Whoa. It's been a year. A year since Miss E was born. Tomorrow, I head to See her and her daddy and papa, for her first birthday party. With friends and family. Holy schiznit, I'm nervous. If you're reading this, you probably know that I don't like people and crowds. I am 100% positive that I'll totally embarrass myself and everybody else there. And, to top it off, my mom is heading up here to Ohio after her father-in-law's death, so I'll probably be seeing them soon, too. And I still haven't defended my dissertation. The whole damn thing is written, but getting my advisors to read it is like pulling teeth. And not the loose baby teeth that we've been pulling out of my six year old's mouth. Impacted wisdom teeth pulling hard. Yeah, it's *that* not fun right now. But, on the bright side, I'm getting a metric shit ton done lately. And I think that's actually getting me caught up. The weekend out of town will be a nice break, I just need to do some work on the road (not computer based, I refuse to take the computer). Something fun- maybe beading. Lots of writing- of all types- has been happening lately. And I may have a job on the horizon. A real, jobby-job, using my ejumukashun and such.
That's it for now. I'll check back in later with some new photos and new insane stories. Ciao!
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Knowing and Uncertain
NPR did a piece this week about uncertainty, and I loved it. Why? Why would a scientist want uncertainty; don't we do all that we can to limit confounding variables, measure, collect data, and reduce uncertainty? Don't scientists want to know things and answer questions? Here's the thing- those are all different issues. Researchers most definitely design experiments, measure, collect data, and try to learn. That doesn't necessarily answer questions, and it most certainly doesn't prove anything. We collect data, and use that new data, previously collected and interpreted data that has been disseminated to the public sphere, add our own interpretation to the new data, and disseminate our data and interpretation. We can provide support for a hypothesis or theory, or we can refute these things. We almost never "prove" something. That's not the way science works, and it's not the goal of science.
To have "proof," one would have to assume static conditions, that don't change, and omniscience. However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle asserts that whenever we reduce uncertainty somewhere, we increase uncertainty somewhere else. Essentially, as we learn, we learn how much we don't know. If we answer one question, we raise five more. As much as I may disagree with him on policy, Rumsfeld got it right when he talked about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns." He wasn't talking about research or science, but his description works here very well. Science is about rejecting hypotheses that the data do not support, not finding truth. Science disproves, it doesn't prove. It's the perfect career for a self-esteem challenged contrarian like yours truly, because I don't have to say "I am right," I can simply say "You are wrong, and here's the reason."
Something else that science does do is change. As we learn new techniques, as we invent new technology, and as we answer some questions, we find new questions to ask, we can measure previously unmeasurable quantities, and we can perform experiments differently, not to mention re-interpret data with our new insights. At the same time as we create new ways to conduct science, the world around us is changing as well, so that we can only apply new techniques, principles, or technology to the current world, not the past, revealing uncertainty that we might not have been aware of previously. We can see this frequently in health science, where what was "good for you" last week may be declared "bad for you" in another month. That doesn't necessarily mean the science was bad, just that the studies came to different conclusions, for any number of reasons.
This lack of certainty and certainty of change is hard for many humans, because a lot of us desperately want some kind of certainty and stability. We want something to hang on to, like a board on the waves as the world tosses us about. The thought is appealing, I know, but that's not what science provides. Many turn to religion to serve this purpose, and that's a valid choice (provided they don't try to make policy based on it or force it on others). Maybe that's why Americans tend to distrust science? I don't know. For some people, that uncertainty is filled by our faith in other humans and the natural world. Others embrace uncertainty, or do something completely different. Our personal experiences, nature, and nurture shape which path we take. The one thing that is certain, aside from a lack of funds, there will always be career opportunities in science, thanks in part to this uncertainty. Obviously, right now, lack of funding is a very real problem, but that's another issue.
All of this is to say that if someone tells you that something has been scientifically proven, ask questions of them. Be skeptical. Consider what role the person fills, what they stand to gain, and where their personal bias may lie. At the same time, if you hear a scientist use "may", "could", "potentially", "might", and other "hedging" words, don't discount them. They're not trying to sound equivocal; they're being a good scientist. We just deal in data, and leave the "truth" to other people.
And don't think that all this means we won't defend the data and interpretations passionately, but we'll do it based on logic and the data, although we are human and have human failings just like everyone else. For the times our failings pop up, please consider forgiving us, just like you would anyone else, and we'll all try to learn from our mistakes.
