similar stories.

Let me take a moment here to say that I'm resisting the urge for people to drag the instructors out into the street and subject them to hours of the most horrid boredom I can imagine. Because that would be an easy conclusion. How does one legitimately have a class where a full third of the class doesn't pass? WTF? How can you at all claim to be an educator when a fucking third of your class doesn't learn shit? But then I remember the subtle messages and pressures that I felt as a new grad student (which is what the instructors of this class are), and I realize that the department chair is the dirty SOB who should be hauled out into the street and put into the stocks. Teaching attitude comes from the top of the department. I'm sure that the grad students are told to worry more about their research than their teaching. I'm sure that they're told that it's the pre-calc's students' fault for being so stupid in the first place. I mean, (and this is from the astronomy world) can you believe that students don't know that Jupiter's diameter is measured in kilometers and not centimeters? How could they be so stupid?

But I digress. At least this group is trying. Their process comes down to a mostly technological response to the program (the response was funded by NSF). In their old style classes, students spent their 3 hours per week in lectures. The professor droned, the students took notes, and then failed tests. The new version of the class had the students only meeting in lecture for 1 1/2 hours in lecture (and hopefully doing more active learning stuff), and then the other 1 1/2 hours in a nifty 88 seat computer lab. The students did a basically on-line class using MyMathLab. They did their quizzes and homework on line in the lab, or at home.

The certainly very interesting thing about their class redesign was that they forced the instructors to perform action research on their classes. Wow. Pushing scientists to research on their teaching. Now that is cool. The instructors met weekly to discuss what was going on in their class and to discuss research projects. The presenters displayed a number of these projects, and they were pretty good (It's amazing what a scientist can produce when asked to.) The research also provided a platform for the rest of the department to buy into the class redesign. Several studies did show that student learning increased through the new methods. Cool.

This was overall pretty good work. It's encouraging to see higher ed people participating in professional development (even if it's only grad students) and researching their own teaching work. The real test will be wether the upper level courses adopt this type of work, or if there will be enough push back on the grad student teachers in this class to not worry so much about student achievement. I asked the researchers to try to do an attitudinal survey of the gradstudents who participate in this class, and then measure them years down the road.

Unfortuanately, the course re-design doesn't solve the larger problems. Why do we have to teach remedial algebra at the college level? Why are these types of remedial college classes (obviously for students who have had trouble learning) some of the biggest classes on campus. Good high schools wouldn't do that. Why do colleges? And really, the $32 question for me, is how do we get real, significant (in the popular sense of the word, not the statistical) improvements to student learning and retention. The studies I mentioned above in the classes showed the the class average had risen on some standard questions. However, the average rose from 1.8/4 to 1.9/4. How do you get everyone to 4/4? Shouldn't that be our goal?

Possibly more to come this afternoon after my run.

Somewhat Liveblogging Ed Trust

2005-11-04T09:17:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm at the conference. I can't say that the financial lady is happy about me being here, seeing as how I didn't pay and all, but you know, I do work from time to time for them, and I'll probably be the only person going to the math session this morning, so they can really use me.

There's some kind of of morning session going on right now, so I'm just biding my time until that lets out. The first session I'm going to is on improving algebra and pre-calc classes for better student achievement in college. I'm not sure who's giving it yet, as they didn't give me a program. But, I imagine it will be interesting.

I think a plenary happens after that.

Waiting, waiting, waiting. . .

Will This Day Ever End?

2005-11-03T09:48:00.000-05:00

I can't believe it's not 10:00am yet!

I'm taking tomorrow off to go to the Ed Trust conference. Hopefully, I'll have lots to write about over the weekend. If there's one thing I love it's the Ed Trust conference. The people there are so intelligent and fascinating, and I always feel extra motivated afterwards.

Oh well. Back to Linear Transformations for a bit more.

More on Relationships

2005-11-02T14:21:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking some more about the post I did yesterday regarding how hard it is for a smart woman to find a good man. (Those words just strike me as so stupid together.)

I think the one thing I've noticed after more reflection is the lack of discussion regarding emotion. There's alot of self-pitty from MoDo. There's alot of whining from the guys mentioned in the story. And there's alot of anger and indignation from the various commenters. But really, there's not a whole lot addressing the underlying emotions (really anxieties) of the people involved.

I believe (really, I've come to believe somewhat recently) that most action in the world of humans is driven by emotion. Yeah, reason is nice and comes around every once in a while, when someone is in touch with what they are feeling, but I think that's pretty rare. I think that we don't at all appreciate the underlying importance of the underlying emotional structures that we are born into (I'm learning about Family System Theory lately). And our lack of appreciation is what's gone horribly wrong in the original article. MoDo probably feels anxious at some level, and so do the women that she interviews (and so do the men), but in some attempt to bring reason to the world, she attributes what she sees to rock solid biology. "Of course it makes so much sense that men have 'hunter' genes, and women have 'damsel in distress genese' and our modern society is going against the ways of nature!" Well, not so much. To me, genes that cause men to become "hunters" have little to do with the situations that MoDo writes about. The desire of most people to distance themselves form emotional conflict/closeness do.

Why would a man want to attribute borish behaviour to genetics? Well, besides being an easy excuse, it seems to me that when someone is hunting a less successful, but highly attractive female, a guy doesn't ever have to feel whatever is going on inside his own head. Men are taught from very early on to distance from emotions, and meet problems with quiet and determined resilliance. It's kind of hard to question yourself with that type of model to live up to. If I hunt women who are less successful than me, I never have to question my own vulnerabilities. It becomes all about them.

But what happens, when that women is just as successful and intelligent as me. My anxiety about whatever is wrong with myself, must go shooting through the roof. I'm forced to deal with things because the person confronting me is on the same level as me. It's got to be tough. And welcome to the world of divorce in the professional, educated class.

