Why a Postdoc is basically needed in Academia

Today, over at Engineer Blogs, I discuss why a postdoc is pretty much mandatory to succeed in academia. In a nutshell, YIAs are, in my opinion, supremely biased towards faculty that have had long postdoc stints which screw over faculty such as yours truly who didn't postdoc.

Midterm Self-Assessment

As we roll in to the middle of the semester, I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the hard data (grades) from what I have observed via anecdotal evidence. There's a clear Gaussian distribution of students of what I would call the average 70%, with 15% on either tail, making up the very good and very poor students. So far, I'm very pleased with this for a number of reasons.

The pressures to curve the class are non-existent. This is pretty important to me because that's a direct correlation to whether I have the class on the right trajectory. I feel like the average engineering student should be getting between an 80 and a 90 in a class, with the below average in the 70s and the above average in the 90s. If the entire class is in the 90s, then I'm not making the material difficult enough for the very good students and that's a disservice to them. If everyone is failing during the midterm, not only is there pressure to curve the class upward but it also drops morale, which can erode student confidence and evaluation scores.

Most students are pleased with the class, based on informal polling. I ask for feedback anonymously (or not if the student doesn't mind) after every large assignment. A handful of students use this to vent with things like "this assignment sucks" and "I didn't learn any of this crap". But the majority of the responses have been positive in the form of constructive criticism. Comments like "I think this aspect wasn't explained clearly and the notes were equally unclear. Can you give a better example next time?" are things that I can directly use during the next course to make improvements. Also, after these assignments, I do let students know about some of the changes for subsequent semesters so they know their comments haven't fallen on deaf ears. I'm thinking this could be a key part to get good evaluations which always looks better than bad evaluations.

I feel like I've covered more material and required more work from the students and they've responded positively. I've added some changes from previous semesters, beefed up the writing requirements, and had more lectures. Students have grumbled a little bit (who doesn't love more work) but most have grudgingly admitted it's been for their benefit. This also means I have a heavier time commitment for this class than previous semesters under different instructors but I think it's been positive for both the students and myself.

Now, with that said, there's definitely room for improvement. I've been waiting until the last minute to make up assignments and lab manuals, which is not a good trend to start. Also, there are a few more topics I should have covered during the lecture part of the course which would have benefited the students and probably saved me a few headaches. I've been late on getting information to the TAs but I don't require grading from the TAs so I don't think they're totally mad at me yet.

Overall, I'm fairly pleased so far. I only hope that I can keep this up for the rest of the semester and have the students be successful in the course.

Research Group Dynamics

Today, over at Engineer Blogs, I discuss the dynamics of building a research group and put forth a few key ideas that I focused on in the beginning. If you have comments, they're greatly appreciated.

First Classroom Lecture Report

Well, I've survived the first day! Actually, it wasn't so bad. I started out with a PowerPoint that covered the course objectives and syllabus. There was a lot of information regarding TAs, labs, lab rooms, etc, that didn't want to skip and so even though I dislike PowerPoint, I went along with it.

I tried to reiterate the relevant stuff about 3 times so hopefully some of it sank in. I got a few laughs at my jokes that seemed at least mostly genuine. Probably the best part of the PowerPoint portion of class was when I reviewed the Academic Honesty Policy with them. I told them this is something profs babble about on the first day and then most students don't think about it again. But for me, as a prof, if I suspect someone has cheated, it's about 20-30 hours of insane paperwork and meetings that I would gladly go through walking barefoot on hot coals if it meant dragging down a cheater. The class got very silent about that for a few minutes as I paused to let that sink in.

One student was brave enough to ask if I was serious and I responded by smiling gleefully and saying "Yes". I think they got the message.

The only other things to report on are that the students (being seniors) are a rowdy bunch and the room was over 85 degrees, which is too hot to teach. After the PowerPoint, I had to roll up my sleeves and loosen my tie for the Chalk'n'Talk section (GMP's phrase, not mine). The few undergrads that I have met prior to the class which are department helpers mentioned to me after that they thought the class was very good. So some initial praise was nice.