To have "proof," one would have to assume static conditions, that don't change, and omniscience. However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle asserts that whenever we reduce uncertainty somewhere, we increase uncertainty somewhere else. Essentially, as we learn, we learn how much we don't know. If we answer one question, we raise five more. As much as I may disagree with him on policy, Rumsfeld got it right when he talked about "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns." He wasn't talking about research or science, but his description works here very well. Science is about rejecting hypotheses that the data do not support, not finding truth. Science disproves, it doesn't prove. It's the perfect career for a self-esteem challenged contrarian like yours truly, because I don't have to say "I am right," I can simply say "You are wrong, and here's the reason."
Something else that science does do is change. As we learn new techniques, as we invent new technology, and as we answer some questions, we find new questions to ask, we can measure previously unmeasurable quantities, and we can perform experiments differently, not to mention re-interpret data with our new insights. At the same time as we create new ways to conduct science, the world around us is changing as well, so that we can only apply new techniques, principles, or technology to the current world, not the past, revealing uncertainty that we might not have been aware of previously. We can see this frequently in health science, where what was "good for you" last week may be declared "bad for you" in another month. That doesn't necessarily mean the science was bad, just that the studies came to different conclusions, for any number of reasons.
This lack of certainty and certainty of change is hard for many humans, because a lot of us desperately want some kind of certainty and stability. We want something to hang on to, like a board on the waves as the world tosses us about. The thought is appealing, I know, but that's not what science provides. Many turn to religion to serve this purpose, and that's a valid choice (provided they don't try to make policy based on it or force it on others). Maybe that's why Americans tend to distrust science? I don't know. For some people, that uncertainty is filled by our faith in other humans and the natural world. Others embrace uncertainty, or do something completely different. Our personal experiences, nature, and nurture shape which path we take. The one thing that is certain, aside from a lack of funds, there will always be career opportunities in science, thanks in part to this uncertainty. Obviously, right now, lack of funding is a very real problem, but that's another issue.
All of this is to say that if someone tells you that something has been scientifically proven, ask questions of them. Be skeptical. Consider what role the person fills, what they stand to gain, and where their personal bias may lie. At the same time, if you hear a scientist use "may", "could", "potentially", "might", and other "hedging" words, don't discount them. They're not trying to sound equivocal; they're being a good scientist. We just deal in data, and leave the "truth" to other people.
And don't think that all this means we won't defend the data and interpretations passionately, but we'll do it based on logic and the data, although we are human and have human failings just like everyone else. For the times our failings pop up, please consider forgiving us, just like you would anyone else, and we'll all try to learn from our mistakes.
Friday, March 30, 2012
New Venues
So, I've been trying to do better about writing, at least on things other than my dissertation. I'll be updating here more regularly, and you can also catch some of my ravings- er- musings at the Kent Patch and The Next Family. I'll be adding other content as it gets figured out. :)
Holy crap, it's almost April?!
Holy crap, it's almost April?!
Spring Cleaning
If you hadn't heard the frogs calling yet, or looked at a calendar, let me be the one to break the news to you (just a little late, but oh well)- It's SPRING!
I love this time of the year. Trees are growing buds, flowers are blooming, frogs are calling, and the weather is warming, especially this year. I'm an ecologist by training, and spring is just brilliant in my opinion, for all the wonder in the natural world that's going on. The whole wide world, simply bursting with life. It's wonderful, and I mean exactly that, full of wonder.
It's also full of work. The winter chill drives people indoors. We track in mud, snow, and other stuff of the great outdoors. Doors and windows are shut, furnaces and fireplaces and woodstoves burn fuel and create dust and soot. The air gets stale, and people get sick, passing around germs and snot and sneezes. And then there's the holiday trees, and tinsel, and wrapping, adding to the grime. And all that grime needs cleaning, once you can throw open the shades, let the breeze in, and fill the house with fresh air smells. And there's the garden that needs tending, and the yard that needs care, and there's the over-indulged, under-utilized body that needs tuned up again and gotten back into shape. Spring is hard work, mixed with beautiful beginnings.
That beauty is what makes the ugliness of some recent stories all the harder with which to deal. The Trayvon Martin case, the Hunger Games tweets, cheating schools, and the Afghan shootings. Among other things. These are serious marks on our country. Two of these have to do with some of our country's historic problems with racial equality. We aren't the only country to deal with these issues, but that doesn't make it right. Trying to be positive, talking about these inequalities and bringing them out into the open might actually, finally make some progress. Like opening the shades and throwing up the window lets in the sunlight and sweeps out the stale air. Maybe we can finally be frank, discuss difficulties like adults, and try to enter the twenty-first century like civil human beings.
