I really like this time of year. Why is that? I like this time of year because the students are doing their projects. On the one hand, it is all a bit crazy. CHEM1415, the introductory analytical chemistry course, has nearly 70 students and all of them (except those exempt from labs) do a short project. Each project is meant to be unique and they are allowed to titrate, weigh, and do spectrophotometry (includes atomic methods). It is amazing what you can do with these “simple” starting points. Here is your chance to test your knowledge. Trust me, these projects test mine and every time I run the course I learn something.
So here it goes, how would you do the following analyses?
Acidity and alkalinity of water.
Water Hardness.
Dissolution kinetics of spherical objects.
Carbonate in Detergent.
Calcium in antacids.
Vitamin B12 in supplements.
Acidity of vinegar.
Fluoride in toothpaste (not using an electrode!)
Zinc in supplements.
Antacid strength.
Phosphate in water.
Iron in Spinach.
Biological oxygen demand.
Test of a water purification system to remove calcium.
Free and bound potassium in soil.
Citric acid content in citrus juice.
Acidity of soft drinks.
Lead in plants and soil.
Fatty acid in soap.
Base content of cleanser.
Caffeine in tea.
Ca in milk (2 ways).
Solubility of Calcium Hydroxide.
Free alkali in soap.
Iron content of tap water.
Dissolved Oxygen in Seawater.
Phosphoric acids content of Coca-Cola.
Na (well Cl) content in potato chips.
Volatile acids in wine.
Characterization of the Cabbage juice indicator (pKas).
Caffeine content of sodas.
Aluminum content of deodorant.
Glucose in Urine.
Lead in paint.
Fat content of milk.
Aspirin content of a tablet.
Copper in pennies (two methods).
Pb in seawater.
Hydroquinone in skin lightener.
Fe in supplements. (two different methods)
Caffeine in Chocolate.
Ethanol in drinks (no chromatography!).
Mg and hydroxide content of milk of magnesia.
This is only the first 40 students or so. It is amazing what students can teach you.
I want to thank the technical staff for putting up with the difficulty of running this part of the course.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
My problem with the Q-test (Long)
The Q-test is a simply calculated test statistic that is presented in many textbooks on analytical chemistry as a sufficient criteria for throwing out “outliers” in data sets. Nearly every modern analytical chemistry textbook has a section on this test and it is presented early and often in the University level curriculum. I think it is presented for several reasons. First, it is an easy statistic to compute. There is very little work involved and (I think) textbook writers hope students will spend time pondering the statistics with all the extra time students have after completing the computation. Second, it is a relatively satisfying test because it allows people to eliminate unsatisfactory data. Even I have to confess there is something satisfying about getting rid of a data point that just seemed out of place. Third, it seems to grip the imagination of students in ways that t-tests and F-tests do not. Perhaps, they see it as useful somehow and, therefore, relevant.
Even I can concede all these points. Who can argue against an easy statistical test that catches the imagination of students and leaves a satisfying feeling on successful execution?
Well… me.
What is my problem with the Q-test? Well everything I just said and some. First, philosophically, I am deeply suspicious of people throwing away data. You may argue that the Q-test justifies the exclusion of data, so I am talking rubbish. I will get to this in a moment, but for now just take it as a philosophical disagreement. Second, the Q-test has an underlying assumption of normality. Third, there is a somewhat better test of outliers called Grubb’s test which is recommended in preference to the Q-test by ISO (International Standards Organization). Finally, in my experience as a practicing scientist I have seen far too much removal of inconvenient data. Much was completely unjustified (in particular a certain oil company where I worked which shall remain nameless).
Philosophical objection
Let me begin with an anecdote.
Once upon a time I was headed north along the freeway between the Boston and Manchester, New Hampshire. It was winter and really quite cold. I had a nice energy efficient diesel VW rabbit (Golf for you Europeans). Did I tell you it was cold? I think I did, it was damn cold. I was driving along minding my business and the car started slowing down for no good reason. It went slower and slower and rolled to a stop on the edge of the freeway. I got out and poked around under the hood. Did I tell you it was cold? Just in case you missed it, IT WAS COLD. I didn’t see anything wrong under the hood – didn’t really expect much. I contemplated getting out and walking, but it was too COLD. I got back in the car, turned it with the starter for a while and… it started. I managed to limp to a service station.
You are all wondering, “why is this person telling me this?” The real important question is why did my car stall and me nearly freeze to death? Too much water in my fuel is the answer. Working in an oil refinery a few years later I became suspicious that the real reason was that water is cheaper than diesel fuel and summer and fall diesel fuels can contain more water than winter diesel fuel. In cold weather, the water separates from the fuel, turns to ice, and plugs up the fuel filter. During the warmer months cutting the water content specification “close” or just ignoring the test because it takes too long makes the company money. So, if you throw out or “mend” the numbers (they called it “pencilling” at the oil refinery) you make everyone happy. The guys in the plant are happy because it is less work for them, management is happy because they make more money selling maximum water and every little bit counts… So the pressure is on. Throw out the offending number and ship the product.
Which brings us to the point of the anecdote, if you measure something every day for a month (say water content) and get a particular value then you get a high out-of-specification value, what do you do? Well… Do you apply the Q-test, reject the number, and not tell anyone? Hmm… I didn’t think so. A single value is sufficient to tell if your process is out of control. You do NOT throw that out. Why not? Not only is it bad practice, but you might cause someone lose their toes to frostbite.
Ok. I think I have convinced you not to use the Q-test indiscriminately. Clearly, there are situations where you don’t want to throw out “abnormal” data. What is murky is when it is appropriate to use. I can give you a guideline: Be sure you know what you are doing and why you are doing it, before throwing away ANY data. My philosophical position is throwing away data, “massaging” data, pencilling data, and all related activities can be extremely dangerous to your science. Think of children playing with dynamite. Be sure the little guys know what they are doing, hmm.
Statistical worries.
The problem of removing outliers in its most general sense is the idea that the outlier does not belong to the same distribution as the rest of the data. Sort of a dogs and cats kind of idea. Suppose you did an experiment weighing neighborhood animals. Further suppose that most of the animals in that neighborhood were dogs and relatively big dogs. If you were only looking at the mass you would probably notice a cat. It would appear as an outlier. The cat would weigh much less and when you saw that mass you might try to test whether it fit with the rest of the distribution. This is the concept.
Seems pretty clear, what is the problem? Well in reality there is seldom an a priori reason to remove a value. If we have prior knowledge that a cat has gotten into the dogpile, we would keep the categories separate and there is no need for statistical help. The Q-test is used in cases when there is no a priori reason to tell you that one of your points is a cat rather than a dog. Therein lies the issue. The Q-test tells you the probability that a particular data point is not part of the same distribution and the probability that you are making a wrong decision. The danger lies in the following two issues: bias in application of the Q-test and the rest of the “outlier’s” distribution.
Both of these are rather insidious. Bias is the most obvious. I have yet to see a student (or anyone else) systematically test every single data set for outliers. Rather, the Q-test is usually applied only when someone thinks the outcome of the test might make a difference to their conclusions. If you are doing the latter you are really up to no good. Not at all. Almost assuredly you are trying to establish tenuous conclusions on marginal data. If a single point makes that much difference, maybe you should think about your experimental design a little more carefully or run a few more experiments. Otherwise, you are probably just biasing the conclusions of a marginal experiment in the direction you would like it to go.
The more subtle problem with the Q-test is that that outlier may belong to another distribution. All distributions have “tails.” One may wonder where the rest of the outlier’s distribution is. Yes indeed. If you throw out the one outlier because it belongs to another distribution then philosophically you should remove all the data that belong to that distribution. You may wonder how to do this. I wonder about this too. No one has ever told me. I suspect it is not easy.
For interested students, this isakin to the concept of a and b errors.
What is reality?
This is a big question. As an experimentalist, I see reality as data. To my eyes there is no bad data, only incompletely understood data. Data may reflect artefacts, poor experimental design, or what have you, but… it is always correct. The interpretation may easily be flawed, but the data is always correct. Remember this.
The Q-test assumes that the data are normally distributed. The normal distribution is a theoretical notion (a very useful one, don’t get me wrong), not reality. I do not recall any of the large data sets that I have worked with really conforming to a normal distribution. They all tend to have broader “tails” than “expected.” I am convinced there is something to this, but don’t have the theoretical background to do much about it. I have heard that the Mathematician Mandelbrot (of fractal and Mandelbrot set fame) has been looking at aspects of this problem.
So why am I saying this? Just that data fitting a Normal distribution is less common than you might think. When you throw out data, what you may be doing is “forcing” your data to match a theory which is not applicable. This may be a case of bending reality (data) to fit a preconceived notion. Be careful.
What do you mean?