I only covered about 40% of the material that I wanted to cover but that's ok because I don't have set material to cover for the course (since it's labs/projects). That also means I have lecture 2 done so I'm ahead of the game. :-D

All-in-all, it was fine. My nervousness and sleepless nights seemed all for naught, although I didn't sleep again last night and I might have a fever so that could be the reason why I'm not sleeping...

On Diversification: with Dr. Anna Garry and Professor Ursula Keller

When I posted on Diversification in STEM Fields, I mentioned Professor Ursula Keller's article in February's OPN. I reached out to Professor Keller with a few specific questions hoping to gather more insight on what a junior faculty member such as myself can do and what are the specific aspects of STEM academia that are keeping the door closed for women and minorities. Dr. Anna Garry, who works with Professor Keller on the issue of outreach and retaining talented women scientists, was kind enough to respond back with some very thought provoking responses.

If you haven't read Professor Keller's article, it can be found here (not pay link). I suggest you do so not only for the context of the questions but also for just general insights into the diversification problem in STEM fields. I've posted my questions so you can see the specific context with the shortened question and response below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Original Question: I completely agree that senior male and female scientists/engineers will carry the most weight in changing the culture in STEM fields. However, as a tenure track faculty member who fits the stereotypical profile (white, male, American), how can I be an ally even in my early career stage for eliminating sexism and discrimination? Are there particular steps to take for someone in their early career to buffer themselves from outside influences which may lead to a more discriminatory view in the future? (For example, you start out with good intentions but change over time to get into the good ‘ole boys club.) ]

1. How can a new male tenure track professor buffer themselves from outside influences that can lead to a more discriminatory view in the future?

[AG] I think that the key here is to keep an open mind always about attitudes and assumptions that you see and hear. In addition you can speak up when you see something uncomfortable. Often women are told to lighten up, or not to take things so seriously, or that a person didn't mean it. If a male colleague/member of staff says that what is happening/said is not right, or that it's discouraging - this is really reinforcing for women, they feel supported and respected. For women the environment they work in matters enormously, the old "take it as a joke" attitude is very wearing if the joke is always on you.

Specific examples: I am not a physicist, I am a political scientist, educationist and writer. I am used to being in a more balanced workplace, gender wise.

In the current environment I hear general statements like "I cried like a girl" and there is also a common attitude of competitiveness that is not a natural approach for a lot of women. You have to be very confident in this environment to be different, and not become isolated.

In addition, because I am a woman I have (for the first time in my life) experienced the initial assumption, from men and women here who don't know me, that I work in a secretarial, assistant capacity. This is an awful experience (I have a BSc, MA and PhD), and it hasn't happened to me before. Dealing with this in an angry way would not work, because you are dealing with unconscious thoughts, and who do you talk to about this, if it is an underlying assumption. What I did was set out on a campaign of clarifying the situation to the right people. It worked, all is clear. But I am an experienced, confident, person who could do it, even though it made my heart sink that I had to (and may have to deal with it again). What I was dealing with was subtle, unconscious assumptions, rather than open minds about what the range of roles a woman can take.

I am also hearing from young women scientists that they have to deal with the uncomfortable situations where male colleagues will not/cannot look them in the eye when they speak, and that some men talk only to the men in the group. For male scientists to include women all levels in these group situations is vital and, ultimately, very encouraging.

As you are aware, I think it may be very easy for a successful male academic to adopt the communal departmental mind, if all the colleagues in a department are male. A second thing that is necessary for male scientists to realize is that women (and the research has shown this) are often very self-questioning, unconfident and perfectionist in their work. They may think they are not good, even if their marks are excellent. If they are not discouraged at this stage of initial nervousness, they can produce great work. Positive reinforcement and encouragement really helps in the retention of women.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Original Question: After reading your article, I agreed with the overall points you are attempting to make. Identifying borders, changing the work culture, and becoming an advocate of a new scientific culture all sound good but how do we go about initiating this change? Do you think there are individual differences and borders between STEM fields or are the obstacles to change largely uniform across all STEM fields?]