Once again, the US seems to be at a crossroads. We can take one road that forges the path ahead and let's us see new ground, or we can go around the block again, hoping to see a detail that we missed before. Can we grow further than our past history? Let all the little blossoms bloom to their full potential? I promise you, the more colorful the garden, the better the display. So hopefully, in this time of growth and beauty and cleaning, we can clean out our national dialogue and start a whole beautiful garden on its way to fruition.
I love this time of the year. Trees are growing buds, flowers are blooming, frogs are calling, and the weather is warming, especially this year. I'm an ecologist by training, and spring is just brilliant in my opinion, for all the wonder in the natural world that's going on. The whole wide world, simply bursting with life. It's wonderful, and I mean exactly that, full of wonder.
It's also full of work. The winter chill drives people indoors. We track in mud, snow, and other stuff of the great outdoors. Doors and windows are shut, furnaces and fireplaces and woodstoves burn fuel and create dust and soot. The air gets stale, and people get sick, passing around germs and snot and sneezes. And then there's the holiday trees, and tinsel, and wrapping, adding to the grime. And all that grime needs cleaning, once you can throw open the shades, let the breeze in, and fill the house with fresh air smells. And there's the garden that needs tending, and the yard that needs care, and there's the over-indulged, under-utilized body that needs tuned up again and gotten back into shape. Spring is hard work, mixed with beautiful beginnings.
That beauty is what makes the ugliness of some recent stories all the harder with which to deal. The Trayvon Martin case, the Hunger Games tweets, cheating schools, and the Afghan shootings. Among other things. These are serious marks on our country. Two of these have to do with some of our country's historic problems with racial equality. We aren't the only country to deal with these issues, but that doesn't make it right. Trying to be positive, talking about these inequalities and bringing them out into the open might actually, finally make some progress. Like opening the shades and throwing up the window lets in the sunlight and sweeps out the stale air. Maybe we can finally be frank, discuss difficulties like adults, and try to enter the twenty-first century like civil human beings.
Once again, the US seems to be at a crossroads. We can take one road that forges the path ahead and let's us see new ground, or we can go around the block again, hoping to see a detail that we missed before. Can we grow further than our past history? Let all the little blossoms bloom to their full potential? I promise you, the more colorful the garden, the better the display. So hopefully, in this time of growth and beauty and cleaning, we can clean out our national dialogue and start a whole beautiful garden on its way to fruition.
The Value of an Education
There's been a lot of talk about money and education lately. Kent State raising tuition rates. The rising student loan debt. Cleveland's school reform. And that's just this week's list of topics in northeast Ohio. And there's good reason to talk about the two subjects together; teaching people is expensive, and better educated people tend to make more money over the course of their lifetime. For this reason, we obviously end up at the question, "What is an education worth?"
If we're talking about extrinsic worth, measured in dollars, there's a huge difference across fields, with a medical degree usually leading to a much higher salary than, say, an art history degree. Why don't we consider the worth of an education in education, or teachers, since they have been the subject of so many discussions around money and education. These are individuals who both have an education, and are responsible for educating future generations; if there's a monetary value to an education, we should see that reflected in teacher salaries, because of their dual role in the educational system, right? In Ohio, teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree, and often a master's degree, depending on the school district. The average teacher's salary in Ohio is a bit shy of $57,000 annually (wage only), although the does vary across school districts, with many of the school district average salaries being between $40-50,000 annually.
Now let's think of not having a college education. Just like wages of people with an education, the wages available to those without an education varies quite a bit, although not as large a range. Minimum wage jobs pay $7.70 in Ohio, and at that pay grade, you would need to work 70 hours a week, or have two people both working full time in a single home, in order to make enough to pay fair market rent in Ohio. And Ohio is an affordable state; in other states, it can take much more. At the high end of the scale, manufacturing jobs typically pay $40-50,000 per year, and auto industry jobs pay around $54,000 per year. These higher pay jobs for those without a college education are the ones that we in Rust Belt want to return and worry over their loss.
That's awfully close to what an average teacher makes, but without any cost associated with education. That college education isn't cheap, either, and has risen 827% since 1980, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This means that one can go into not insignificant dept obtaining a college degree, possibly an advanced college degree, and make a similar wage to what one could have without the debt and degree. Maybe the idea of the dollar value in a college degree has been oversold a bit, and a college education has less extrinsic worth than we typically tell kids, especially high school students.