This is the most important point. What do you mean when you throw out data? Consider the weighing of pennies. You weigh a thousand of them and then throw out a subset. Does this mean these were not pennies? No, it just means they are different pennies. What about the person getting a 100 percent on an exam where the rest of the class was clustered tightly around a mean of 40? Is this person not a student? There is something different about the person, but what do you intend to do once you have made this distinction?
Which brings me to my final point? Throwing out a point should never be done. What you are doing is separating data based on whether it belongs in a single distribution. The process should not stop there. If it is not the same, what does this mean. Can you learn something from this?
Hopefully I have made my point. I am suspicious of the Q-test. It is too easy, it grips the imagination, and is a bit too satisfying for my taste. Use it cautiously if at all. Remember, these tests are not for “throwing away” data. They are for establishing the likelihood that it belongs to another distribution – not for establishing that the data is “bad.”
Even I can concede all these points. Who can argue against an easy statistical test that catches the imagination of students and leaves a satisfying feeling on successful execution?
Well… me.
What is my problem with the Q-test? Well everything I just said and some. First, philosophically, I am deeply suspicious of people throwing away data. You may argue that the Q-test justifies the exclusion of data, so I am talking rubbish. I will get to this in a moment, but for now just take it as a philosophical disagreement. Second, the Q-test has an underlying assumption of normality. Third, there is a somewhat better test of outliers called Grubb’s test which is recommended in preference to the Q-test by ISO (International Standards Organization). Finally, in my experience as a practicing scientist I have seen far too much removal of inconvenient data. Much was completely unjustified (in particular a certain oil company where I worked which shall remain nameless).
Philosophical objection
Let me begin with an anecdote.
Once upon a time I was headed north along the freeway between the Boston and Manchester, New Hampshire. It was winter and really quite cold. I had a nice energy efficient diesel VW rabbit (Golf for you Europeans). Did I tell you it was cold? I think I did, it was damn cold. I was driving along minding my business and the car started slowing down for no good reason. It went slower and slower and rolled to a stop on the edge of the freeway. I got out and poked around under the hood. Did I tell you it was cold? Just in case you missed it, IT WAS COLD. I didn’t see anything wrong under the hood – didn’t really expect much. I contemplated getting out and walking, but it was too COLD. I got back in the car, turned it with the starter for a while and… it started. I managed to limp to a service station.
You are all wondering, “why is this person telling me this?” The real important question is why did my car stall and me nearly freeze to death? Too much water in my fuel is the answer. Working in an oil refinery a few years later I became suspicious that the real reason was that water is cheaper than diesel fuel and summer and fall diesel fuels can contain more water than winter diesel fuel. In cold weather, the water separates from the fuel, turns to ice, and plugs up the fuel filter. During the warmer months cutting the water content specification “close” or just ignoring the test because it takes too long makes the company money. So, if you throw out or “mend” the numbers (they called it “pencilling” at the oil refinery) you make everyone happy. The guys in the plant are happy because it is less work for them, management is happy because they make more money selling maximum water and every little bit counts… So the pressure is on. Throw out the offending number and ship the product.
Which brings us to the point of the anecdote, if you measure something every day for a month (say water content) and get a particular value then you get a high out-of-specification value, what do you do? Well… Do you apply the Q-test, reject the number, and not tell anyone? Hmm… I didn’t think so. A single value is sufficient to tell if your process is out of control. You do NOT throw that out. Why not? Not only is it bad practice, but you might cause someone lose their toes to frostbite.
Ok. I think I have convinced you not to use the Q-test indiscriminately. Clearly, there are situations where you don’t want to throw out “abnormal” data. What is murky is when it is appropriate to use. I can give you a guideline: Be sure you know what you are doing and why you are doing it, before throwing away ANY data. My philosophical position is throwing away data, “massaging” data, pencilling data, and all related activities can be extremely dangerous to your science. Think of children playing with dynamite. Be sure the little guys know what they are doing, hmm.
Statistical worries.
The problem of removing outliers in its most general sense is the idea that the outlier does not belong to the same distribution as the rest of the data. Sort of a dogs and cats kind of idea. Suppose you did an experiment weighing neighborhood animals. Further suppose that most of the animals in that neighborhood were dogs and relatively big dogs. If you were only looking at the mass you would probably notice a cat. It would appear as an outlier. The cat would weigh much less and when you saw that mass you might try to test whether it fit with the rest of the distribution. This is the concept.
Seems pretty clear, what is the problem? Well in reality there is seldom an a priori reason to remove a value. If we have prior knowledge that a cat has gotten into the dogpile, we would keep the categories separate and there is no need for statistical help. The Q-test is used in cases when there is no a priori reason to tell you that one of your points is a cat rather than a dog. Therein lies the issue. The Q-test tells you the probability that a particular data point is not part of the same distribution and the probability that you are making a wrong decision. The danger lies in the following two issues: bias in application of the Q-test and the rest of the “outlier’s” distribution.
Both of these are rather insidious. Bias is the most obvious. I have yet to see a student (or anyone else) systematically test every single data set for outliers. Rather, the Q-test is usually applied only when someone thinks the outcome of the test might make a difference to their conclusions. If you are doing the latter you are really up to no good. Not at all. Almost assuredly you are trying to establish tenuous conclusions on marginal data. If a single point makes that much difference, maybe you should think about your experimental design a little more carefully or run a few more experiments. Otherwise, you are probably just biasing the conclusions of a marginal experiment in the direction you would like it to go.
The more subtle problem with the Q-test is that that outlier may belong to another distribution. All distributions have “tails.” One may wonder where the rest of the outlier’s distribution is. Yes indeed. If you throw out the one outlier because it belongs to another distribution then philosophically you should remove all the data that belong to that distribution. You may wonder how to do this. I wonder about this too. No one has ever told me. I suspect it is not easy.
For interested students, this isakin to the concept of a and b errors.
What is reality?
This is a big question. As an experimentalist, I see reality as data. To my eyes there is no bad data, only incompletely understood data. Data may reflect artefacts, poor experimental design, or what have you, but… it is always correct. The interpretation may easily be flawed, but the data is always correct. Remember this.
The Q-test assumes that the data are normally distributed. The normal distribution is a theoretical notion (a very useful one, don’t get me wrong), not reality. I do not recall any of the large data sets that I have worked with really conforming to a normal distribution. They all tend to have broader “tails” than “expected.” I am convinced there is something to this, but don’t have the theoretical background to do much about it. I have heard that the Mathematician Mandelbrot (of fractal and Mandelbrot set fame) has been looking at aspects of this problem.
So why am I saying this? Just that data fitting a Normal distribution is less common than you might think. When you throw out data, what you may be doing is “forcing” your data to match a theory which is not applicable. This may be a case of bending reality (data) to fit a preconceived notion. Be careful.
What do you mean?
This is the most important point. What do you mean when you throw out data? Consider the weighing of pennies. You weigh a thousand of them and then throw out a subset. Does this mean these were not pennies? No, it just means they are different pennies. What about the person getting a 100 percent on an exam where the rest of the class was clustered tightly around a mean of 40? Is this person not a student? There is something different about the person, but what do you intend to do once you have made this distinction?
Which brings me to my final point? Throwing out a point should never be done. What you are doing is separating data based on whether it belongs in a single distribution. The process should not stop there. If it is not the same, what does this mean. Can you learn something from this?
Hopefully I have made my point. I am suspicious of the Q-test. It is too easy, it grips the imagination, and is a bit too satisfying for my taste. Use it cautiously if at all. Remember, these tests are not for “throwing away” data. They are for establishing the likelihood that it belongs to another distribution – not for establishing that the data is “bad.”
Thursday, February 24, 2005
BIOC2325 1: Importing pictures into ImageJ
ImageJ is a very useful and free program which has been made available by NIH. It also includes many useful plug-ins including gel documentation libraries, 2D FFT filtering, and much more.
If you are interested in a copy, visit: http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. The program itself is a Java update to an earlier program called NIHImage. The author W. Rasband deserves considerable thanks for his assistance bringing quantitative image analysis to biologists – and to us.
The gel documentation system we used to take pictures in lab are in a non-standard image format. By this I mean it is not in one of the commonly recognized image formats like tif, jpg, gif, fits, etc. This means that you will have to load the file using ImageJ’s import features. To do this follow these steps:
1) In imageJ use the file menu and select import->raw
2) This brings up a dialog box for you to select your file. Choose the one you want.
3) When you open the file, a dialog box asking for image type, width, height, offset, etc. will appear. Select the following:type = 8 bit.width 974,height = 1280offset = 300number of images = 1.gap between image = 0.
The three check boxes (“white is zero”, “Little-Endian Byte Order”, and “Open All Files in Folder”) at the bottom should NOT be checked.