For women it's the opposite side of the coin. No matter how feminist your parents were, there are so many social cues that I couldn't imagine not feeling anxious about finding and keeping a man. (or you jump completely to the other side, and don't please anyone. I think that there isn't much naturally occuring middle ground for women on this issue.) That anxiety has to run through a relationship, and leads probably often to the things that MoDo points out in the article (stupid chivalry and the like) that we would never want for our daughters.

Women, unfortunately don't have a recourse like men. A man can avoid the uncomfortable feelings and run away to hunt without being looked unfavorably. Women have to stew in the kitchen.

I think I've probably rambled a bit in this post, and not really ended up where I originally intended to, but the main point I wanted to raise was that anxiety is everywhere. And although MoDo's article was a pile of steaming crap, it really does point out how people work through emotion rather than reason, and that we often try to cover up that emotion with reason. I think it's good to yell at the NYT for publishing such garbage, but change isn't really ever going to happen until we make it the societal norm that we question and look into our own emotions. I'll try to come back to this point in the future.

200th post

2005-11-02T14:19:00.000-05:00

Woo Hoo! I didn't think I'd actually be able to stick with this thing that long. Thanks for all your help, Makigirl. And thanks to the couple of random commenters we've had over the past year.

Unfortunately, though, I think our post number is going to rapidly catch up and pass the site counter.

MoDo's Junk Science

2005-11-01T09:41:00.000-05:00

I was chatting on the phone with Makigirl yesterday evening, and she told me about Maureen Dowd's Stepford take on the whole dating scene.

Not wanting to waste my morning writing too much about this (blame the victim, much?), I'll link to a couple other responses. Hopefully, they cheer Makigirl up a bit, and remind her that she's much better than any of the jackasses mentioned in the original article.

Personally, I think that the lovely Mrs. H. is a strong, intelligent woman who works very, very hard. I wouldn't want her any other way.

Sweet Honey

2005-10-31T09:51:00.000-05:00

On Friday evening, the lovely Mrs. H. and I went out on the town to see Sweet Honey in the Rock. It was absolutely amazing. Their sound was incredible, their message was great, and they already even had a song about the indictments. What a great Fitzmas Day celebration.

You know, I spend alot of time during my day listening to garbage music, simply to get me through the hours. Some of it, I actually enjoy and do choose to listen to. But as I was experienceing the concert, I realized how sad it was that good music like that is never played on the radio, and how many people are never exposed to this type of music. Because if you were in that concert hall, there was no way not to feel moved.

Celebrety Metro Driver

2005-10-28T12:29:00.000-04:00

Seriously, the conductor on my Metro train this morning completely had James Earl Jones' voice. I don't know if Metro was playing some sort of game, or if this guy was in the complete wrong line of work. All I know is that Darth Vader greated me when I got on this morning. Very freaky. (not to mention the evil looking "Men in Black" guy who got on at McPherson Square. Who wears sunglasses in the Metro?)

Waiting

2005-10-28T12:28:00.000-04:00

Fitzmas is only an hour and a half away. I think my refresh button is wearing out.

Adopt a Scientist

2005-10-19T09:26:00.000-04:00

The American Physical Society started a program that puts high school science students in email contact with practicing scientists. It's called 'Adopt a Scientist'. Although I'm not really sure how I've been adopted other than getting an email each from two students, but maybe in the future it will evolve into something else. It's a good program that I think should be greatly encouraged. Basically, it's the least that a scientist can do.

Anyway, here's my responses to the first set of questions (I did edit out a bit about my work):

1. How would you describe your job? What do you do in a typical day?

I work for a small engineering firm. My job title is “Research Analyst”, but I really do a number of different things. I do a fair amount of computer programming (in Fortran, Matlab, and C++). I do data analysis for some of the experiments that my company is working on, so I make a lot of graphs and charts. And also, I do some financial work, in that I project how much money we will spend on our different contracts, and help other people make decisions on what to buy based on how much we have left.

My typical day is spent pretty much in front of a computer. Our office is small and quiet. Probably once or twice a week, we have tele-conferences with colleagues at other companies and government offices, but otherwise, I work pretty much on my own. I did, however, get to go to Hawaii for an experiment last month.

2. Do you think that your educational background prepared you for your current occupation? What would you change?

Yes. Just to let you know, my degree is in astronomy, so it is a bit unusual for an astronomer to be working as an engineer on boats. So I have had to learn a lot on the job, simply because engineers communicate their physics knowledge a bit differently from astronomers. But, in terms of the “nuts and bolts” of physics, I learned everything I needed to in school.

Now, even though I feel like I learned what I needed to, there is certainly a lot I’d change about the way in which physics is taught to students, but that would take up a pretty long email.

3. What is the most interesting or unusual project you’ve worked on?

That’s a tough call, because I’ve actually been lucky to enjoy pretty much everything I’ve worked on so far, so I’ll just tell you what I’ve been doing lately.

I’m working on two projects. One is trying to make ships go faster by reducing their friction. The other project I work on involves the way that light reflects off of objects.

I’ll also tell you that some of the research that I enjoy the most involves learning about how students learn physics in class. I teach a lot, so I think it’s important to understand if what you’re trying to teach actually gets through to your students. Also, you want to know if the way you’re teaching is the most effective, compared to other ways of teaching you might try. So I have a few projects going on right now where we’re changing the way students do homework and tests to see if they actually learn more. I find these projects most rewarding, because I think they actually help people in a more direct way than some of the more “hard-science” based projects.

4. What advice do you have for current high school students interested in science? What advice would you give to someone looking to enter your field?

This is another tough one, because there is so much advice I’d like to give, but you’re only going to spend so long reading this email. There’s the obvious stuff, like learning a lot of math, and studying hard, and blah blah blah, but I think there are some more subtle points as well.

Try to participate in some real research as early as possible. It will give you a sense of what the life of a scientist is really like. There are many students who work really hard in school to be scientists, but then end up not liking science when they actually get to the research part of it. Daily life for a scientist is very different from science class, and it’s good to figure out if you like that or not early on.

The best physicists are not necessarily the people who do best on typical physics tests or other tests like the SAT (not that you shouldn’t try to do well on those things). Physics (and science in general) are creative processes. Being curious and persistent are qualities that really make a good scientist.