Considering all this, I still advocate heavily for the value in an education. Why? Because all of this ignores the intrinsic value of an education. If you want an education for the increased pay check, then be careful and choose your degree accordingly, or go an alternate route that has a lower cost and is more job related- apprenticeships, community colleges, and certificate programs are great forms of vocational education. If you choose to go the college route, then recognize that it may or may not pay off monetarily, and remember the intrinsic value of an education. Better yet, all of us should remember the intrinsic value of education in general. Education is different from vocational training. A liberal arts education is well rounded, and much of what is learned is how to think, how to critically analyze, and exposure to ideas and people that a student hasn't had before. For society, the value of an education is in having a populous that can critique, analyse, and argue effectively. That's something from which everyone benefits.
Can we please stop selling a college education as a job ticket, and instead support higher education and make it accessible to everyone? Can we change the discussion of the value of an education to a more accurate description of the real value of an education?
If we're talking about extrinsic worth, measured in dollars, there's a huge difference across fields, with a medical degree usually leading to a much higher salary than, say, an art history degree. Why don't we consider the worth of an education in education, or teachers, since they have been the subject of so many discussions around money and education. These are individuals who both have an education, and are responsible for educating future generations; if there's a monetary value to an education, we should see that reflected in teacher salaries, because of their dual role in the educational system, right? In Ohio, teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree, and often a master's degree, depending on the school district. The average teacher's salary in Ohio is a bit shy of $57,000 annually (wage only), although the does vary across school districts, with many of the school district average salaries being between $40-50,000 annually.
Now let's think of not having a college education. Just like wages of people with an education, the wages available to those without an education varies quite a bit, although not as large a range. Minimum wage jobs pay $7.70 in Ohio, and at that pay grade, you would need to work 70 hours a week, or have two people both working full time in a single home, in order to make enough to pay fair market rent in Ohio. And Ohio is an affordable state; in other states, it can take much more. At the high end of the scale, manufacturing jobs typically pay $40-50,000 per year, and auto industry jobs pay around $54,000 per year. These higher pay jobs for those without a college education are the ones that we in Rust Belt want to return and worry over their loss.
That's awfully close to what an average teacher makes, but without any cost associated with education. That college education isn't cheap, either, and has risen 827% since 1980, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This means that one can go into not insignificant dept obtaining a college degree, possibly an advanced college degree, and make a similar wage to what one could have without the debt and degree. Maybe the idea of the dollar value in a college degree has been oversold a bit, and a college education has less extrinsic worth than we typically tell kids, especially high school students.
Considering all this, I still advocate heavily for the value in an education. Why? Because all of this ignores the intrinsic value of an education. If you want an education for the increased pay check, then be careful and choose your degree accordingly, or go an alternate route that has a lower cost and is more job related- apprenticeships, community colleges, and certificate programs are great forms of vocational education. If you choose to go the college route, then recognize that it may or may not pay off monetarily, and remember the intrinsic value of an education. Better yet, all of us should remember the intrinsic value of education in general. Education is different from vocational training. A liberal arts education is well rounded, and much of what is learned is how to think, how to critically analyze, and exposure to ideas and people that a student hasn't had before. For society, the value of an education is in having a populous that can critique, analyse, and argue effectively. That's something from which everyone benefits.
Can we please stop selling a college education as a job ticket, and instead support higher education and make it accessible to everyone? Can we change the discussion of the value of an education to a more accurate description of the real value of an education?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Value Being Evaluated
There's been a lot of talk about money and education lately. Kent State raising tuition rates. The rising student loan debt. Cleveland's school reform. And that's just this week's list of topics in northeast Ohio. And there's good reason to talk about the two subjects together; teaching people is expensive, and better educated people tend to make more money over the course of their lifetime. For this reason, we obviously end up at the question, "What is an education worth?"
If we're talking about extrinsic worth, measured in dollars, there's a huge difference across fields, with a medical degree usually leading to a much higher salary than, say, an art history degree. Why don't we consider the worth of an education in education, or teachers, since they have been the subject of so many discussions around money and education. These are individuals who both have an education, and are responsible for educating future generations; if there's a monetary value to an education, we should see that reflected in teacher salaries, because of their dual role in the educational system, right? In Ohio, teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree, and often a master's degree, depending on the school district. The average teacher's salary in Ohio is a bit shy of $57,000 annually (wage only), although the does vary across school districts, with many of the school district average salaries being between $40-50,000 annually.