If you then say Ok your file should load correctly.
If you have old gel pictures from other classes, you may want to play around with the “Gels” functions. You will find this (at least in the version I am currently using) at the bottom of the “Analyze” menu option.
If you are interested in a copy, visit: http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/. The program itself is a Java update to an earlier program called NIHImage. The author W. Rasband deserves considerable thanks for his assistance bringing quantitative image analysis to biologists – and to us.
The gel documentation system we used to take pictures in lab are in a non-standard image format. By this I mean it is not in one of the commonly recognized image formats like tif, jpg, gif, fits, etc. This means that you will have to load the file using ImageJ’s import features. To do this follow these steps:
1) In imageJ use the file menu and select import->raw
2) This brings up a dialog box for you to select your file. Choose the one you want.
3) When you open the file, a dialog box asking for image type, width, height, offset, etc. will appear. Select the following:type = 8 bit.width 974,height = 1280offset = 300number of images = 1.gap between image = 0.
The three check boxes (“white is zero”, “Little-Endian Byte Order”, and “Open All Files in Folder”) at the bottom should NOT be checked.
If you then say Ok your file should load correctly.
If you have old gel pictures from other classes, you may want to play around with the “Gels” functions. You will find this (at least in the version I am currently using) at the bottom of the “Analyze” menu option.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The students are on strike
The students are on strike today in protest of a new $700 fee that is (was) to be implemented in the coming year. I don’t think it would be appropriate to comment on the specific issues, either for or against. I do, however, have some strong opinions both on student action in general and state supported education in particular.
First things first, a positive point in all this. I am delighted that students are taking a serious look at something related to their education. If it takes the imposition of a new and unpopular change to get them focused on just what it is we do here in a University, I am all for it. In fact, I think Admin should make a point of irritating them early and often every single year until the end of time. I’d do it myself.
I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek but, there is a serious undercurrent to my comment which brings me to the second topic. I believe very strongly in state supported education. Education should not just be the playground of the rich and well connected. It should be for all. Everyone should have the opportunity to be educated up to the level of their ability in a way that is not restricted by the wealth of parents. I owe it to my father, who grew up very poor and was perhaps the first university educated man in his family, to speak in support of my beliefs. He never would have been a project leader on the guidance systems for the Apollo rockets that took human beings to the moon and back without the state assistance he was given as a World War II veteran. I owe it to my smart, but not necessarily rich, students as well.
But state support of education is a complex thing. This country is a member of a very special and in my view elite class of nations which provides free public education to those capable of making use of it. This should be a cause for justifiable pride and may also be an underlying factor in its prosperity. A well educated people is the bedrock on which a nation can stand. A well educated electorate informs the public discourse and directs the activities of government. A highly skilled and educated work force can provide the fuel for efficient and prosperous industries.
But state support of free education is a complex thing. This country is in dwindling company with its unqualified support of education. It is in good company, but this countries peers are becoming scarce. I do not know why that is. Worldwide, countries are, one after another, throwing in the towel and imposing greater and greater fees. Free university public education is being pushed to extinction. Again, I do not know why. My wife’s home country recently introduced fees which would have kept her from studying had they existed at the time she was in school. Like my father’s family, my wife’s family was not rich. She worked part-time jobs to support her education. In my home country, University education costs have out paced inflation for some time and in my lifetime it was never free at the undergraduate level. Exceptional students often win scholarships, but the true bedrock of a nation is its middle class, not its elites.
That said, no cost sometimes invites complacency. A sufficient number of students begin to feel entitled, not only to the opportunity to get an education, but to the trappings of education: degrees, certificates, etc. I would say that the vast majority of my students have no idea the gift they are being given. At their age I had no idea either. It was only a few years after I received my undergraduate degree that I began to understand. I was staring out the window one day and counting my blessings. After life itself came the gift of reading and the education that followed. I still remember the two Catholic sisters (Sister Cynthia and Sister Veronica) who taught me to read. I met my wife and most of my closest friends in school. The education I received opened up a world I would otherwise never have dreamed of. It pains me sometimes to see how some (not all) students really do not take the tremendous gift being given to them by their government seriously.
Although I feel strongly that governments should support education, there is nothing that says they have to be equally supportive of everything. At the institution where I did my Ph.D., the greatest number of students were majoring in Communications. Just what we need, more Americans communicating. In Germany, the favoured discipline among students was Geography. All areas of inquiry, do not need to be supported equally. Nations have needs. Some have critical needs. They should feel good about shaping the direction of the students and universities they support.
Equally, some areas of scholarship are bound to be controversial. Sometimes a scholar has to speak the truth to power. As such, a University needs to keep its independence, sometimes stubbornly to allow new and controversial areas to be examined. It is a University after all. Sometimes, new areas of thought need to be explored which initially are perceived as “not useful.” Such topics rightfully belong in a University. A University should take pride in its scholars and its independence.
And therein lies the rub. Free access side by side with responsibility. Governmental management and academic independence. Student desire for degrees and a nation that wants high standards. A “relevant” focus on regional needs and independent thought. Sometimes all these things do not sit well together and there are no easy solutions.
If anything, I hope the students protesting will begin a more expansive examination of their education. It is at the core of both their future and this nation’s future. Higher education is a complex thing.
First things first, a positive point in all this. I am delighted that students are taking a serious look at something related to their education. If it takes the imposition of a new and unpopular change to get them focused on just what it is we do here in a University, I am all for it. In fact, I think Admin should make a point of irritating them early and often every single year until the end of time. I’d do it myself.
I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek but, there is a serious undercurrent to my comment which brings me to the second topic. I believe very strongly in state supported education. Education should not just be the playground of the rich and well connected. It should be for all. Everyone should have the opportunity to be educated up to the level of their ability in a way that is not restricted by the wealth of parents. I owe it to my father, who grew up very poor and was perhaps the first university educated man in his family, to speak in support of my beliefs. He never would have been a project leader on the guidance systems for the Apollo rockets that took human beings to the moon and back without the state assistance he was given as a World War II veteran. I owe it to my smart, but not necessarily rich, students as well.
But state support of education is a complex thing. This country is a member of a very special and in my view elite class of nations which provides free public education to those capable of making use of it. This should be a cause for justifiable pride and may also be an underlying factor in its prosperity. A well educated people is the bedrock on which a nation can stand. A well educated electorate informs the public discourse and directs the activities of government. A highly skilled and educated work force can provide the fuel for efficient and prosperous industries.
But state support of free education is a complex thing. This country is in dwindling company with its unqualified support of education. It is in good company, but this countries peers are becoming scarce. I do not know why that is. Worldwide, countries are, one after another, throwing in the towel and imposing greater and greater fees. Free university public education is being pushed to extinction. Again, I do not know why. My wife’s home country recently introduced fees which would have kept her from studying had they existed at the time she was in school. Like my father’s family, my wife’s family was not rich. She worked part-time jobs to support her education. In my home country, University education costs have out paced inflation for some time and in my lifetime it was never free at the undergraduate level. Exceptional students often win scholarships, but the true bedrock of a nation is its middle class, not its elites.
That said, no cost sometimes invites complacency. A sufficient number of students begin to feel entitled, not only to the opportunity to get an education, but to the trappings of education: degrees, certificates, etc. I would say that the vast majority of my students have no idea the gift they are being given. At their age I had no idea either. It was only a few years after I received my undergraduate degree that I began to understand. I was staring out the window one day and counting my blessings. After life itself came the gift of reading and the education that followed. I still remember the two Catholic sisters (Sister Cynthia and Sister Veronica) who taught me to read. I met my wife and most of my closest friends in school. The education I received opened up a world I would otherwise never have dreamed of. It pains me sometimes to see how some (not all) students really do not take the tremendous gift being given to them by their government seriously.
Although I feel strongly that governments should support education, there is nothing that says they have to be equally supportive of everything. At the institution where I did my Ph.D., the greatest number of students were majoring in Communications. Just what we need, more Americans communicating. In Germany, the favoured discipline among students was Geography. All areas of inquiry, do not need to be supported equally. Nations have needs. Some have critical needs. They should feel good about shaping the direction of the students and universities they support.
Equally, some areas of scholarship are bound to be controversial. Sometimes a scholar has to speak the truth to power. As such, a University needs to keep its independence, sometimes stubbornly to allow new and controversial areas to be examined. It is a University after all. Sometimes, new areas of thought need to be explored which initially are perceived as “not useful.” Such topics rightfully belong in a University. A University should take pride in its scholars and its independence.
And therein lies the rub. Free access side by side with responsibility. Governmental management and academic independence. Student desire for degrees and a nation that wants high standards. A “relevant” focus on regional needs and independent thought. Sometimes all these things do not sit well together and there are no easy solutions.