2. Are the obstacles similar across the STEM fields, or are their individual differences?

This is a huge question and I don't have the answer to this, but we will consider this question as we work. Certain areas of STEM have been studied more than others. I haven't, however, seen a great deal of work about the situation in Mechanical Engineering. One of my neighbours is a researcher in the ETH Mechanical Engineering department. There are two women there out of 40 researchers.

I think one answer is that the academic career has common issues across all of the science subjects in the sense of how a scientist deals with the obligations of scientific research, publications, conferences and dealing with family life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Original Question: Another point you make in the article states that women are opting out of academia as it is now defined. And from that, I presume that some men do not opt out of academia, either because they are OK with its current definition or are willing to work in a system that has some significant drawbacks (tenure and funding rat-race, perpetual postdocs [specifically science fields], pressures to publish, to name a few). What is it about an academic position that is driving women away but not driving men away? Is it simply a numbers game where there are still enough men within the system that there will be some pursuing academic careers regardless of the drawbacks?]

3. Do women and men opt out of academia in different numbers?

[AG] This, I think, is an important question and I am trying to address this in my work. I haven't seen any figures or studies on this. My aim is to interview all the scientists I can, across our network, on key decision moments in their careers and identify then the attitudes of men and women to idea of remaining in academia, and the situations that cause them to leave.

My sense is that a lot of men opt out of academia too, for many reasons. It may be that we are also losing the type of men that would make a real contribution to changing the scientific environment for the benefit of the retention of women and minority groups!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Original Question: From your profile in the article and your current position, I see that you have lived and worked in multiple countries with different cultures. From my own experiences in the US and Europe, I have seen a dichotomy arise within STEM fields resulting from more cultures mixing. As the cultural diversity increases, the natural progression is to suggest discrimination over time will decrease due to the diversity. However, as more cultures are represented with differing views on societal roles for males and females, I find the progression has stagnated. From your experience, do you think this could be one (of many) reasons for why discrimination persists?]

4. The impact of cultural diversity on the stagnation of the situation for women scientists

[AG] This is an enormous question, and there hasn't been much investigation of this. There are certainly anecdotal stories on the problems that different cultural views of the role of women create. I don't think it is possible to answer this, but it is certainly something that we are alert to. It may be that someone who we commission for the OPN "Reflections on Diversity" column, from a minority scientist point of view will address this topic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, interview over, back to my normal GEARS voice. Dr. Garry has also mentioned to me that OPN will be launching a column in the near future called "Reflections on Diversity", discussing Women and Minorities in Science.

While there is a lot of information to digest in Dr. Garry's responses, there's two items which immediately jump out to me: the lack of eye contact (Q1) and that men which may make a real contribution to changing diversity might be the ones leaving academia (Q3).

I definitely have been in interviews and meetings where the speaker will not make eye contact, and from asking around, most people seem to say the same thing. I'm not sure why people don't make eye contact (without staring!) but when you're talking to someone and they're talking to the wall, it's very annoying.

More importantly, I think Dr. Garry brings up a hugely interesting suggestion in Q3. Because academic jobs are limited, there will always be people leaving academia after their PhD/Postdoc. But maybe the men that are leaving are the ones that would be the type of person to try and effect change. But since they leave for industry, the majority of men left in academia are of the type that perpetuate the current standard or focus on their research without thinking of things outside of it. I'd love to see some evidence of that but it is a very interesting proposition.

I would like to thank Dr. Anna Garry and Professor Ursula Keller at ETH Zurich for taking the time to respond and for giving some thought provoking insights. More information on Professor Keller's group can be found here.

Grad School, Is it worth it?

Today, at Engineer Blogs, I respond to Blogger Helena's comment on whether it's worth it to go to Grad School. I definitely think it is for those that can hack it.

Fantasy Curriculum: Physics is OK (for the most part)

My delusions of grandeur with my fantasy curriculum continue. Yesterday, I discussed how I would change the math part of the curriculum. Today, I'm tackling physics. If yesterday was a blindsided, no-holds-barred tackle, then today is more like a two-handed-touch tackle.