Now let's think of not having a college education. Just like wages of people with an education, the wages available to those without an education varies quite a bit, although not as large a range. Minimum wage jobs pay $7.70 in Ohio, and at that pay grade, you would need to work 70 hours a week, or have two people both working full time in a single home, in order to make enough to pay fair market rent in Ohio. And Ohio is an affordable state; in other states, it can take much more. At the high end of the scale, manufacturing jobs typically pay $40-50,000 per year, and auto industry jobs pay around $54,000 per year. These higher pay jobs for those without a college education are the ones that we in Rust Belt want to return and worry over their loss.
That's awfully close to what an average teacher makes, but without any cost associated with education. That college education isn't cheap, either, and has risen 827% since 1980, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This means that one can go into not insignificant dept obtaining a college degree, possibly an advanced college degree, and make a similar wage to what one could have without the debt and degree. Maybe the idea of the dollar value in a college degree has been oversold a bit, and a college education has less extrinsic worth than we typically tell kids, especially high school students.
Considering all this, I still advocate heavily for the value in an education. Why? Because all of this ignores the intrinsic value of an education. If you want an education for the increased pay check, then be careful and choose your degree accordingly, or go an alternate route that has a lower cost and is more job related- apprenticeships, community colleges, and certificate programs are great forms of vocational education. If you choose to go the college route, then recognize that it may or may not pay off monetarily, and remember the intrinsic value of an education. Better yet, all of us should remember the intrinsic value of education in general. Education is different from vocational training. A liberal arts education is well rounded, and much of what is learned is how to think, how to critically analyze, and exposure to ideas and people that a student hasn't had before. For society, the value of an education is in having a populous that can critique, analyse, and argue effectively. That's something from which everyone benefits.
Can we please stop selling a college education as a job ticket, and instead support higher education and make it accessible to everyone? Can we change the discussion of the value of an education to a more accurate description of the real value of an education?
If we're talking about extrinsic worth, measured in dollars, there's a huge difference across fields, with a medical degree usually leading to a much higher salary than, say, an art history degree. Why don't we consider the worth of an education in education, or teachers, since they have been the subject of so many discussions around money and education. These are individuals who both have an education, and are responsible for educating future generations; if there's a monetary value to an education, we should see that reflected in teacher salaries, because of their dual role in the educational system, right? In Ohio, teachers must have at least a bachelor's degree, and often a master's degree, depending on the school district. The average teacher's salary in Ohio is a bit shy of $57,000 annually (wage only), although the does vary across school districts, with many of the school district average salaries being between $40-50,000 annually.
Now let's think of not having a college education. Just like wages of people with an education, the wages available to those without an education varies quite a bit, although not as large a range. Minimum wage jobs pay $7.70 in Ohio, and at that pay grade, you would need to work 70 hours a week, or have two people both working full time in a single home, in order to make enough to pay fair market rent in Ohio. And Ohio is an affordable state; in other states, it can take much more. At the high end of the scale, manufacturing jobs typically pay $40-50,000 per year, and auto industry jobs pay around $54,000 per year. These higher pay jobs for those without a college education are the ones that we in Rust Belt want to return and worry over their loss.
That's awfully close to what an average teacher makes, but without any cost associated with education. That college education isn't cheap, either, and has risen 827% since 1980, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This means that one can go into not insignificant dept obtaining a college degree, possibly an advanced college degree, and make a similar wage to what one could have without the debt and degree. Maybe the idea of the dollar value in a college degree has been oversold a bit, and a college education has less extrinsic worth than we typically tell kids, especially high school students.
Considering all this, I still advocate heavily for the value in an education. Why? Because all of this ignores the intrinsic value of an education. If you want an education for the increased pay check, then be careful and choose your degree accordingly, or go an alternate route that has a lower cost and is more job related- apprenticeships, community colleges, and certificate programs are great forms of vocational education. If you choose to go the college route, then recognize that it may or may not pay off monetarily, and remember the intrinsic value of an education. Better yet, all of us should remember the intrinsic value of education in general. Education is different from vocational training. A liberal arts education is well rounded, and much of what is learned is how to think, how to critically analyze, and exposure to ideas and people that a student hasn't had before. For society, the value of an education is in having a populous that can critique, analyse, and argue effectively. That's something from which everyone benefits.
Can we please stop selling a college education as a job ticket, and instead support higher education and make it accessible to everyone? Can we change the discussion of the value of an education to a more accurate description of the real value of an education?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)