If anything, I hope the students protesting will begin a more expansive examination of their education. It is at the core of both their future and this nation’s future. Higher education is a complex thing.
Monday, February 14, 2005
CHEM3415 2: Resume writing
It is that time of year again. I am asking the students in the third year to prepare a CV/resume. This is done as part of a project which takes roughly half of the semester. The students are required to do a project, some of which involve going out into an off campus lab or being involved in an “attachment.” So we go through a mock job application process including preparing cover letters, CVs, and applying. They have 24 hours to do this.
But back to the resume. Many students have questions about the resume, what should be in it, and how it can be improved. I have a number of suggestions and comments.
Resumes vary by country and culture. My biases reflect my upbringing in the US and my involvement in reading resumes during that time. My wife who is German has a very different approach. My students, who are not from either of these cultures have a different view. Let’s give some examples of cultural differences in resumes. In Germany, people attach pictures to their resumes. There is a big discussion on the proper approach to the placement and size of a picture. Where I grew up this would be a terrible no-no. Putting your picture in would be so unusual and out of the ordinary that you would probably be classified where you don’t want to be classified.
The point here is that opinions on resumes vary. Anything that anyone tells you is an opinion and the opinions you are getting right now are from someone outside of your home country. Get a second opinion or a third.
We know they differ, but… there are definite principles of resumes that I feel strongly about. Here is my list:
1) The most important part of a resume is who you are and where they can contact you. Tis should be first. E-mail is good. But maybe think about what yours says about you before using it. For example, if your e-mail address includes things like BaybeeWow@ or LimeBlockBoy@, take the time to get a new one
2) I think more than anything, work experience counts. It counts big time. Since most of you will be trying to get your first “real” job it does not matter what you did, so much as that you did something. This is as it should be. Everyone should respect a body that’s working. The PSV drivers annoy you, but at heart you have got to respect them. They are working. The man selling papers by the university. I know by the way he is there in the morning that he’s worth something. I respect the man. Work experience means you can get yourself out of bed in the morning, get to work and earn an honest days pay. This is not the same thing as taking exams and going to school. Message: If you have worked put it in the resume. Don’t be ashamed if it is collecting garbage, cutting grass on the highway, or shovelling kennels. There is an honest dollar to be made and the person reading your resume wants to know. I for one have little use for someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I like a body that works. I don’t think I am alone.
3) Community service counts. Sometimes for whatever reason you can’t find a job or you want to get experience in a new area. Go volunteer. Sometimes this is the best way to get hard to find experience. Doesn’t matter if it was at church, a community center, or a laboratory. It all counts. Sometimes volunteers have unique perspectives and experience. Your prospective employer wants to know. If you are working and have a few extra hours on your hands, help someone out. It makes you that much better.
4) Research projects count. Take them seriously. This is your chance to show what you can do and making a good and lasting impression on your research supervisor can lead to an invaluable reference. If you ever get invited to an interview, be prepared to speak enthusiastically about your project and in detail. Avoid showstoppers like “my advisor told me do this.” Shows lack of motivation and initiative.
5) A university level resume needs university level references. If you are still going back to your secondary school teachers and primary school principals it is time to update. I like a resume that has a mix of references. It should include, wherever possible, academic AND work related references. Anyone going through University should be able to pick up a reference or two from a Professor or lecturer. Of particular interest is someone who has supervised you in project work. But,… what rounds out a referee list nicely is a work or volunteer supervisor.
6) Do include specific skills. Remember, your prospective employer needs to be convinced that you can do things for you. I like to see a table of specific skills right under work experience.
7) Do adjust your resume and cover letter to the job to which you are applying. The person reading your resume probably does not want to wade through a list of every course you ever took. They would be interested if your degree included relevant coursework.
8) Finally, check your grammar and spelling. As recently as Friday I saw a resume full of typos and misspellings. This from a very distinguished academic. It was sufficient that I took a second look and it made me wonder. One mistake won’t stop the show, but try to take bit of care.
One thing that students tend to do is focus too much on secondary school examinations. I have seen two page listings of every course and exam a student ever took. I sure do not want to look at all that. If the job you are applying for requires these, indicate that you have the qualification, but say it in a line or two.
Good luck getting that job!
But back to the resume. Many students have questions about the resume, what should be in it, and how it can be improved. I have a number of suggestions and comments.
Resumes vary by country and culture. My biases reflect my upbringing in the US and my involvement in reading resumes during that time. My wife who is German has a very different approach. My students, who are not from either of these cultures have a different view. Let’s give some examples of cultural differences in resumes. In Germany, people attach pictures to their resumes. There is a big discussion on the proper approach to the placement and size of a picture. Where I grew up this would be a terrible no-no. Putting your picture in would be so unusual and out of the ordinary that you would probably be classified where you don’t want to be classified.
The point here is that opinions on resumes vary. Anything that anyone tells you is an opinion and the opinions you are getting right now are from someone outside of your home country. Get a second opinion or a third.
We know they differ, but… there are definite principles of resumes that I feel strongly about. Here is my list:
1) The most important part of a resume is who you are and where they can contact you. Tis should be first. E-mail is good. But maybe think about what yours says about you before using it. For example, if your e-mail address includes things like BaybeeWow@ or LimeBlockBoy@, take the time to get a new one
2) I think more than anything, work experience counts. It counts big time. Since most of you will be trying to get your first “real” job it does not matter what you did, so much as that you did something. This is as it should be. Everyone should respect a body that’s working. The PSV drivers annoy you, but at heart you have got to respect them. They are working. The man selling papers by the university. I know by the way he is there in the morning that he’s worth something. I respect the man. Work experience means you can get yourself out of bed in the morning, get to work and earn an honest days pay. This is not the same thing as taking exams and going to school. Message: If you have worked put it in the resume. Don’t be ashamed if it is collecting garbage, cutting grass on the highway, or shovelling kennels. There is an honest dollar to be made and the person reading your resume wants to know. I for one have little use for someone who was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I like a body that works. I don’t think I am alone.
3) Community service counts. Sometimes for whatever reason you can’t find a job or you want to get experience in a new area. Go volunteer. Sometimes this is the best way to get hard to find experience. Doesn’t matter if it was at church, a community center, or a laboratory. It all counts. Sometimes volunteers have unique perspectives and experience. Your prospective employer wants to know. If you are working and have a few extra hours on your hands, help someone out. It makes you that much better.
4) Research projects count. Take them seriously. This is your chance to show what you can do and making a good and lasting impression on your research supervisor can lead to an invaluable reference. If you ever get invited to an interview, be prepared to speak enthusiastically about your project and in detail. Avoid showstoppers like “my advisor told me do this.” Shows lack of motivation and initiative.
5) A university level resume needs university level references. If you are still going back to your secondary school teachers and primary school principals it is time to update. I like a resume that has a mix of references. It should include, wherever possible, academic AND work related references. Anyone going through University should be able to pick up a reference or two from a Professor or lecturer. Of particular interest is someone who has supervised you in project work. But,… what rounds out a referee list nicely is a work or volunteer supervisor.
6) Do include specific skills. Remember, your prospective employer needs to be convinced that you can do things for you. I like to see a table of specific skills right under work experience.
7) Do adjust your resume and cover letter to the job to which you are applying. The person reading your resume probably does not want to wade through a list of every course you ever took. They would be interested if your degree included relevant coursework.
8) Finally, check your grammar and spelling. As recently as Friday I saw a resume full of typos and misspellings. This from a very distinguished academic. It was sufficient that I took a second look and it made me wonder. One mistake won’t stop the show, but try to take bit of care.
One thing that students tend to do is focus too much on secondary school examinations. I have seen two page listings of every course and exam a student ever took. I sure do not want to look at all that. If the job you are applying for requires these, indicate that you have the qualification, but say it in a line or two.
Good luck getting that job!
Monday, February 07, 2005
CHEM3414 1: Fast Fourier Transforms and John Tukey
One of the most celebrated papers ever written was the report by Cooley and Tukey in the 1960s on the so-called Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). The FFT reduced the number of computations required to compute a discrete Fourier transform. One ot the characteristics of the FFT was that it required the user of the algorithm to operate on a dataset containing a number of points equal to a power of 2.
It is important to note that there are now a variety of algorithms available for computing Fourier Transforms (FTs) on data sets having other lengths. The fact that programs such as Excel, and many others, do not allow you to perform FTs on data lengths that are not powers of 2 is a holdover from earlier times. It is also a tribute to the lasting influence of the Cooley-Tukey algorithm. While all data lengths do not have a Fast transform available, many do. Also, slow transforms can be done on nearly any length data set. As long as you do not need to be doing a lot of FTs, modern computers can handle the computing if programmed to do so AND you won’t necessarily be an old man or woman by the time they are finished.