Physics really isn't a major issue for most ME curriculum. Probably, most programs have two physics classes, one on basic physics (equations of motion, etc) and another on electromagnetic theory and maybe optics. My basic physics class was ok but I would have liked to see the math stuff tied in a little more. For instance, yesterday I stated that I didn't get the relationship between derivatives (vel, accel, jerk, snap, etc) in math. I only heard about them in physics. I'd like to see that link strengthened significantly.

The bigger issue I had with basic physics was the EM theory part. Rather than rant and say all physics is terrible, I'm going to chalk that up to a terrible professor (RMP has literally 1.5 stars for ~140 ratings). Out of 100 students, there was a total of 1 physics major and my guess is this prof didn't like engineers.

Aside from the prof not appearing to care, EM theory can be taught from too high a level. I mean, do young engineers really care about the derivation of Maxwell's equations? No. That doesn't mean they're not important (they really are!). But that doesn't mean you should waste 4 classes with endless derivations to get 4 equations that are in every physics book.

This brings me to my only issue with physics. And it's basically the fundamental difference between physics and engineering. Physics is all about the journey to the answer and understanding those concepts that get you there (ie: endless pages of derivations). Engineering is all about using tools that are in a toolbox to solve a problem. The method and end results means two different things for engineers and physicists. Thus, there is some source of disconnect would could be improved.

If I explain it in higher terms, an Engineer with a 2% error away from their initial assumption would say "I'm good to 2%". However, a Physicist would back correct their initial assumption by 2% to reach the goal of 100%. In physics, it seems more about your initial hypothesis whereas in engineering, it's all about how far you are from you're desired target.

To me, it seems that engineers and physicists talk about the same things but there's a miscommunication. For engineers to really grasp physics concept though, physics needs to be explained how an engineer would think and then slowly build into more physics concepts. If you don't do that, you risk a complete miscommunication between both parties and the education level will decrease.

I'm not sure you'd make a complete overhaul to the physics concepts discussed, rather, the teaching style should be addressed. Maybe only seasoned Profs who knows the quirky differences between engineers and physics should teach it, or maybe someone totally green should do it to see if they can come up with something better. What do you think?

Fantasy Curriculum: All out assault on Math!

A few weeks ago (7 eons in internet time...) I posted on Engineer Blogs a snippet of ideas for how I would change the mechanical engineering curriculum. This mainly focused around one thing: have all ME required courses taught by ME faculty. It's pretty simple. If you're a ME student, you probably have ~120 hours of ME degree courses that you need to take. If they're all not taught by ME faculty, you're getting shafted in your education. That's just my opinion. However, it seemed from the initial comments that there's bunch of people that would like that.

In my original post, I picked on a few non-ME courses that I would like to see changed. Today, I'm going to specifically discuss the Mathematics and Statistics curriculum parts of a typical ME program and how I'd like to change them. I realize I'm totally biased and haven't had a good math teacher in college but I'm also going to assume I'm not alone in this boat.

The biggest reason for swapping math profs for ME profs is the application of the math. When you're in a math class (even math for engineers) it's always math for the sake of math. I took a graduate math course called "Advanced Applied Engineering Mathematics". There was never any actual applying of the math. Engineers don't care about math just because it's math. They want to use it. If you don't have examples of it, you're talking to zombies. Math prof's don't give practical examples. However, ME profs can.

This brings me to the second biggest reason for changing profs. Math profs want to teach math students who think like them and approach problems like them. ME profs want to teach to ME students who think like them and approach problems like them. It's pretty simple and basic but it doesn't make sense. And ME profs are as qualified (if not more qualified) to teach engineering math courses because they use it on a regular basis.

Most universities have the math courses front-loaded before the ME courses. A better approach is to actually teach the math in the same course where it's applied. I'll give you an example. One of the basic things about derivatives (and 2nd derivatives) and integrals is the relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration. I don't ever remember hearing those three words in my basic calc classes. That's a shame. Probably these concept should be taught as part of the basic physics course.