Along with that, remember that you don’t have to re-invent physics every time you do a problem or project. Learning to rely on what’s already been learned before and focusing on the smaller problem in front of you, is probably one of the most important skills that I’ve learned (and am still learning).

Even if you want to be a scientist, take lots of classes in college that have nothing to do with science. I was a history minor in college, and the perspective that those classes have given me as a scientist is invaluable. In my book, a scientist isn’t just someone who creates knowledge, they also help the world understand that knowledge. Also, it’s good to have some other skills/knowledge just incase you decide not to be a scientist.

Finally, science is a human process done by other human beings. Learning to understand and better interact with other people is often just as important as learning science knowledge itself. Think about your lab groups at school. Most of the time, probably, your group isn’t only focused on the science that it’s supposed to be learning. It’s no different in the real world. Finding people you want to work with and for, is very, very important.

5. What are the logistics of your work? (pay, hours, vacation time, collaboration with other scientists and non-scientists, balancing work and family, time spent gathering or analyzing data…)

I work between 40-50 hours per week, but sometimes it can be a bit more. I get 20 days off per year. Even though my office is small, we all work together pretty well. I’m just married, so I’m still learning to balance the family and work time, but I’m pretty happy so far. (Of course, I’d always like more time away from work.) And most of my time is spent analyzing data as opposed to collecting it.

Waddaya think?

The Glass Ceiling in My House

2005-10-14T10:57:00.000-04:00

(with all due respect to the Fresh Prince)

So yesterday, one of the elder scientists that we have working here comes to my office and asks for a folder of materials for this program I've been working on. I've been putting together a computer simulation, and the folder contained the design elements for the project. But none of that is all too relevent.

It seems that because I've had to work on some other projects, they want to give this one to our new receptionist hired last week. (This bothers me too, because I enjoy working on this particular simulation, and I have been spending some time on it, even though I'm not supposed to.) It turns out that the new receptionist has some basic computer knowledge, and that they're going to try to teach him some programming and potentially develop him into some sort of technician position. Great for him.

However, it's funny, because it seemed to me that the receptionist who just left a few weeks ago was a competant intelligent person. She could transcribe scientific documents and was able to help anytime I needed her to with computer issues.

Now, I don't know all the details. Maybe the old receptionist didn't want to do anything more complicated. Maybe she wasn't all that intelligent. But I do remember her sitting around alot and being bored. We have the need for the help. You'd think if we were so interested in having a technician, someone could have asked her?

Maybe Larry Summers was right, and the new guy is just a whole lot smarter. Or, maybe, yet another woman lost her chance at becoming involved in science because of our deeply held gender stereotypes.

Confessions of an Engineering Washout

2005-10-07T21:46:00.000-04:00

Food for thought.

I'll write more later.

I Heard it on the Radio

2005-10-06T09:39:00.000-04:00

It seems that there was a show on PBS last night about education reform, but I didn't get the chance to watch it. However, on the Kojo Nnamdi show yesterday, there was an interesting interview with the producer of the show. Also, Kojo interviewed Chris Whittle from Edison Schools. I thought he had some good insites, and as much as I find that he brings too much corporatism into education, I think he genuinely is into his work for the right reasons.

The one place where I did find that I had dissagreements with him was where he places such a high opinion on the American University system and how it teaches students. Basically, he wants to drop the number of classes in High school, and give students more independant time. He says that if it works so well for the Universities (where students spend about 1/3 the amount of time in class as high schoolers), then it should work in high school. There's something to this. I certainly believe that the American high school is way too rigid and doesn't allow for students to independantly follow ideas, nor does it allow for good mentorship. However, I think that he's wrong in thinking that Universities actually teach anybody anything.

There is a small minority of undergraduates who are able to involve themselves with their professors, begin reasonable research, and actually get something academically out of the experience. These students mostly go on to graduate school, and perpetuate the "great american university". But these students mostly started with good SAT scores, came from good high schools, and were going to get good grades no matter what.

The rest of students at universities go to class, do some work because they have to, pick up some life skills, make some social/work connections, and enter the work force 4 years later with probably not that much more academic skill than they started with. Largely, I would say this is the fault of poor teaching, but the blame really goes to the administrations that don't give their professors the environment, resources, training, or threat to teach more effectively. Although academic freedom is very important to the argument, as well as the diversity of courses of study, I would bet that many universities shy away from state level exit assessments, because they know that their students wouldn't do that well. And even if they did, I have to wonder whether college student scores would increase at all between an entrance and exit exam. (Yes, I admit that that test would be awful hard to define.)

If you want to base high schools on the honors college at Harvard, then be my guest. But, if you want them to look like the average university student's educational experience (which is what would happen if you weren't very very careful), then you're not helping anyone, and probably you're making things worse.

It's a Great Day for Hockey

2005-10-05T08:41:00.000-04:00

The greatest coach ever must be smiling today.

The Good Professor

2005-10-04T10:54:00.000-04:00

Even though humans are incredibly complicated and no real theory of human mental function would ever really fit into a blog post, I have to say that I agree.

The Science-Ed Paper of the "Day"

2005-10-04T10:30:00.000-04:00

In a similar vein to the astronomy paper from the other day, I have a stack of science education papers sitting on my desk that I'd like to read and store my thoughts. Most of these I get off of ERIC but there are some sources from other places. (It really sucks not being at a university without a big ed library now.) And like the astronomy papers, I'm going to focus on stuff I'm interested in, like student perception of science, teacher perception of science, student/teacher perceptions of each other, interesting framing of science topics, and efforts to bring science to disadvantaged students.

So, to start . . .

"Putting a Human Face on Chemistry: A Project for Liberal Arts Chemistry"
Kriz, G. and Popejoy, K.
2003, Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching

You know, I kind of like these little stories about what people do in their classes to make science more "interesting" or "applicable". As much as they probably don't do a whole lot in terms of changing whether non-science major students actually learn any science, at least they show that professors can try to do something different, and in this case, that a science professor can actually talk to an Ed school professor. (You'd think that after the last 10 years or so, we'd be beyond that being interesting, but I guess the world does move pretty slowly.)