I gave this background more as an introduction to John Tukey one of the authors of this influential paper. I had the good fortune to meet John Tukey in the late 80’s early 90’s and I think he is a nice person to tell a story about to give students a better picture of scientists and mathematicians. As I have remarked elsewhere on this site, people have strange ideas about what it means to be a scientist and the nature of their work. Most are normal people who have been blessed with scientific or mathematical abilities.
I met John Tukey when he came to Seattle as a consultant for the Health Effects Institute. The Health Effects Institute is a combined USEPA and Automobile Industry fund which was created to fund health effect research. They were the first to audit MY notebooks; a story for another day. I was working for Jane Koenig at the time as a technician and she was applying for funding from HEI to support some studies of the health effects of air pollution. There were some statistical questions related to sample size etc. (actually, I do not remember exactly what the problem was) raised by a reviewer of the grant. HEI brought in John Tukey to resolve the disagreement between the group I worked for and the HEI reviewers.
In the time before he came to visit my boss’s lab, I spent a good bit of time teaching myself Fourier transforms mostly from papers in the literature (and a few IEEE publications). The idea was to do some measurements of pulmonary mechanics using the analysis of waveforms. For those on there way to medical school there is a model of the lungs based on the behaviour of RLC (resistor-inductor-capacitor) circuits. C is related to the size of the lung, I to the inertia of air moving in the airways, and R the resistance of the airways. The lab was interested in airway resistance as a measure of the effect of air pollution on lungs. Having fought my way (slowly) through the FT papers, I was immediately interested when I heard John Tukey would visit. I would get to meet the man in the papers I had been reading!
John Tukey was quite an old man at the time. We never talked any “shop.” What I remember about him was that he really liked to read mysteries. I discovered he had a love of used bookstores. He told me that whenever he travelled he always liked to make the rounds of the local bookstores to see if there were any mysteries he had not read. I have always had a similar love of books (particularly used books). At the time there were a number of reasonable used bookstores in the district around the University of Washington. I remember spending some time telling John Tukey how to get to all of them. He listened intently, took some notes and took off. He didn’t want to wait for me to show him around, caught a cab, and came back later that evening.
He wasn’t quite what I expected. I am not sure what I was expecting, but an old gentleman who loved mysteries didn’t quite fit my picture of what the co-discoverer of the FFT would be like. It was nice to have met him. I still think of him occasionally as I am looking through used bookstores while on my travels, something I do whenever I can.
It is important to note that there are now a variety of algorithms available for computing Fourier Transforms (FTs) on data sets having other lengths. The fact that programs such as Excel, and many others, do not allow you to perform FTs on data lengths that are not powers of 2 is a holdover from earlier times. It is also a tribute to the lasting influence of the Cooley-Tukey algorithm. While all data lengths do not have a Fast transform available, many do. Also, slow transforms can be done on nearly any length data set. As long as you do not need to be doing a lot of FTs, modern computers can handle the computing if programmed to do so AND you won’t necessarily be an old man or woman by the time they are finished.
I gave this background more as an introduction to John Tukey one of the authors of this influential paper. I had the good fortune to meet John Tukey in the late 80’s early 90’s and I think he is a nice person to tell a story about to give students a better picture of scientists and mathematicians. As I have remarked elsewhere on this site, people have strange ideas about what it means to be a scientist and the nature of their work. Most are normal people who have been blessed with scientific or mathematical abilities.
I met John Tukey when he came to Seattle as a consultant for the Health Effects Institute. The Health Effects Institute is a combined USEPA and Automobile Industry fund which was created to fund health effect research. They were the first to audit MY notebooks; a story for another day. I was working for Jane Koenig at the time as a technician and she was applying for funding from HEI to support some studies of the health effects of air pollution. There were some statistical questions related to sample size etc. (actually, I do not remember exactly what the problem was) raised by a reviewer of the grant. HEI brought in John Tukey to resolve the disagreement between the group I worked for and the HEI reviewers.
In the time before he came to visit my boss’s lab, I spent a good bit of time teaching myself Fourier transforms mostly from papers in the literature (and a few IEEE publications). The idea was to do some measurements of pulmonary mechanics using the analysis of waveforms. For those on there way to medical school there is a model of the lungs based on the behaviour of RLC (resistor-inductor-capacitor) circuits. C is related to the size of the lung, I to the inertia of air moving in the airways, and R the resistance of the airways. The lab was interested in airway resistance as a measure of the effect of air pollution on lungs. Having fought my way (slowly) through the FT papers, I was immediately interested when I heard John Tukey would visit. I would get to meet the man in the papers I had been reading!
John Tukey was quite an old man at the time. We never talked any “shop.” What I remember about him was that he really liked to read mysteries. I discovered he had a love of used bookstores. He told me that whenever he travelled he always liked to make the rounds of the local bookstores to see if there were any mysteries he had not read. I have always had a similar love of books (particularly used books). At the time there were a number of reasonable used bookstores in the district around the University of Washington. I remember spending some time telling John Tukey how to get to all of them. He listened intently, took some notes and took off. He didn’t want to wait for me to show him around, caught a cab, and came back later that evening.
He wasn’t quite what I expected. I am not sure what I was expecting, but an old gentleman who loved mysteries didn’t quite fit my picture of what the co-discoverer of the FFT would be like. It was nice to have met him. I still think of him occasionally as I am looking through used bookstores while on my travels, something I do whenever I can.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Life in Science 2: Interesting times...
Someone told me there was a Chinese curse that says, "may you live in interesting times." There are a few "interesting times" that sort of stick in my head associated with being a scientist. This is one of them.
In either 1986 or 1988 (I think the latter), I attended a conference organized by the American Geophysical Union and the American Society of Limnologists and Oceanographers. This conference is sometimes abbreviated AGU-ASLO. I had been working at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for Dr. Oliver Zafiriou. I attended the conference to present (if it was 1986) some work done on the Cariaco Trench (an anoxic basin off the coast of Venezuela) or (if it was 1988) to present a study on production of nitric oxide by denitrifying bacteria.
The members of the American Geophysical Union do (and did) many things. Among them are seismic studies, mostly of earthquakes. However, there are other things besides normal continental drift which cause the earth to shake. These include blasting in quarries and other explosions. One source of big explosions is nuclear weapons. Here is the part about "interesting times." If you haven't noticed, we live in interesting times and one of the things making those times interesting is nuclear weapons.
In the early and mid 80’s, the talk of the time was the nuclear freeze, the comprehensive test ban treaty (never completed), using Europe as a “theater” for limited nuclear war (this made the Europeans nervous), deterrence, and mutually assured destruction. If you came of age in the 90's you need to realize that you came of age in a rather optimistic time. I came of age a few years earlier and we (we at least I did) thought about the nuclear arms race. My favorite analogy was the one where there are two people in a small room with a big open can of gasoline. The person with the most matches was somehow the winner. To put things in perspective, throughout the most of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80's there was on any given day the possibility that 500,000,000 could be dead within weeks, and there were those who had reason to believe many more would follow.
So there I was at this meeting one afternoon. My presentations were over. The sessions which were related to my work were over and I was looking at the schedule. A conference session on seismic detection of atomic bombs (or something thereabouts) caught my eye. The murmur of the times by itself might have caused me to be curious but I was particularly curious. For those who have looked at my office wall you might understand my particular curiosity. Others will have to use their imagination. Hmm... I thought. Why not have a look.
So I did. After a few minutes, I started to feel like a bit player is a film. The actors were as follows. There were several very earnest and also very well informed representatives from the National Resource Defense Council (I hope I have the name right, it has been a few years). The NRDC was primarily an environmental organization. These people looked like you might expect. Not a bunch of long-hairs like yours truly, but they were easily distinguishable from another group I will describe later. For those of you who think a scientific conference is a bunch of well dressed people in fancy suits and ties talking lofty thoughts, I have some news. It isn't so. Look around our department at your lecturers and professors. Repeat as necessary. It isn’t so. There are some scientists who do dress well, but they tend not to favor the polyester suit look. Many dress for comfort and often the result is the casual look. I even saw one guy show up in a cape (guy was a fruitcake). Not all meetings are the same. PITTCON (a conference for analytical chemists) tends to be more formal. I think that is due to analytical chemists being a necessary part of nearly all serious industry. It makes businessmen feel more confident when you have the “business look.” But the participants in AGU-ASLO were not as a rule a stuffy bunch. You get the picture.
In the audience was a very striking man who I think was Pakistani or Indian. Both countries were thought to be working on the development of atomic bombs at the time. The man had a few people with him, but he really stood out in a crowd. The reason he stood out was he had a very pronounced tick that caused his whole face to twitch every few seconds. It was very distracting to watch. In my head, I nicknamed him Mr. Twitch. I do not know his name and since he did not give a presentation, it would be hard to find out. So the second group in the room was Mr. Twitch and his entourage.
