I’ve told you people this over and over: kids need to run around during the school day. It’s good for their bodies, it’s good for their brains. Exercise gets their energy out so they can sit still long enough to learn. They learn better when their bodies are less amped. Do you all overstand yet? Stop decreasing recess and budget-cutting PE and athletic programs.

More scientific research to back me up on that comes from the British Medical Journal. A recent study shows that kids are miraculously more fit and trim when they are allowed to exercise during the school day. So. Dang. Weird.

An excerpt from the article:

One in three to five children in the Western world is overweight or obese. This epidemic is rapidly and constantly growing and affects all socioeconomic levels and ethnicities. Excessive weight is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, orthopaedic problems, and psychosocial constraints even before adulthood is reached. Life expectancy may be reduced by several years, as is work productivity, while costs are increasing enormously. A focus on early prevention is thus urgently needed.

The increase in physical inactivity over the past decades is one of the main causes of the increase in obesity. In adults, physical inactivity and low aerobic fitness are associated with higher mortality and a higher prevalence of chronic disease. In children, physical inactivity and lack of fitness are associated with increasing prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, even independent of body weight.

Further Reading:

Educational Psychology Can Save Recess (I Hope)
The Salubriousness of Recess

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

Which humans grow up wanting to be professors? Usually not the conservatives. Which humans hope to head for a career in nursing? Usually not the boys. According to their paper, “Why Are Professors Liberal?”, Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse say nursing is a “gender typed” career, while being a professor is more “politically typed.”

From the NY Times:

The overwhelmingly liberal tilt of university professors has been explained by everything from outright bias to higher I.Q. scores. Now new research suggests that critics may have been asking the wrong question. Instead of looking at why most professors are liberal, they should ask why so many liberals — and so few conservatives — want to be professors.

A pair of sociologists think they may have an answer: typecasting. Conjure up the classic image of a humanities or social sciences professor, the fields where the imbalance is greatest: tweed jacket, pipe, nerdy, longwinded, secular — and liberal. Even though that may be an outdated stereotype, it influences younger people’s ideas about what they want to be when they grow up.

“…nerdy, long-winded, secular…” Wait! That exactly describes my grandfathers! They were both total science nerd professors, but whatever. They both were liberal, and both saw themselves heading toward careers as tweed-wearing research profs. Coincidence? I think not.

Gross and Fosse’s theory is 100% right according to my family. But it makes sense in the real world as well. Not that my family doesn’t have a foothold in reality…

Posted by Alexa Harrington

Redirecting your thought process is difficult on a good day. Redirecting your post-high school plans is nearly impossible, especially if college has been the one all-consuming thought you and your parents have had since you were exhibiting sheer finger-painting genius in preschool. The farther you’ve driven, the harder it is to turn the car around.

Even though eighteen-year-old me would never have listened to any advice involving my not going to college, that doesn’t mean I was correct in my closed-mindedness. Whether or not it’s advice you want to take, only fools assume their way is always right and disregard all other input and information. (That was directed at me. I’m the idiot. Or, I was the idiot. I’ve made so many horrific blunders that now I’m wise beyond all measure.)

Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist has an excellent piece about college education and what it really means in this day and age. It’s difficult to open one’s mind up and really consider what she says, especially if you’ve grown up thinking the way I do about higher education. But that’s part of growing the hell up and learning to examine all options and relevant information when making a decision. Penelope tends to think outside the box, and the more miles you walk through this world, the more you’ll realize how valuable that quality is.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

High school juniors: It is time. You and your parentals have probably been working toward this moment since preschool. The college application process of doom is about to begin. Hurl if you must, then pull it together and start thinking about which colleges you might want to apply to.

Maybe avoid doing what I did. I plunked my little self down in the high school counselor’s office and answered her “Which major?” question. She had gallons of information about the plethora of schools available to me. I waved them all away impatiently and asked for the helpful grid the California State University system sends out. Printed helpfully upon it is a list of every degree offered, with a dot next to the campus(es) that can deliver the goods.

I wanted simple: In-state tuition; close but not to close; far but not too far; no big-name schools; and I wanted my decision to mostly be based on academics, not on a school’s reputation for politics or parties. Three schools had my program: Long Beach (too SoCal), San Francisco (too close to my Machiavellian grandparents), and Fresno (perfect).

Sadly, not quite, as it turned out. The one drawback to Fresno State is that it’s in Fresno. Yes, Fresno did produce the Fresno Poets, and I’ll admit to the importance of that. But aside from a handful of people who can write interestingly, one has to dig deep to find culture. Also, I would generally advise against living in a place where the dust kicked up by farm machinery on the 80 million raisin-grape vineyards contains mold spores that can kill you. I like an exciting life as much as the next girl, but dying from dust is just dumb.