The long and short of the story is that a professor of a non-major chemistry class decided that they wanted to look more at the human aspect of science, so they had the students research different chemists (living or dead), pick a chemist that they would like to visit their class, propose to the class (in the form of a presentation) why that chemist would be good to visit, choose one of the proposals, think up questions for the visitor, and then have that person (or an actor) visit. In my opinion, it's actually a half way decent idea. I think alot of people don't connect with science because they have no idea that scientists are human beings and have human stories. In fact, Kriz and Popejoy administered the "Draw a Scientist Test" (DAST) to their class, and found very similar results to other studies of young children. If we never interact with scientists in a meaningful way, we only conceptualize them as the movies tell us too, and often that means that scientists are alot smarter than the rest of us.

As such, the class picked Bill Nye, the Science Guy as the chemist they wanted to come visit. Don't get me wrong, I think that Bill Ney has done an amazing job of exposing children to science, as Don Herbert did before him. It's just that Bill Nye isn't actually a chemist. He doesn't do chemistry research. He does crazy things, and teaches children how to reproduce experiments that have already been done. I think the result of the class picking Bill Nye to come visit their class as a chemist, correlates highly with the results of the DAST for this class, and says alot about our public image of scientists. (Let me clarify that I don't blame Bill Nye one bit for this. I think he does a great job. I blame scientists mostly, and the media partially, for poor images of scientists.)

Some of the other proposals from the class included Neils Bohr, Marie Curie, and Linus Pauling. Granted they're all old and dead, so actors would have come pose as those people in this class, and the effect might not have been so great, but still research chemists who (at one time) stood at the edge of human knowledge were available. So, what does it say about a group of college students in a physical science class, who when told to choose a chemist to visit their class, don't choose a chemist? What does it say about their previous schooling and interaction with science, and what does it say about the fields of science themselves?

(I don't have answers right now.)

In the end, Bill Nye couldn't come anyway, but Kriz and Popejoy present survey results that say that the students' feelings towards science had greatly improved over the course of the semester and through this project. Particularly students' personal feelings about science improved, and their gender associations towards science improved. Unfortuately, the paper does not present data as to whether the students learned more than in classes without this activity. (I could launch into a diatribe about why university level classroom research is really difficult because of the innate structure of the university itself, but I won't.) This is unfortunate, but typical (hell, I've done it too), of these types of papers. It's largely a result of scientists not knowing much about assessment and experimental design. So, we're left to try it on our own.

Things to take from the paper:

1. Try crazy things in your classroom sometimes. Plain lecturing about chemistry (or physics or astronomy) hasn't taught many people much about these subjects in non-major classes anyway over the past 30 years, so you might as well try something different. (In Dr. Phil language, "How's that workin' for you?")

2. Hoagieboy thinks its a good idea to connect science with people. More students might learn more science when it's taught through the story of human interaction with ideas as opposed to formulas in a book. But don't go too touchy-feely.

3. How do we change our perceptions of science (or change science itself) such that when college students are given the task of and opportunity to interact with research scientists, they choose to do that? (Again, Bill Ney is great at what he does, but he isn't a research scientist.)

4. How do we make accessible the methods of education research to scientists, so that they can play around with their class and see if what they're doing is actually working?

Traveling CD

2005-09-29T09:00:00.000-04:00

The lovely Mrs. H and I are going to be in Florida this weekend for the holiday. (Yeah, I know, we're missing the actual holiday by a couple days, but then again, I'm not really Jewish either.) Here's the CD I made to while away the boredom that is driving around the flatness of southwest Florida. It might be kind of odd, seeing as how it switches from folk-pop to ska-punk at times. But mostly these are songs that have been stuck in my head lately, so I put them all in one place.

1. Gainesville Rock City ------- Less Than Jake
2. Zak and Sara ---------------- Ben Folds
3. The One I Love -------------- David Gray
4. Seven Days in Sunny June ---- Jamiroquai
5. Suite: Judy Blue Eyes ------- Crosby, Stills, and Nash
6. Babylon --------------------- David Gray
7. One Hit Wonderful ----------- Reel Big Fish
8. Three Marlenas -------------- The Wallflowers
9. Fired ----------------------- Ben Folds
10. American Idot -------------- Green Day
11. The Impression That I Get -- Mighty Mighty Bosstones
12. Clocks --------------------- Coldplay
13. Jesus Was an Only Son ------ Bruce Springsteen
14. Steve McQueen -------------- Sheryl Crow
15. Last Show ------------------ Reel Big Fish

Astronomy Paper of the "Day"

2005-09-28T09:45:00.000-04:00

Well, maybe day isn't quite the proper term, as I don't know when exactly I'll be able to update this, but at least I'll try. I figure this might be a good way to clear the stack of papers out of my astronomy folder and to contain my notes.

I get my papers from astro-ph, which is over there on the right of the blog, under science sites. The papers there are mostly pre-prints, so hunting down the official reference might be tough at times, but I'll do the best I can. You can also go to ADS to look up the authors. Most of these will be stuff that I'm interested in, so expect alot of disk galaxies and bars.

To begin with, here's a short article by a friend, a mentor, and some guy I've never met.

"Anti-Truncation of Disks in Early-Type Barred Galaxies"
P. Erwin, J. Beckman, and M. Pohlen
ApJ Letters
(astro-ph/0505216)

Well, that's alot to start off with. Since I've never done this before, I'm going to define a couple terms. First off, a galaxy is a large collection of stars, gas, dust, and dark matter (unless your my former advisor). For this article, we're only going to worry about galaxies that are disk shaped (like the ones in the previous picture). And further, we're only going to worry about galaxies that are barred. A galactic bar is an oblong structure of stars and dust in the center of a galaxy. In the previous picture it is the creamy, brown structure that runs basically horizontal through the middle of the galaxy. Oh, and an early type galaxy tends to have tightly wrapped spiral arms.

