The JWST

This next post is not quite as heavy as the last one: more of a housekeeping thing really. Of those of you who voted, two of you got the correct answer. It was the James-Webb Space Telescope. The picture was of the thermal shielding designed to keep sun off the optics and radiate heat away from the (nearly) absolute zero imaging core.

To learn more about the JWST and its systems and mission, visit JWST/NASA.

The new image is up, again, a nerdy theme. Take a vote if you know what it is. Good hunting.
-Ty

JWST image courtesy of NASA.

So, there's this thing...

So, there's this topic I've been mulling over for a while now. The discrimination and harassment officer came to give a lecture to us TA's at our weekly meeting. The thing is, its kind of a sensitive topic, and I really don't want to ruffle any one's feathers. On the other hand, if I don't ask, I don't learn, so please try to keep an open mind and realize that I am not trying to offend. Each paragraph covers a different issue I am struggling with, and opinions/insights on any or all of them would be helpful. Here goes.

The ombudsperson, who's gender will remain ambiguous for the sake of my point, and whom I will refer to as Sam(-antha or -uel), came in to speak about discrimination in the student environment. Sam started with an introduction about race, and race stereotypes, then gender and gender stereotypes. There was quite a bit of statistical data to back up Sam's claims but it was clear that these were issues of personal relevance rather than pure conclusions from the data.

The claim that really surprised me, and one that Sam enforced particularly vehemently was the distinction between girl, woman, and lady. I have never paid any attention to the difference these labels imply. In fact, I would have even said they are synonymous. Sam took great exception to this fact, stating that a girl, is a female human shy of age 18, a woman is a female human aged more than 18 years, and lady is a class distinction and social assumption. I tried asking questions, and any time I said girl, Sam fiercely interrupted me and would not let me continue until I had said woman, at which point, more often than not, I forgot what I was asking. My professor raised his hand at one point with a reply to Sam taking exception to the term lady, stating that lady was a compliment, synonymous with gentlemen. Sam replied by asking how a lady was expected to behave, and they argued back and forth for a while before Sam conceded that my professor was just from a different era. My professor is ancient. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he had witnessed the colonization of the western United States. And Sam is quite old, all grey hair at the least, but not at retirement just yet. My question is, in this day and age, with reasonable young adults such as myself and my readers, is this still a valid concern? I've always used, guys/girls, dudes/lady-dudes, bi*ches/c*cksuckers, whatever...

The second issue that I found surprising was the need for "women only" manufacturing classes. The reasoning behind these classes is that when in a class of dominantly male students, the females tend not to take initiative and therefore don't learn the machines as well as a guy would. In order to address my issue with these special classes, lets take an example: genderless people (which is the ideal in an educational environment). Student A and B go into a shop class, and student B takes hold of the machines, makes the part, and does the work, while student A stands behind B and watches. Then when both tested, student B gets a pass, and student A fails. Why? Because student B did the work. Student B took the initiative to actively learn while student A did not. So the grade seems fair? Or should we make a class where only student A can attend, and make sure student A gets the education that he/she was unwilling to apply him/herself toward? Perhaps this is the method that is used in high school, but college is voluntary, only students who want to be there pay that much money to go. If student A doesn't want to learn, fine, right? But what if student A is a girl, and student B is a guy? now all of a sudden student A should be given extra opportunities to learn? should be given "women only" classes? That tastes a little like "special privileges" doesn't it? And isn't giving special privileges to women a recognition, even a validation, of their need for such treatment? Isn't a "women only" class simply underlining the fact that people think they can't do as well and so should be treated differently? Perhaps there is another metric I'm missing here. And when I asked Sam if there was, the answer is that the school is trying to raise the number of women in attendance in the engineering program. Which I also disagree with, because if you make special compensations to raise the statistics in one group, that's equivalent to padding your data, which I find ironic for the school of engineering and applied science.