My attempt at simplicity, frugality and pure academic focus was noble. That being said, if I had it to do again, I would have chosen a school based mostly on academics, but also upon location. Because you don’t just study while away at college, you have to live there, too. If I had considered that, there’s a chance I may not have fled.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

It’s shocking. I’m overwhelmed with dumbfounded bafflement. How can this be? They went and published an anthology of science writing, and all but three of the authors are of the male persuasion. Is that even possible? Hold on! I’m thinking.

I think yes, there’s a staggeringly high chance that this could have occurred. There’s many a female science badass out there, but I can guarantee she’s spending a large portion of her time and energy trying to hold her ground in a man’s world.

It’s almost Christmas, and we’re all supposed to love each other even more because the country is littered with sparkly dead trees and overtly cheerful Muzak, so I’ll spare us all the rant. Let’s just say I’m a huge fan of DNA and its structure. It’s beautiful, it’s poetry, it actually chokes me up. I’m not kidding. I also think Watson, Crick and Wilkins were amazing. But that doesn’t change the fact that Rosalind Franklin was treated like sh*t despite her ability to kick DNA-structure ass.

I’m well aware of the fact that the Nobel folks don’t hand over the prize to dead people, and that they only allow sharing between a total of three recipients. Three living ones. So Franklin wouldn’t have been eligible regardless. However, it would be fascinating to know whether she would have been chosen to receive the 1962 Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine instead of one of the men had she been alive at the time.

It’s been almost fifty years. I would have hoped for some improvement on the equality front.

And there they went—all the diplomatic words just left my building. I will stop short of explaining exactly how much people suck. Happy holidays. Go forth and treat people fairly.

Further Reading:

The Rosalind Franklin Papers

The Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology 1962

Posted by Alexa Harrington

I knew it! Multitasking is for sucks. Focusing on one project at a time and asking one’s brain to dig deep, ponder and problem-solve like the higher-thinking Homo sapiens that you are is smarter, faster, better. I hate the spinning in circles aspect of juggling one’s entire life all day every day.

I lust after graduate study carrels, those delicious-looking closet-sized rooms in libraries reserved only for thesis- and dissertation-writing grad students. Holing up in a tiny, interruption-free room for hours to focus and solve the crap out of all problems on the list that day sounds divine.

Getting off on being alone to think about one item at a time made me L-A-M-E until this vindication-saturated article showed up. Ironically, I found it while multitasking on the Internet, but whatever.

The Decade Google Made You Stupid was written by Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project. In it, Rushkoff explains, with scientific evidence to back him up, that the whole Google/multitasking phase of mankind is making our grey matter work less efficiently and is wrecking our analytical processing abilities.

Cliff Nass, director of Stanford University’s Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab (known as CHIMe Lab), has been studying the best multitaskers on the face of the earth: college students. “How do they do it? Do their brains work differently?” He, too, was shocked by his own research. “It turns out, multitaskers are terrible at every aspect of multitasking. They’re terrible at ignoring irrelevant information. They’re terrible at keeping information in their heads nice and neatly organized, and they’re terrible at switching from one task to the other. This shocks us.”

Nass split his subjects into two groups—those who regularly do a lot of media multitasking, and those who don’t. When they took simple tests comparing assortments of shapes, the multitaskers were more easily distracted by random images, and incapable of determining which data was relevant to the task at hand. And just because the multitaskers couldn’t ignore irrelevant data didn’t mean they were better at storing and organizing information. They scored worse on both sorting and memorizing information.

So what does it mean if we multitaskers are actually fooling ourselves into believing we’re competent when we’re not? “If multitasking is hurting their ability to do these fundamental tasks,” Nass explained matter-of-factly, “life becomes difficult. Some of studies show they are worse at analytic reasoning. We are mostly shocked. They think they are great at it.” We’re not just stupid and vulnerable online—we simultaneously think we’re invincible. And that attitude, new brain research shows, has massive carryover into real life.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the increased dumbing down of the human race can’t be good for anyone.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

Extensive lists full of pertinent information are invaluable. If you’re a research-paper-writing student in need of a flotation device, check out this list of almost 300 relevant links: Student Research Resources and Sites.

Further Reading:

Research and Study Tools for College Students
How to Read a Scientific Research Paper

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

Does anyone do in-library research any more? Most people don’t. Not even book-loving me. I adore the perfect scent of old library books, shelved in endless stacks in the badly lit, flickering fluorescence of university libraries, re-covered in industrial strength primary colors, the titles stamped on and the catalogue labels typed in that odd Library Label font.

And yet, I no longer use libraries for research. Now I use them as quiet places to be alone and get s**t done. No one is allowed to talk, so no one can bother me. Any researching I need to do is accomplished via the Internet. Library sites on the Internet, not Wikipedia. But digital, nonetheless.

The books I require are requested online and delivered to my library so I can pick them up, read them, and write stuff down. No more camping out next to the card catalog (I think they’ve recycled those), making lists on scratch paper with the stubby library pencils, and then wandering for hours on every floor to locate the texts only to discover they’re checked out and I’ll have to go fill out some forms to request them from another university library.