Hope that's a good start.

So, what does it mean for a disk galaxy to be truncated. Well, basically, the galaxy has to come to an end somewhere. If you think about a whispy sort of water cloud here in the Earth's atmosphere, there's always a point at the edge of the cloud where it doesn't look solid anymore. You may still be able to notice some fuzz at the edge of the cloud, but you can see the blue sky behind it. The effect here is caused by the decreasing density of water molecules as you further out from the center of the cloud. Really, even if you go a little further out from the center, you might think that you're looking at clear blue sky, but really there are a few water molecules there still associated with the cloud. It's just that your eyes are not sensitive enough to notice the tiny amount of light that they're blocking.

Galaxies are much the same way, except they are made of stars giving off light instead of water molecules blocking light. The traditional view has been that galaxies end very abruptly, call this truncation. You can sort of see this on the pictures above. As you look outward from the center, the galaxy is going along emitting light steadily, and suddenly the galaxy stops. (In reality, the amount of emission at the outer edge is less than that at the center, but the drop off after the outer edge in a truncated galaxy is significantly greater.)

However, if you look more deeply with a telescope, you can find different behaviour. In this paper, Erwin et al. looked at a number of early type barred galaxies. What they found was that the majority of their galaxies were not truncated at all. These galaxies simply faded away. The decrease in the amount of light from the center of the galaxy to the outside remained constant. This is primarily an observational effect. The outside edge of the galaxy has become very dim, even though it hasn't truncated yet. The amount of telecope observing time needed to see further out in the disk becomes very large and impossible to obtain. With bigger telescopes and more time, you might be able to see edge effects.

Erwin et al. found that less than 12% of the galaxies showed typical truncation effects, but that about 25% of the galaxies showed something called "anti-truncation". What this means is that the outer edge of the galaxy is actually brighter than what we would expect from a truncated disk, and brighter enven than if the galaxy simply faded away as in the previous paragraph (even though the edge is still significantly more dim than the center of the galaxy). This is unexpected. What could be the cause?

Erwin et al. site a process that is beginning to become regarded as very common in galaxies, interactions. This image shows M31 (the Andromeda galaxy) as the big blue/white thing in the center. But M31 has a companion galaxy, M32, that is the reddish blob up and towards the right of center (really it has a number of other companions). Even though M31 is significantly bigger and more massive than M32, M32 excerts a strong influence on the movement of the individual stars within M31. Really, M31 is shaped the way it is because of M32's presence.

Through other visual evidence, Erwin et al. claim that several of the anti-truncated galaxies in their sample do have companion gaalxies. They conclude that it is likely that that anti-truncation in general is a result of interactions with companions. This is a likely conclusion since barred galaxies in general are more likely to have companions, so it is not suprising that we see anti-truncation behaviour in this sample. It is also not suprising that Erwin et al. find more anti-truncated galaxies than truncated ones, as we are finding more and more that galaxies are effected by their outside environments, and that many galaxies previously thought to be isolated are actually part of rich communities of smaller galaxies (even if we can't directly see the smaller galaxies all the time).

Things to take away from all this:
1. Galaxies have an edge somewhere, but the nature of that edge tells us alot about the local environment of the galaxy.

2. Many galaxies have small companions.

3. Even if the small companions are not directly visible, it is possible to observe their effects on a large galaxy, and infer their existence.

Hope you enjoyed.

Takin' the Metro

2005-09-28T08:51:00.000-04:00

Don't I just love public transportation. My day is entirely different when I take the Metro to work as opposed to driving. Even though the metro ride is a bit longer (1 hour as opposed to 45 minutes), I feel so much more energetic when I get to work in the morning. And what a beautiful morning it was in DC too.

Hey, maybe if I keep taking the metro every morning, I'll start to love my job.

All right, that's probably pushing it.

Back to the Mainland

2005-09-26T10:43:00.000-04:00

I have returned again, and the trip was, well, you know, more of the same. I didn't end up having internet access while I was gone, but I did write alot, so I'll import it over the next week or so.

Hitting the Road Again

2005-09-09T17:18:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm off to Hawaii once again. I've got most of the stuff packed up from my office, including a few books about matlab. I had never really intended on learning matlab, it just sort of happened to me. Much like this whole job. I don't really want to learn another language, but it might actually help me deal with all the data from this experiement we're running. Also, seeing as how the company hasn't really bought me any other software that I do know how to use, I guess I should learn something.

I'm also bringing a bunch of astronomy and ed papers with me. I've been meaning to do alot of reading lately, that just hasn't happened. I'll be posting my notes on here, and if anyone other than makigirl reads this, you might enjoy some disk galaxies.

And when I get back, I'll actually get around to teaching some kids or something.

aloha.

The Democatic Wing

2005-09-08T09:35:00.000-04:00

I forgot to write about this the other day, but on Tuesday, I went to the Women's National Democratic Club to see Bill Lofy talk about his new book on Paul Wellstone. (You can buy the book here.

I had been interested in learning more about Paul Wellstone since that day I came home from work in November 2002 to the news of his plane crash. I had just been beginning to become seriously interested in the nuts and bolts of politics that year, and Wellstone's campaign was at the center of a lot of people's attention. Wellstone's reasoned, thoughtful stance against the war was inspirational to many of us lost in the woods of the disregarded left. Knowing that he had stood up for his core values, and that he was going to win re-election because of it made him a real hero. Democrats didn't lose in 2002 on election day. Democrats, along with all Americans, lost on the day that Paul Wellstone died.

Lofy gave an inside and touchingly personal account of Wellstone's life. Although much younger (Lofy was a staffer of Wellstone for most of his Senate career), Lofy seems to have gotten to know the Senator and his family very well. I was impressed with his speech and the power with which he carries Wellstone's message. (Lofy is the communications director at the Wellstone Action Center.) We certainly had a good time and left that evening proud to be Democrats and proud to carry on the tradition of Paul Wellstone.