Group three were a group of strangely dressed people, at least for the place they were speaking. They were wearing lots of non-descript suits, ties, and accoutrements you would expect to go with the costume. In another context, they might have blended in well, but at AGU-ASLO they looked out of place.
Finally, there was a group (I include myself here) that was just there out of curiosity. Then the show started. Presentations got going. ..
The people in group one (the NRDC) spoke to the audience as a whole. They were showing data collected (as I recall) from Central Asia seismic monitors. Looking at what an earthquake looks like, what a quarry blast looks like, what a BIG quarry blast looks like, and trying to see whether there were unique "signatures" that could be recognized. This was fascinating, because I (and I expect you) had never thought about what might be involved in detecting an underground atomic bomb blast. At first it seems pretty obvious, then suppose someone you were suspicious of just said, "Well we had a minor earthquake...." or “We were just blasting in a quarry…” The NRDC was genuinely interested in whether a comprehensive test ban treaty was verifiable.
The people in group three also presented. While listening, I got the impression they were really talking to Mr. Twitch. They all seemed to be from small companies in Virginia. These small companies had some fascinating material. Slide shows like not many people have seen. Simulations of underground bomb blasts. Example: There was a "talk" which was a slide show of a bunch of trailers resting at ground zero ABOVE an underground bomb blast. They included a time series before, after, and during a test that took place under an island (I think it was called Amchitka - I will try to look it up) in Alaska.
As you might imagine ground zero is not a good place to be. The trailers were messed up afterward. The speaker dryly remarked that the ground accelerated upwards (briefly) at 18 g's. I got the impression that this was lesson 1 for Mr. Twitch. Specifically, when you blow up yours, don't hang around at ground zero. Now, you may be wondering how a small company in Virginia gets pictures like that. Go figure....
Another example, there was another chap from another company. He had some really flashy full color simulations of rock fracturing, etc. around a bomb blast. This gives rise to a cavern that forms which is often followed by collapse, creating a ground level crater. He showed a series of time points in the simulation. Then he dryly remarked something to the effect, this is what happens provided you place the bomb well OUTSIDE the WATER table. If you put it into the water table, or close to it, the top of the crater comes off. The chemists among you will appreciate that it is easier to vaporize water than it is rock. This has, apparently, potentially catastrophic consequences. A serious blast instead of a “little” crater. As before, enquiring minds would like to know how a small company in Virginia got all the data to do that simulation....
Again, this fellow seemed to be talking to Mr. Twitch. If my memory serves me, Mr. Twitch asked how far above or below the water table “one” might want to be. It has been nearly 20 years, but my recollection now is that the man giving the presentation asked Mr. Twitch to have a word with him privately after the session was over.
This took up the better part of the afternoon. It was most fascinating. I have never stumbled across its like again - sometimes I am thankful - other times the fact that I have not makes me uneasy. My conclusions at the end were these. The US knew what the country Mr. Twitch came from was up to. Over the course of the afternoon they told him: 1) We know what you are doing. 2) When you test we will know. 3) When you test, don't be stupid and hurt yourself or others. 4) Here are a few tips to avoid hurting anyone.
Unfortunately, we still live in interesting times... It is indeed our curse.
In either 1986 or 1988 (I think the latter), I attended a conference organized by the American Geophysical Union and the American Society of Limnologists and Oceanographers. This conference is sometimes abbreviated AGU-ASLO. I had been working at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for Dr. Oliver Zafiriou. I attended the conference to present (if it was 1986) some work done on the Cariaco Trench (an anoxic basin off the coast of Venezuela) or (if it was 1988) to present a study on production of nitric oxide by denitrifying bacteria.
The members of the American Geophysical Union do (and did) many things. Among them are seismic studies, mostly of earthquakes. However, there are other things besides normal continental drift which cause the earth to shake. These include blasting in quarries and other explosions. One source of big explosions is nuclear weapons. Here is the part about "interesting times." If you haven't noticed, we live in interesting times and one of the things making those times interesting is nuclear weapons.
In the early and mid 80’s, the talk of the time was the nuclear freeze, the comprehensive test ban treaty (never completed), using Europe as a “theater” for limited nuclear war (this made the Europeans nervous), deterrence, and mutually assured destruction. If you came of age in the 90's you need to realize that you came of age in a rather optimistic time. I came of age a few years earlier and we (we at least I did) thought about the nuclear arms race. My favorite analogy was the one where there are two people in a small room with a big open can of gasoline. The person with the most matches was somehow the winner. To put things in perspective, throughout the most of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80's there was on any given day the possibility that 500,000,000 could be dead within weeks, and there were those who had reason to believe many more would follow.
So there I was at this meeting one afternoon. My presentations were over. The sessions which were related to my work were over and I was looking at the schedule. A conference session on seismic detection of atomic bombs (or something thereabouts) caught my eye. The murmur of the times by itself might have caused me to be curious but I was particularly curious. For those who have looked at my office wall you might understand my particular curiosity. Others will have to use their imagination. Hmm... I thought. Why not have a look.
So I did. After a few minutes, I started to feel like a bit player is a film. The actors were as follows. There were several very earnest and also very well informed representatives from the National Resource Defense Council (I hope I have the name right, it has been a few years). The NRDC was primarily an environmental organization. These people looked like you might expect. Not a bunch of long-hairs like yours truly, but they were easily distinguishable from another group I will describe later. For those of you who think a scientific conference is a bunch of well dressed people in fancy suits and ties talking lofty thoughts, I have some news. It isn't so. Look around our department at your lecturers and professors. Repeat as necessary. It isn’t so. There are some scientists who do dress well, but they tend not to favor the polyester suit look. Many dress for comfort and often the result is the casual look. I even saw one guy show up in a cape (guy was a fruitcake). Not all meetings are the same. PITTCON (a conference for analytical chemists) tends to be more formal. I think that is due to analytical chemists being a necessary part of nearly all serious industry. It makes businessmen feel more confident when you have the “business look.” But the participants in AGU-ASLO were not as a rule a stuffy bunch. You get the picture.
In the audience was a very striking man who I think was Pakistani or Indian. Both countries were thought to be working on the development of atomic bombs at the time. The man had a few people with him, but he really stood out in a crowd. The reason he stood out was he had a very pronounced tick that caused his whole face to twitch every few seconds. It was very distracting to watch. In my head, I nicknamed him Mr. Twitch. I do not know his name and since he did not give a presentation, it would be hard to find out. So the second group in the room was Mr. Twitch and his entourage.
Group three were a group of strangely dressed people, at least for the place they were speaking. They were wearing lots of non-descript suits, ties, and accoutrements you would expect to go with the costume. In another context, they might have blended in well, but at AGU-ASLO they looked out of place.
Finally, there was a group (I include myself here) that was just there out of curiosity. Then the show started. Presentations got going. ..
The people in group one (the NRDC) spoke to the audience as a whole. They were showing data collected (as I recall) from Central Asia seismic monitors. Looking at what an earthquake looks like, what a quarry blast looks like, what a BIG quarry blast looks like, and trying to see whether there were unique "signatures" that could be recognized. This was fascinating, because I (and I expect you) had never thought about what might be involved in detecting an underground atomic bomb blast. At first it seems pretty obvious, then suppose someone you were suspicious of just said, "Well we had a minor earthquake...." or “We were just blasting in a quarry…” The NRDC was genuinely interested in whether a comprehensive test ban treaty was verifiable.
The people in group three also presented. While listening, I got the impression they were really talking to Mr. Twitch. They all seemed to be from small companies in Virginia. These small companies had some fascinating material. Slide shows like not many people have seen. Simulations of underground bomb blasts. Example: There was a "talk" which was a slide show of a bunch of trailers resting at ground zero ABOVE an underground bomb blast. They included a time series before, after, and during a test that took place under an island (I think it was called Amchitka - I will try to look it up) in Alaska.
As you might imagine ground zero is not a good place to be. The trailers were messed up afterward. The speaker dryly remarked that the ground accelerated upwards (briefly) at 18 g's. I got the impression that this was lesson 1 for Mr. Twitch. Specifically, when you blow up yours, don't hang around at ground zero. Now, you may be wondering how a small company in Virginia gets pictures like that. Go figure....
Another example, there was another chap from another company. He had some really flashy full color simulations of rock fracturing, etc. around a bomb blast. This gives rise to a cavern that forms which is often followed by collapse, creating a ground level crater. He showed a series of time points in the simulation. Then he dryly remarked something to the effect, this is what happens provided you place the bomb well OUTSIDE the WATER table. If you put it into the water table, or close to it, the top of the crater comes off. The chemists among you will appreciate that it is easier to vaporize water than it is rock. This has, apparently, potentially catastrophic consequences. A serious blast instead of a “little” crater. As before, enquiring minds would like to know how a small company in Virginia got all the data to do that simulation....