Last is very similar to the previous issue, except that instead of gender, it involves race. Being half Asian, but not looking it, gives me the unique perspective of seeing both sides. I'm treated as middle-class white-America by my peers and friends, yet I am a minority, especially here in Colorado. I visited the multicultural center once, and have never gone back. I was treated with a little bit of scorn because I don't actually look Asian. So here is this middle-class white guy coming into the center looking for some help. Needless to say, not the warmest welcome one would expect to receive. My issue with this is the same as my issue with gender, and again, I suspect it arises from ignorance about all the intricacies of the issue.

The conclusion that I have come to is that compensation and special treatment are not effective means of breaking down sexual and racial barriers in an institution. In fact, I would posit that it causes the opposite of the desired effect by drawing real, tangible, boundaries between the different race and gender groups. Perhaps it makes the numbers look better, but what should we be more concerned with, attendance numbers, or segregationist thought?

The unfortunate result of all this is that I've now begun to notice. Notice the fact that some of my student teams only have 1 girl in them, notice the teams that have girls as the team leader, or notice when a girl is doing active work in the machine shop. Notice when an Asian is doing the writing, notice when a black student is giving the presentation. And worst of all, once or twice, the thought "wow, good for them" fluttered across my mind. Where once I wouldn't have noticed, I now distinguish, where once I wouldn't have cared, I now feel the differences. I once was blind, but now I see, and that is definitely not a good thing.
-Ty

first image courtesy of Wikimedia

Fullmetal Alchemist

It's that time again!

Time to name the answer to my title-bar quiz and post a new image to be guessed at.

For those of you who voted, 5 of 7 of you got the correct answer. It is indeed an Alchemic Trasmutation Circle which comes from one of my favorite anime series: Fullmetal Alchemist (FMA).

There are several different transmutation circles the characters use to manipulate the world in various ways. This particular circle is quite significant in the series in that it is used to seal a homunculus. I won't go into more detail than that because if you haven't seen the series I wouldn't want to ruin it.

FMA is an excellent blend of beautiful anime, with humor, and a storyline to melt your brain. One of my favorite elements of the show is the character interaction. By the end of the 14 disk series you get such a feeling of family and connection to all the characters because they all have a connection to each-other. It was so popular as a manga and anime in Japan, that it has been translated into English extremely well. So much so that I would recommend watching it in English! I know, I know, blasphemy, but seriously, they did such a good job that the subtitles just don't do it justice.

If you live in the Boulder area, I'd be happy to lend you my copy, or I'm sure you can rent it from Netflix if that's more your thing.

Now, onto the new picture! Take a vote if you think you know where it comes from. Again, its just a snippet from a larger image, and it will most likely have a nerdy influence.

Good Luck!
-Ty

pic via someone's Friendster profile

A Slightly Greener Ski Season

As you may or may not know, I try, where possible, to be "green." This means that I recycle, use a personal cup at Starbucks, buy eco-conscious products and clothing, and try my hardest to get good gas mileage.

It's a terrible shame that ski racks cause so much aerodynamic drag when you're driving at relatively high speeds (40+ mph). Your car feels sluggish and your gas mileage tanks (pun totally intended). One way to help that is to buy a fairing. It eliminates the area between your ski rack and the top of the car, thus keeping your top profile continuous, and reducing drag. I won't go into all the nerdy details, but they really help.

I've been meaning to get a ski-rack fairing for quite some time now, its just been a matter of money. I had a birthday recently and got an excellent present from my father in the form of a check. Which I used a rather large chunk of at REI to buy the fairing that was made for my ski rack. Much to my dismay, and not much to my surprise, it didn't fit. I seem to have a non-standard cross bar for my car, which gives me no end of trouble. So now disgusted not only with the product I bought, but the outrageous price I paid for it, I took it back.

Then while I was in class this afternoon, I got a great idea to just build my own! The university has tons of scrap materials, and they'll let you use the machine shop any time its open. So I took an hour this afternoon and fashioned my own with some rudimentary measurements of my rack. The results of my labor and dumpster diving are...


Amazingly, it worked on the first try. Any of you who know me, know that I can hardly ever get anything right the first time. I tried it out on the highway and there was no rattling or buzzing or anything! I coated the bottom edge in cloth (hockey) tape so that it wouldn't scratch my roof.