My Afternoon of Posting Continues

2005-09-07T17:36:00.000-04:00

Probably the last one for the day, but the Rude Pundit just nailed recent events with this post. I thought I'd link to it, so that I could find it more easily in the future.

I wonder what Bible Study would be like with the Rude Pundit?

Vegans Should Be Held to the Highest Standards

2005-09-07T17:03:00.000-04:00

Makigirl sent me this article over the weekend, and I've been wanting to complain about it.

Where is it written in the Vegan/Vegitarian handbook that once you sign up for the cause, you must be 100% pure all the time? I don't remember hearing that when I took the Oath of Vegetarian Office.

I consider myself very much a vegetarian, and I've been one for a little over a year now. However, I ate meat last night. Mrs. H and I were at a favorite asian restaraunt in DC, and I decided to try some soup that had pork in it. If I were famous, though, the tabloids would probably running stories about it today, and calling me a effing hypocrite. The vast expanse of Middle America would be silently nodding their heads in line at the grocery store, and feel glad that in this land of individual liberty, all deviations are highlighted and harrassed until they are brought back to the norm.

I don't ever recall Andre 3000 ever telling me that I'm bad for eating animal derived products. I don't recall Andre 3000 ever sitting in judgement of the American people for their dietary choices. I don't recall Andre 3000 having the power to carry out those judgements even if he made them. I also don't really recall Andre 3000 being a "Famous Vegan" (although Makigirl may have told me once). I know Andre 3000 because he's a pretty decent rapper. That's why I don't quite find it "Baffling" (as the Arizona Republic puts it) that Andre 3000 likes to wear a wolf's tail. He can do whatever the hell he wants. It's not a fashion choice that I would make, but if he's comfortable with his actions, and he obtained the tail legally, then more power too him.

What I do find baffling is that the Arizona Republic would waste 1 kb of their hard drive on crap calling a vegan a hypocrite, when the biggest hypocrite of all continues to lie about outing undercover CIA agents, WMD's that have never been found, and a disaster relief effort that is a disaster in and of itself. Wouldn't that be a little more interesting and useful?

Still Working on the Pictures

2005-09-07T16:57:00.000-04:00

Mrs. H has gotten upset at me describing my last work trip as the "worst ever", and maybe that's not too bad of advice, especially given events in New Orleans in the past few days. So, I'll just say that it wasn't my favorite time ever, but I did get something out of it. However, I'm still not looking forward to the repeat performance next week.

Mrs. H is also working on turning us into Red Cross volunteers. She is a good lady, that Mrs. H.

World's Worst Vacation is Over

2005-09-01T09:42:00.000-04:00

Well, it wasn't exactly intended to be a vacation. I was going to Hawaii to do work, but one would hope that at least I could have a bit of fun. Unfortuanately after 2 1/2 weeks of 12-14 hour days, not being provided an edible lunch for about a week, spending time in the ugliest part of Honolulu imaginable, dealing with anxioius, obsessive compusive engineers, having an admiral and other "important people" wreck a couple days worth of testing, crawling through the belly of a ship through water and hydrolic oil, seeing the primary computer of our data system crash repeatedly with no good explanation, and hearing the people back home constantly complain about why our gigabytes of data weren't getting back to them every day, I have to say that even on the one day I did have off, I didn't really much enjoy Hawaii.

Maybe when I go back next Saturday, I'll enjoy it even more. Or not.

I'll try to put some pictures up next week after I get them developed.

Oh, and Makigirl started teaching this week. Here's the first post of her second year. Her class is going to be pretty cool, so make sure you check up on her.

Off to Hawaii!

2005-08-09T18:53:00.000-04:00

Work can take you to the most interesting places sometimes.

A Happy Morning

2005-08-09T10:52:00.000-04:00

I am really thankful that I was able to listen to NPR's coverage of the Space Shuttle's landing this morning. I was very giddy and emotional during my whole drive to work. I even clapped when the wheels touched down (but not too much as I was driving on the highway at the time).

One could say that my faith in the scientific endeavor of this country has been partially restored. But, the speed in which we are able to send up the next mission and our next space vehicle, will really speak to how committed we are to science and discovery.

It's nice to dream like a kid again.

Cute Puppy

2005-08-04T09:52:00.000-04:00

Pharyngula has the pictures of the puppy that was recently cloned by the South Koreans. And boy is he a cute one.

It's a great day for science and a sad day for America. How is it that the greatest research complex in the world (American universities) wasn't able to do this first? How is it that we let know-nothings hold back scientific progress in our country?

And yeah, there is a moral component to cloning - Notice that the researchers had to make over a thousand attempts before they had a puppy that lived. Snuppy had a sibling that died shortly after birth. Pretty sad. Imagine, though, if that sibling, or multiple siblings had lived with serious, but non-terminal genetic conditions. Who would take care of those puppies? But really, in the end, the researchers made a baby, a baby who is a different individual than the adult dog with whom he shares genetic information. It's not too different from what dogs all over the world do everyday.

Congratulations to Snuppy and his family.

A Bit Calmer

2005-08-03T09:39:00.000-04:00

Here are two links related to my post from yesterday.

The first, Abortion Clinic Days is the diary of two people who work in abortion clinics ( via Dr. B.).

And the second is a new bilingual ezine on abortion called Our Truths (Nuestras Verdades). ( via feministing )

Both sites tell the stories of the real women who make real decisions everyday. They're definitely worth spending some time reading and reflecting.

Rot in Hell

2005-08-02T16:44:00.000-04:00

The lovely Mrs. Hoagieboy calls me up at work a bit ago. She was very upset, and I was worried that something had gone wrong with her job. (Her office has some issues and isn't the most stable working environment in the world.)

Well, it turns out that she's actually upset about a patient. It seems that this patient recieved abnormal ultrasound results, and then later received abnormal chromosome results confirming that her baby had a severe condition. The patient wished to terminate her pregnancy, and went about setting up appointmets with her doctors. This was last week.