Again, this fellow seemed to be talking to Mr. Twitch. If my memory serves me, Mr. Twitch asked how far above or below the water table “one” might want to be. It has been nearly 20 years, but my recollection now is that the man giving the presentation asked Mr. Twitch to have a word with him privately after the session was over.
This took up the better part of the afternoon. It was most fascinating. I have never stumbled across its like again - sometimes I am thankful - other times the fact that I have not makes me uneasy. My conclusions at the end were these. The US knew what the country Mr. Twitch came from was up to. Over the course of the afternoon they told him: 1) We know what you are doing. 2) When you test we will know. 3) When you test, don't be stupid and hurt yourself or others. 4) Here are a few tips to avoid hurting anyone.
Unfortunately, we still live in interesting times... It is indeed our curse.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Life in Science 1: Way back when...
I certainly had no idea what a life in science meant when I was an undergraduate. There may be people who knew all their lives that they wanted to be scientists. I am not one of them. I became interested in Chemistry my last year of secondary school as the result of an excellent teacher named Mr. Cruishank. An interest in chemistry is not the same as knowing one wants to be a scientist.
As I say often to students, science at the secondary school level is taught as a collection of facts which can be learned. If you read the book, study hard, and have a good memory and decent math skills you can do well. This is just the foundation. Your teachers are trying to teach you the language of science. Because you know a language, doesn't mean you can write concise essays or decent poetry.
So it is with science. At the University level we try to introduce you to science as it is practiced. Rather than being a collection of facts for memorization, science is an investigation of the unknown. When you are increasing the total of what we know about the physical world around us, you have started being a scientist. As you go through the University, the level of abstraction increases. For example, we know a lot about lead contamination of the environment. But, we may know nothing about the amount of lead in YOUR tap water. This is a good short project for an undergraduate student. By the end of second year analytical, you should have no difficulty doing this measurement. But clearly, this would be insufficient to give you a Ph. D. What determines the difference between you measuring lead in your own tap and a Ph. D. is the level of generality and the level of abstraction.
The problem with studying the unknown is that it is unknown. This is a BIG problem. First, since it is unknown, by definition you don't know necessarily what to do, you do not know what you will find, you do not know if your experiment will work. This means spending a lot of time feeling your way around in the dark. What is more, the more interesting the knowledge, the less is known. For example, at a fundamental level, science really does not know how consciousness works. We are so much in the dark with our knowledge that people can say that it ma not be possible to know how consciousness works. This means we haven't got a clue how to go about studying it. Lots of bumping around in the dark left to go.
When I first encountered chemistry, I had no idea that a career in science might include spending most of my time a bit confused, unsure, and having experiments not work right. Rather, my idea was that science would consist of progressively thicker books full of interesting facts, describing how I could do increasingly more complex experiments in support of those facts. The concept of designing an experiment that would show something NEW didn't get into my head until far along in my undergraduate education.
At the end of my undergraduate education, I never wanted to sit in a classroom. I was tired of exams, hurried reading, and cramming information into my head (sound familiar). It wasn't until later that I realized all of that effort was just the background allowing a person to recognize the gap between the known and the unknown. It was then that I knew I wanted to be a scientist.
The purpose here is to try to clarify one aspect of the nature of science. Science is the investigation of the unknown. Once it is known, it may become interesting to all sorts of people, but the scientist has to move on. Understanding this point will make your transition to advanced study in science easier and better enable you to decide what you want to do after you finish your degree.
As I say often to students, science at the secondary school level is taught as a collection of facts which can be learned. If you read the book, study hard, and have a good memory and decent math skills you can do well. This is just the foundation. Your teachers are trying to teach you the language of science. Because you know a language, doesn't mean you can write concise essays or decent poetry.
So it is with science. At the University level we try to introduce you to science as it is practiced. Rather than being a collection of facts for memorization, science is an investigation of the unknown. When you are increasing the total of what we know about the physical world around us, you have started being a scientist. As you go through the University, the level of abstraction increases. For example, we know a lot about lead contamination of the environment. But, we may know nothing about the amount of lead in YOUR tap water. This is a good short project for an undergraduate student. By the end of second year analytical, you should have no difficulty doing this measurement. But clearly, this would be insufficient to give you a Ph. D. What determines the difference between you measuring lead in your own tap and a Ph. D. is the level of generality and the level of abstraction.
The problem with studying the unknown is that it is unknown. This is a BIG problem. First, since it is unknown, by definition you don't know necessarily what to do, you do not know what you will find, you do not know if your experiment will work. This means spending a lot of time feeling your way around in the dark. What is more, the more interesting the knowledge, the less is known. For example, at a fundamental level, science really does not know how consciousness works. We are so much in the dark with our knowledge that people can say that it ma not be possible to know how consciousness works. This means we haven't got a clue how to go about studying it. Lots of bumping around in the dark left to go.
When I first encountered chemistry, I had no idea that a career in science might include spending most of my time a bit confused, unsure, and having experiments not work right. Rather, my idea was that science would consist of progressively thicker books full of interesting facts, describing how I could do increasingly more complex experiments in support of those facts. The concept of designing an experiment that would show something NEW didn't get into my head until far along in my undergraduate education.
At the end of my undergraduate education, I never wanted to sit in a classroom. I was tired of exams, hurried reading, and cramming information into my head (sound familiar). It wasn't until later that I realized all of that effort was just the background allowing a person to recognize the gap between the known and the unknown. It was then that I knew I wanted to be a scientist.
The purpose here is to try to clarify one aspect of the nature of science. Science is the investigation of the unknown. Once it is known, it may become interesting to all sorts of people, but the scientist has to move on. Understanding this point will make your transition to advanced study in science easier and better enable you to decide what you want to do after you finish your degree.
Monday, January 24, 2005
CHEM1415 1: A good beginning
I am pleased with my first year analytical students. Why am I pleased? On Thursday, we had a discussion about the honesty document (see previous posts). So? Well, … I have discussed this topic before and the student who did the work gave a presentation in a public forum. We discussed it in the second year course last semester. I have discussed it privately with colleagues and shared it with people in administrative positions. Reactions have included: hostility, scorn, mild interest (a secretary called to ask about the circumstances under which the study was done), and silence. This is the first time that anyone from any group has used words like “outrageous” and “ridiculous.” It is the first time that I really felt the response was appropriate to the subject. I have found a group able to see the ethics involved. Previously, I have gotten the impression that people are too heavily invested in the status quo to recognize the big picture, which is indeed “outrageous.”
This is not to say that all is perfect. Life never is. When I asked whether, based on their previous semester, they think their colleagues used “cookbooks.” There was much nervous laughter and a murmur in the lecture theatre. They understood what I was really asking.
But still, I am pleased with them. There is a clear and well developed ethical sense. I am looking forward to the semester and working with them.
This is not to say that all is perfect. Life never is. When I asked whether, based on their previous semester, they think their colleagues used “cookbooks.” There was much nervous laughter and a murmur in the lecture theatre. They understood what I was really asking.
But still, I am pleased with them. There is a clear and well developed ethical sense. I am looking forward to the semester and working with them.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Concerns 1: Honesty
Perhaps my biggest concern as a University faculty member is issues of intellectual honesty . I am posting a summary sheet of a study I helped to supervise here so that it can be commented on by students, staff, and community members anonymously. Before reading what is below please keep the following in mind. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that students at this University are exceptional when it comes to intellectually dishonest behaviors. Information published on other Universities put this one well within the range of "normal" behavior. Data from other Universities do not not exist for all behaviors listed here. Conversely, just because similar behaviors exist elsewhere does not mean there existence here is not cause for concern.
Overview of intellectual honesty issues within the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry.
A study was carried out over the summer looking at the extent of “cookbook” use and plagiarism. The study was carried out by a student under the guidance a Prof. in education and Dr. Hanley. Here, the results found in that study have been supplemented with a separate test of an anti-plagiarism software program using essays turned in electronically.
The following were the major findings broken down into self-reported student behaviour, students perceptions of other students’ behaviour, faculty perceptions of student behaviour, student ratings of incentives, and summary of results using the anti-plagiarism software.
Self-reported student behaviour:
1) 94.4% participating in the study reported that they used cookbooks. Cookbook use was universal among the level II and III students participating in the study.
2) 36.1% reported participating in copy and paste type plagiarism.