I paid $3.60 for raw materials (instead of the $80 REI wanted), spent an enjoyable hour in the machine shop, and came out with an easy way to make my car more efficient. Not only did I stop that annoying whistling sound that the rack makes when there are no skis in it, I get to show a little nerd pride with all the stickers.
-Ty

You'll also notice I'm saving water by keeping my car absolutely filthy!

Professors

I am now a few weeks into my Master's career at CU Boulder, and I have begun to notice several differences between the masters program and the bachelors program. The classes are smaller, the work is more difficult, there is quite a bit less supervision, and the most striking thing is that students get the chance to actually meet and interact with the professors on a regular basis.

This has given me a chance to see the teaching styles and personalities of my professors, and compare them to one another. Even after only 4 weeks, I can easily decide which professors I like and which ones I do not. But less obvious is deciding if my reasons for liking or disliking them means that they are a good or bad professor.

For the sake of example, we'll call one professor A and the other B. I didn't really like professor A as an undergraduate, he taught a class that was wholly uninteresting to me and I had a little trouble understanding him. Where as professor B taught my favorite subject and while he talked strangely, was not difficult to understand. After taking graduate classes from each professor, I have come to realize that I liked/disliked each professor more because of the subject they taught than because of the type of teacher/person they were. I never went to office hours as an undergrad, but my friends always told me that professor A was very nice and helpful, while they said professor B was sort of hard to get a hold of.

Since being a graduate student, I have had nothing but good experiences with professor A. He IS helpful, and patient, and genuinely seems to want to listen to your questions and answer them. With professor B however, I have gone to his office on many occasions, some with prior arrangement and some without. In both cases, he had someone else in his office, or was not even there. One occasion he was chatting with the department's AA for 20 minutes of my hour with him while I sat in the hallway waiting. He even said to me on one occasion, that he would not help me, because I am a graduate student and he wouldn't hold my hand. Which I would expect if I went in there and said, "do this homework for me." But I had gone in wanting him to clarify his lecture because I had no idea what was happening.

Each professor's attitude toward me has greatly influenced the method in which I learn for the class. In professor A's case, I email him asking my question. Without fail, I get a helpful (if sometimes vague, which is fine) answer back within the hour. In the same situation with professor B, I rarely ever get an email, so I am forced to go to his office hours, where he tells me he won't help. I got through the last few assignments by going to one of his graduate students and asking them if they had any source material that would help, and I went home and read it.

I think each professor's style can be broken down into one of two categories: Teach Yourself, or Learn by Asking. It's easy for me to pick my preferred method, and I presume my readers can guess it just by the tone of this post so far, but I vastly prefer the latter option. I pay exuberant amounts of money to have interaction and instruction from intelligent individuals who's job it is to instruct me in the complexities of our field. If I wanted to teach myself, I could just go to the library and read the material there for free. It is much easier to learn when the knowledgeable individual answers questions, and leads the student to the correct conclusion. That way, both the student and the professor know the student is on the right track. In the Teach Yourself method, how is the student ever to know if he or she has drawn the wrong conclusion at any of the million steps it takes to learn a subject matter?

While my preference is clear, does either method mean that the professor who employs them is a bad or good teacher? Having the students be actively engaged in their learning does seem to be an effective method. And you do learn quite a bit by teaching, so perhaps having students learn on their own, and then teach others is an effective method. But it begs the question, what do you need a teacher for? And it begins to feel a little like the blind leading the stupid. Perhaps the solution to this problem in the Teach Yourself method is to provide light supervision and direction to make sure the students are learning the correct things on their own. But this is a very difficult thing to do, and most professors aren't very good at it.

I used to think that research professors made terrible teachers, but it seems to be that anyone can be a good teacher as long as they give thought to the learning that their students are doing. Therefore it seems perfectly plausible to have a good research professor, who is also a good teacher (as in the case of professor A). Unfortunately, as in the case of professor B, it is equally plausible to have a professor utilize the Teach Yourself method (while not my favorite, a proven method) to avoid active participation in his student's learning.
-Ty