Now it’s all done with a keyboard and minimal legwork. No more physical limitations as far as how many books one library can house. And no more goose-chasing on foot–a definite benefit of mankind’s many technological advancements.

Finding Dulcinea, also known as the Librarian of the Internet, is an excellent starting point for pre-vetted sources of digital research. I’d begin with their article, Making the Most of Libraries in the Digital Age and go from there. Feel free to take advantage of their mission to cut the crap and show you to the Websites containing usable information.

Further Reading:

Reuters: Alternatives to Google
24 Most Underrated Websites of 2008

Posted by Alexa Harrington

The notion most of us have when thinking about the University (read that with a deep and important voice, please) is of a well-architectured limbo-land full of higher thought, in-depth learning, and forward motion steeped nicely in tradition. The University isn’t (or didn’t used to be) as susceptible to the rules of government and society; they’ve managed to create their own little spheres.

These days, when you really stop to ponder the reality of the University bubble, that place of higher thinking seems a lot more watered down in its autonomy. Money, politics and red tape have pulled the rest of the world into the fabric of the University, while the University is forced, more and more it seems, to rely on the non-University world in order to survive.

No less than eight members of my family, between 1932 and the present, have spent their careers at Universities. I’m not an idiot; I know that even in 1932 the University was already pretty susceptible to red tape and politics. But the University was still thought of, from without and within, as a place where academic freedom was considered sacred.

It appears, especially through the eyes of those on the inside, as though the last vestiges of higher learning and new thinking are being chipped away at an increasingly rapid rate, all in the name of popular research and big-name publishing. That all comes down to the ongoing faculty wrestling-match to figure out who will land the biggest chunk of grant money.

You can’t survive without money, and you can’t continue your research (or your job) without funding. Grant money is usually awarded to those trying to answer the newest, biggest, hottest question of the year. It’s difficult to land decent financial support for researching the esoteric topics.

When a dispute regarding academic freedom comes up, it’s usually about the rights of instructors to speak freely (within reason; there’s never any need to go overboard, for crying out loud) about politics and religion and all the Big Bads no one’s supposed to bring up in classroom discussions. Academic freedom is also supposed to include the rights of students and faculty to think, wonder, ask questions, and to perform research in order to find some answers. If money and funding are driving the machine, it seems obvious that the academic freedom to do research is being severely shaped by outside interests.

President Robert Zimmer of the University of Chicago gave a speech recently at Columbia University’s conference entitled “What is Academic Freedom For?” He spoke about academic freedom at institutions of higher learning, what that means and why it’s important to protect and maintain that tradition in the modern-day University.

The greatest contributions universities can make to society over the long run are the ideas and discoveries of faculty and students that emanate from the resulting intellectual ferment and the work of alumni across the scope of human activity―alumni whose capacity for invention has been dramatically enhanced through their education in this environment. Moreover, that universities are almost unique in making this type of contribution only highlights its importance to society.

If this is the purpose of universities, the purpose of academic freedom is precisely to preserve this openness of inquiry and freedom of thought. In other words, academic freedom is designed to protect and preserve for the long run the unique capacity of universities to contribute to society. More…

Further Reading:

Academic Freedom in the 21st Century College and University
Academic Freedom
AAUP: Academic Freedom
What is Academic Freedom For?
Pres. Zimmer’s Address Delivered at Columbia Univ.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source*)

Anti-evolution group Living Waters and their president, Ray Comfort, have published their own version of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, complete with an awesomely religious introduction in which they explain that Darwin wasn’t so much a scientist ahead of his time, but was more a deluded freak with a huge imagination who played his fellow humans with a long list of hoaxes.

Here’s what Ray Comfort and Living Waters had to say regarding their plan:

Living Waters, an evangelical group that argues for the literal truth of the Bible, is planning to distribute 175,000 copies of The Origin of Species on university campuses next month, just in time for the 150th anniversary of its publication. But these won’t be ordinary copies. They will feature a “special introduction” to Darwin’s classic.

The idea, according to the fund raising materials, is that top universities, which might not be thrilled at their students being given anti-evolution materials, will be unable to block the distribution of Darwin’s writings. “Let’s see if they try to ban Darwin’s Origin of Species,” it says.

Look, I respect and encourage humans to have different beliefs. What I don’t respect, however, is someone (anyone, even a freaky, liberal, cold-hard-science person like myself) resorts to using fear tactics or brain-washing or some form of effed-up trickery to lure unsuspecting minds to their way of thinking. Grow up. Say what you want to say and allow people to take it or leave it. Don’t be creepy, and for the love of all things holy, don’t stoop to treating your prospective converts like children of below-average intelligence.

It’s tempting to go back on my live-and-let-live philosophy and publish my own edition of the bible with an introduction full of lots of explanations as to the epic mythology contained therein, the ancient fables of pre-scientific-method mankind, and the spectacularly unprovable math and science which the big book claims are the absolute truth. It would be a little (so much!) fun to show up at a church and pass out my version of that big guy’s book, but I won’t. I’m entirely too classy.

Posted by Alexa Harrington