3) Self reported use of cookbooks increases over the course of the degree program. Lowest use is in prelim (1.79), next highest is year I (1.88), next highest is year II (2.23), and highest use is in year III (2.56). The scale from1-4 used here was: 1 – did not use cook books at all, 2 – used cookbooks occasionally, 3 – used cookbooks often, and 4 – used cookbooks nearly all the time.
4) The 5 highest levels of cookbook use occur in the final year chemistry courses. Within these five courses are the final year courses at the core of the chemistry degree program.
Student perceptions of other students’ behaviour:
1) Students estimated on average that ~70-80% of students use cookbooks to complete labs or assignments. This underestimates the self-reported value of 94.4%.
2) On a relative scale (1-5), students rank cookbook prevalence 4.42, copy and paste plagiarism (3.14), and data falsification (3.59). If the trend between the relative scale and the self-reported values continues (e.g.: 4.42 corresponds to 94.4% for cookbook use, and 3.14 corresponds to 36.1% for plagiarism), ~50% of students are falsifying data.
Lecturer perceptions of students’ behaviour:
1) On average lecturers participating believed ~50% of students were using cookbooks. It is worth noting, that the largest group of lecturers (42.9%) think 0-20% are using cookbooks.
2) As a group, teaching staff consistently perceived a lower prevalence of all categories of dishonest behaviours than did students. The categories included: copying colleagues assignments, data falsification, downloading entire essays, and copy and paste plagiarism. Many lecturers underestimate the extent of the problem and some seem to be completely disconnected from what their students are doing.
Student ratings of incentives:
1) On a relative scale (1-5), students indicated the major incentives to use cookbooks are a poor understanding of theory (3.64), course load too heavy (3.57), and labs identical year after year (3.53).
2) Least important of the proposed incentives (2.02) was lack of lecturer approachability.
Summary of results using anti-plagiarism software:
The results obtained using anti-plagiarism software (EVE) indicate that 7 out 32 (~20%) reports scanned showed evidence of a high degree of plagiarism. Among these reports, as much as 40.69% of the total report was copied from internet sites. While less convenient, careful use of GOOGLE is more effective at locating plagiarized web sites than EVE. Further, the level of plagiarism indicated was highly variable, a characteristic of this program which has been noted previously.[i]
Conclusions:
While these results are not flattering, in comparison to other studies on plagiarism at other universities, this university is in the higher end of prior reports. Reported values range from ~10% (Universities with honor codes)[ii] to ~42%.[iii] Although this university does not appear exceptional, the 36.1% is of considerable concern. Plagiarism has been proven to harm the grades of honest students1 and may have long-lasting effects on this university's reputation.
We were unable to find reports of “cookbook” use in the education literature so a comparison was not possible.
However, there are several points of deep concern.
1) Cookbook use appears to be learned over the course of study in chemistry at this university. Rather than being a bad habit from secondary school that is progressively reduced by attendance at this university, the opposite appears to be the case. Exceptions to this trend are biochemistry and analytical chemistry. Both of these disciplines exhibit low levels of cookbook use over all years.
2) If the trends from cookbook use and copy and paste plagiarism hold for students’ perception of data falsification as well, there could be a very serious problem that should be dealt with carefully.
3) Lecturers seem to greatly underestimate the extent of these behaviours.
Finally, it is notable that the disciplines with the lowest prevalence of cookbook use benefit from lecturers who regularly revise their lab manuals. While students do not perceive the reuse of the same labs year after year as the highest incentive to use cookbooks, the fact remains that there will be no cookbooks available to students for a new or newly revised lab module. Complete revision of all labs each year does not seem to be needed. Substantive changes to existing experiments appears to work well or better.
[i] Braumoeller, B.F., and Gaines Brian J. (2001) Actions do speak louder than words: Deterring Plagiarism with the Use of Plagiarism Detection Software. Political Science and Politics 34 835-39.
[ii] McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino, and K. D. Butterfield (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior 11(3):219-232.
[iii] Newstead, S. A. Franklyn-Stokes, P. Armstead,. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating Journal of Educational psychology 88 229-241.
Overview of intellectual honesty issues within the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry.
A study was carried out over the summer looking at the extent of “cookbook” use and plagiarism. The study was carried out by a student under the guidance a Prof. in education and Dr. Hanley. Here, the results found in that study have been supplemented with a separate test of an anti-plagiarism software program using essays turned in electronically.
The following were the major findings broken down into self-reported student behaviour, students perceptions of other students’ behaviour, faculty perceptions of student behaviour, student ratings of incentives, and summary of results using the anti-plagiarism software.
Self-reported student behaviour:
1) 94.4% participating in the study reported that they used cookbooks. Cookbook use was universal among the level II and III students participating in the study.
2) 36.1% reported participating in copy and paste type plagiarism.
3) Self reported use of cookbooks increases over the course of the degree program. Lowest use is in prelim (1.79), next highest is year I (1.88), next highest is year II (2.23), and highest use is in year III (2.56). The scale from1-4 used here was: 1 – did not use cook books at all, 2 – used cookbooks occasionally, 3 – used cookbooks often, and 4 – used cookbooks nearly all the time.
4) The 5 highest levels of cookbook use occur in the final year chemistry courses. Within these five courses are the final year courses at the core of the chemistry degree program.
Student perceptions of other students’ behaviour:
1) Students estimated on average that ~70-80% of students use cookbooks to complete labs or assignments. This underestimates the self-reported value of 94.4%.
2) On a relative scale (1-5), students rank cookbook prevalence 4.42, copy and paste plagiarism (3.14), and data falsification (3.59). If the trend between the relative scale and the self-reported values continues (e.g.: 4.42 corresponds to 94.4% for cookbook use, and 3.14 corresponds to 36.1% for plagiarism), ~50% of students are falsifying data.
Lecturer perceptions of students’ behaviour:
1) On average lecturers participating believed ~50% of students were using cookbooks. It is worth noting, that the largest group of lecturers (42.9%) think 0-20% are using cookbooks.
2) As a group, teaching staff consistently perceived a lower prevalence of all categories of dishonest behaviours than did students. The categories included: copying colleagues assignments, data falsification, downloading entire essays, and copy and paste plagiarism. Many lecturers underestimate the extent of the problem and some seem to be completely disconnected from what their students are doing.
Student ratings of incentives:
1) On a relative scale (1-5), students indicated the major incentives to use cookbooks are a poor understanding of theory (3.64), course load too heavy (3.57), and labs identical year after year (3.53).
2) Least important of the proposed incentives (2.02) was lack of lecturer approachability.
Summary of results using anti-plagiarism software:
The results obtained using anti-plagiarism software (EVE) indicate that 7 out 32 (~20%) reports scanned showed evidence of a high degree of plagiarism. Among these reports, as much as 40.69% of the total report was copied from internet sites. While less convenient, careful use of GOOGLE is more effective at locating plagiarized web sites than EVE. Further, the level of plagiarism indicated was highly variable, a characteristic of this program which has been noted previously.[i]
Conclusions:
While these results are not flattering, in comparison to other studies on plagiarism at other universities, this university is in the higher end of prior reports. Reported values range from ~10% (Universities with honor codes)[ii] to ~42%.[iii] Although this university does not appear exceptional, the 36.1% is of considerable concern. Plagiarism has been proven to harm the grades of honest students1 and may have long-lasting effects on this university's reputation.
We were unable to find reports of “cookbook” use in the education literature so a comparison was not possible.
However, there are several points of deep concern.
1) Cookbook use appears to be learned over the course of study in chemistry at this university. Rather than being a bad habit from secondary school that is progressively reduced by attendance at this university, the opposite appears to be the case. Exceptions to this trend are biochemistry and analytical chemistry. Both of these disciplines exhibit low levels of cookbook use over all years.
2) If the trends from cookbook use and copy and paste plagiarism hold for students’ perception of data falsification as well, there could be a very serious problem that should be dealt with carefully.
3) Lecturers seem to greatly underestimate the extent of these behaviours.
Finally, it is notable that the disciplines with the lowest prevalence of cookbook use benefit from lecturers who regularly revise their lab manuals. While students do not perceive the reuse of the same labs year after year as the highest incentive to use cookbooks, the fact remains that there will be no cookbooks available to students for a new or newly revised lab module. Complete revision of all labs each year does not seem to be needed. Substantive changes to existing experiments appears to work well or better.
[i] Braumoeller, B.F., and Gaines Brian J. (2001) Actions do speak louder than words: Deterring Plagiarism with the Use of Plagiarism Detection Software. Political Science and Politics 34 835-39.
[ii] McCabe, D. L., L. K. Trevino, and K. D. Butterfield (2001). Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research. Ethics and Behavior 11(3):219-232.
[iii] Newstead, S. A. Franklyn-Stokes, P. Armstead,. (1996) Individual differences in student cheating Journal of Educational psychology 88 229-241.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)