Today, however, Mrs. H. gets a call from this patient about how insurance will not cover her abortion, because guess what? She's second trimester. Mrs. H. didn't quite believe this, and offered to help the patient cut through the red tape. If there is anyone as persistent and resourceful as Mrs. H., I've never met her. If there is one person who can take on the insurance industry and bring themm to its knees, it's Mrs. H. Good results had to be on the way.

Unfortunately, the patient, being an employee of a certain government, simply can't get a late term abortion. She works for the wrong "company", Mrs. H or no Mrs. H. And that's why Mrs. H. called me up in tears.

How this is remotely just, fair, or even dare I say, Christian, I have no fucking clue.

From a purely economic standpoint, covering a few thousand for an abortion now would more than make up for the lost productivity and sick days in the future. And from a moral standpoint, well, I have no idea how an insurance company can say that this procedure isn't at the level of life threatening. This patient isn't asking for viagra or a face lift. She is in effect being required (not choosing) to spend the rest of her adult life caretaking for a child with a chromosome condition. Now, fine, many people have children with these types of conditions and lead wonderfully, happy lives. But this woman is more than competant enough to make the decision that she doesn't want her life to be that way. And more power to her.

And sorry, it's not her fault that the testing is only available or her doctor only refered her so late in her pregnancy that she can't get a first term abortion. This is complete garbage.

George Bush, I point my finger at you, you sanctimonious prick. You want a fucking culture of life? Then you take care of this child and it's mother. Because what you are doing is simiply horrible. Let this woman lead her life the way she wants to. Let her make her own decisions. Let her have her own pain. You don't know more than her. You aren't better than her. You're a simple fucking, fool, who got lucky to be born to the right family. Go home to Texas, or wherever you're really from, where you can't hurt anyone anymore.

Oh, and to the 50 million of you who voted for him. Go fuck yourselves.

Who Needs Education Schools?

2005-08-01T10:08:00.000-04:00

I just read this article in the New York Times called "Who Needs Education Schools?"

It left me feeling very disturbed, especially the, "They really think they're going to die" part.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Oh, and there's an Ed Trust quote in there.

My Secret Pleasures

2005-07-28T17:25:00.000-04:00

Today was a great day. Finally, Rhapsody (my music service) got around to buying all the Weird Al CD's.

What's that you say? You're not a geeky, 10 year old boy like me? Oh.

I guess I do realize that you've just lost a ton of respect for me, but did you really think that I was a member of the cultural elite before? I am an astrophysicst, after all.

In any event, I can now listen to my personal favoite, Albuquerque.

I'll return to my box of flesh eating weasels now.

Back from a Break

2005-07-27T16:52:00.000-04:00

I've been away for a couple weeks taking care of major life milestones, but I'm pretty much back at the office again. My normal posting will resume soon.

I added a couple new links to the side. Two of them are feminist sites that I really like, and the third is from a friend. Hope you enjoy.

Oh, and while I'm at it, thanks to the couple sites that have linked to us already. I really enjoy your work and ideas.

Finally, some action from Bush!

2005-07-21T09:46:00.000-04:00

Finally, Bush is doing something to help all Americans save energy!

U.S. Moves to Extend Daylight Time

I'm so happy he's working so hard on this problem.

A Couple Papers

2005-07-15T17:08:00.000-04:00

While I'm counting down the hours to being free this weekend, I thought I would collect my thoughts about a couple ed papers I'd read recently.

#1 -- "The instructional Behaviour of Teachers in Secondary Vocational Education as Perceived by the Teachers Themselves and by Their Students" Biemans, H.J. et al. 1999

Well, this paper has an extrodinarily long title, but is interesting none the less, and plays into ideas that I've been having about physics classes lately. Getting down to it, I'm interested in the idea of student push back to a new-model, project based, interactive style physics class (lot of adjectives, I know). If we think, as I do, that straight up lecture courses aren't the best way to get physics across to as many students as possible, then we must try different methods of teaching. But if our different methods of teaching don't fit in with student paradigms of learning (particularly with college kids, who've had alot of time to build up a paradigm), then what happens to student achievement?

The study in this paper looked at a couple thousand kids and their teachers in Voc. Ed classes in the Netherlands. I throw up some ignorance here and admit that I don't know what V/tech looks like in the Netherlands, but I imagine it's a bit different than here. The study used this thing called the "Questionnaire Instructional Behaviour" (QIB), which I'd like to get my hands on, to measure how both the teachers and the students percieved the instruction in their classes.

What they found was that the more the teachers activated (used active learning techniques), the more they were viewed as being "clear" by the students. Also, paradoxically, using active methods caused the teachers to be perceived with being more in control of a class. But the teachers ended up feeling the opposite. They felt unclear and out of control when they used active methods.

The other interesting result was that the teachers consistently estimated themselves higher on all aspects of the questionaire than did the students. The authors thought that this was because the teachers have a hard time viewing themselves. I would probably agree. When it's just you up there, you have to belive that you're doing good, otherwise, what's the point? And with the isolation of teachers, there's never another adult to really tell you what they think.

#2 -- "Learning Styles: Student Preferences vs. Faculty Perceptions" August, L. et al. 2002.

This paper is along the same one as the last one and looks at similar questions, but their sample is of American university instructors and students, but did focus a bit more on how students perceived active/collaborative tasks. They found that both students and instructors liked active learning, and found it useful. Suprisingly, they found that students found lecture only classes boring, and would rather be doing something else. I couldn't imagine that.

In a similar way to the previous study, though, faculty belive that they are much more active and interactive than the students say they are. Very few students classified their classes as being interactive, even though a majority of the faculty said that. Similarly faculty believe they give much more feedback and group work than the students see.

The lack of common perception is very interesting in both of these studies. Ultimately the discussion has to lead back to student achievement, if all the students are learning, then we shouldn't worry too much about satisfaction. But, my guess is that because many students do not percieve the opportunity for feedback and other interactions, that many of them are not learning to their potential. The authors of the second paper point this out the importance of the feedback opportunities, and I would have to concur. There is a misunderstanding when it comes to the meaning of feedback, and I would suspect that a good instructor would start looking for ways to expand their definition.

#3 -- "Drawing a Scientist: What we do and Do not Know After Fifty Years of Drawings" Finson, K. D. 2003.

This one is an interesting look at something that I do every time I visit a class. What are kids stereotypes of a scientist?

The paper points out everything we pretty much thought of already. Scientists are white, male, old, have weird hair, wear glasses, are smarter than you, have secrets, all wear lab coats, often are working with dangerous chemicals, sometimes work with weapons, and the like.

It's suprising that the conception of the scientist has been remarkably similar over the past 50 years, and in fact, the author says, is similar in other countries/cultures as well. And the stereotypes don't go away with time either, studies of pre-service teachers show similar results to children.

Luckily, it has been shown in some programs that bring scientists of all backgrounds to elementary classes, that the stereotypes can be broken, and students will draw different images. Also, students with "strong and positive self-efficacy tend to be those having more positive attidudes and tend to draw images with fewer science stereotypes in them."

I take hope in the last bit, but I also know how small and slow growing most scientist-in-the-classroom programs are. The author suggests more research into whether holding these stereotypes disinclines students from taking science classes, and what can we do about it if it does. I would say "mixed bag" and "depends on the kid", but in any case, it would be nice to start seeing scientists as real people.

I'm a real person.

Hope you enjoyed.

Good Edweek.

2005-07-15T10:25:00.000-04:00

(newly updated)

Well, now that Makigirl's bruhed that dirt off her shoulda. . . sorry, I couldn't resist. . . You know, Makigirl be a pimp too.

Edweek had some really nice articles in it this week. There's this one about the difficulties of teaching math to students whose first language is not English. I can imagine that this is often a tough task. As much as those of us in the science world like to give props to the glories of math, and bask in it's untouchable light, it can't be taught without using words. (Although, I think that would be a very interesting class -- Math for mimes.)

For quite some time, I've been having a debate/discussion with some coleagues (who are predominantly English/Language Arts teachers) about the need to include writing in math classes, and how important it is to be able to communicate in English while you're doing math. I came down on the side of math being something separate, and although it's good to be able to communicate in English what you're doing mathematically, it shouldn't be an absolute requirement of every problem. If you're able to sketch out the basics of a problem using numbers and variables, then there is no need, and you shouldn't be downgraded for not including all the "therefores", "we have now", and small bits of explanation. Those things make your answer more readable, and would be good for partial credit, but are not necessary for me to see that you understand the math. Assignments to learn the communication of mathematics should be in some sense separate from assignments to learn math, in my view, although it would be nice to practice them both all the time, and certainly no one should ever lose points for explaining too much.

Other's hold the opposite view from me. I see their point, but I see no need to hold every third grader up to the standard of Carl Sagan. One can survive, as evidenced by a walk around any physics or astronomy department, in this world only knowing math, but without knowing how to communicate it to a general audience. Developing both skills is important, and should be stressed, but a student shouldn't fail a standardized math class in elementary school simply because they didn't explain a problem they got right.

Story problems are to me a bigger problem, though. I'm a big believer that math and science should be taught as real-world applications, and not as a collection of traditional book problems. Unfortunately, that becomes harder with kids who are not familiar with the language that the problems are being asked in. I remember my own experience in Spain, where it was hard enough to manage in day to day life, let alone in graduate level physics classes. I'm very thankful that I was only doing my research there.

Kids who don't speak English well, are going to need extra help learning math, and I think the article does a good job framing the discussion.

There's also this interesting commentary about the benefits of dual enrolment for high school students in college. I think this is an important issue, and it is presented well by the author. The main problem is that right now dual enrolment is only reserved for either the best of the best students, or those very dissatisfied with their schools. It would seem to me to be good if we used the experience of these students, and start re-evaluating what high school really is. (Yeah, I think I promised a while back to write on that. I'll wait until the research paper I worked on gets released in a few weeks.) Why is there a transition between highschool and college? What would happen if they more smoothly ran into each other. Yeah, we would might have to alter our views on some traditions (like senior prom, or moving in day at college), but there might be alot of benefits to a more integrated system.

Oh, and because I continually point out how the Ed policy world is small, here is another study by my friends and here's one by a rather distant relative. (Who, by the way, you'll meet in a week, Makigirl.)

A little chip on the shoulder

2005-07-14T11:45:00.000-04:00

I was just reading this viewpoint on the CBC news website about what catches the public eye when it comes to science. The author, Stephen Strauss, has apparently written for the Globe and Mail for 20 years about science. Anyways, his point is that people get all jazzed up about images of science, like the recent Deep Impact mission, but that they don't get excited by things that they can't see nice pictures of. His counter (non-picture) example was a new discovery that the ecology of your intestinal tract determines how certain drugs affect you.

I see his point, but I don't like his attitude. First, he makes it sound like most people are too stupid or lazy to even crack open a science magazine or journal. So that, from the kindness of his heart, he must tell us the latest news. And then, he thinks he knows what will have a great impact on us when we look back on all of this in a hundred years or whatever. Yes, he chooses the intestine thing over the comet thing.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people getting all excited about the comet. And if they're not all excited about the intestine thing, then maybe it hasn't been communicated very well to the public, or maybe they really just aren't interested. But I'm sure he would just say I'm a biased astronomer.

Because We Can't Do It Ourselves

2005-07-12T09:46:00.000-04:00

Here's an article about math tutoring companies being set up in India. I guess I'm all for the free flow of information across borders, and you know, it would be interesting if more American kids were exposed to people from other cultures, but I think it's a real shame that there's a market for this, and that American's can't fill that market need. There just simply aren't enough Americans who know math to be able to do this job, or better put, there aren't enough Americans who realize that they know enough about math to do this job. And though I guess if you have a test coming up that you need to pass, you have to do something, but I can't buy that $30/hour for online help is really worth it. The instruction must be horribly formulaic and rigid, not what is needed for most people who need tutoring in the first place.