Now, rather than rant forever, I'll try to discuss some constructive things. I'm going to assume a student needs the following math courses (some universities may vary)

Calc I

Calc II

Calc III

Diff Eq

Linear Algebra

Statistics

For Calc I and II, I'd combine those into one course called Engineering Calc. I would keep derivatives, integrals (only shorthand methods), partial derivatives, equations of motion, and complex numbers/conjugates. Everything else, deep six it. You're not going to remember it anyway and if you need it later, you can learn it later. Also, I would hack down Calc III and Linear Algebra and combine them into one class called Multivariable Calc. You can only take some much of vectors intercepting a plane is space for so long before you kill yourself. And when you're talking about multi-variable problems, it probably good to introduce some matrices.

Statistics, I would kill completely. Totally useless course except for the first 2 concepts you learn about standard deviations and distributions. Everything else in the course was of the theory of statistics persuasion which is useless for UG engineers. Instead, I would tack that on to a lab course. I'll go back over this when I talk about chemistry.

Lastly, Diff Eq. Wow, words cannot begin to express how much I disliked Diff Eq. However, it is needed for Fluids, Vibrations, and Heat Transfer so it has to stay. It depends on how the curriculum is set up, but I think most students take this during their Sophomore year. Instead, I would pick whichever class needs it and shows up first (say Fluids) and have it co-taught with that class. This way, you'd take 6 hours of Diff Eq and Fluids but the profs would have to work in tandem. I know it's tough but we're trying to get the students to learn more useful information.

I think the math curriculum can be trimmed from 18 hours to 9 hours with some supplemental stuff added to a few courses. That frees a lot of space for other courses. I'm slowly building to my complete Fantasy Curriculum. Over the next few days, I'll tackle some more subjects. Thoughts on my assault on math?

Classes taught within your discipline (General)

Today, over at Engineer Blogs, I discuss Classes taught within your discipline, specifically for ME. Over the next few days, I'll add to in here so check back if you're interested.

Giving everyone an A is a terrible idea.

A few days ago, Cherish the Scientist tweeted out an article (@mareserinitatis) on how Everyone Should Get an A. David MacKay brings up a few interesting points in the article. These are largely centered on two themes. The first is the rate at which a student learns in conjunction with their starting position. If everything is linear, this is the classic Y = mX + b where Y is the level you’re trying to obtain, m is the rate at which you learn over time, X is the time it takes, and b is your offset starting position. (Yes, whenever you use an equation, you should explain the variables…). The second theme is there should be a minimum obtainable threshold that students should achieve. Thus, if students are “forced” to achieve an A to graduate, they should be allowed to take longer. The first issue is persuasive but has a problem when applying it to real life. The second argument, on the other hand, has some serious holes.

I don’t have any hard evidence for this but the thought process should fit match most anecdotal preconceived, prejudiced notions. Your b value when you begin in college is a very important aspect. If students took more AP classes, generally they’re going to start with a higher b. The same could be said if your parents were highly educated and/or come from an upper class economical situation. Students who aren’t fortunate to be in those situations often have much lower b values and generally have other issues to contend with once they get to college. Working a job on the side to support themselves comes to mind.

In principle, if you could test a student’s knowledge in the beginning and in the end of a course, and come up with a slope-o-meter, that would be a good to obtain an accurate picture on how someone learns. That would be very good for assessing the effectiveness of a teacher and identifying the potential of the student. This, in theory, could go a long way towards helping the educational system improve how it is educating its students.

There is one slight, 800 lb gorilla sitting in the corner of the room. Life doesn’t work like that.

Figure 2 in MacKay’s paper shows a prime example of this. Let’s assume you have some miners trapped in a coal mine and instead of it being exam-time, it’s actually people-are-going-to-die-time. Who do you want deciding where to drill the hole? A, B, or C? If it’s my life, I’m going with A because they, at this given point in time, know more than the other two. Sure, eventually B and C will surpass A. But now you’ve got a bunch of explaining to do to a family on why their loved one died.

Look, it sucks that B and C started out in a more disadvantaged position. It can certainly be argued that is a combination of social, economical, and educational factors. And yes, society as a whole should strive to correct those. But if we’re talking about university and graduate level education, you have to draw the line at some point. This brings the second theme, allowing indefinite time to finally get your A.

If you’re allowed indefinite time to get an A (or whatever you want to call the achievable mark), you’ve just given no incentive to learning how to get stuff done. This is a huge problem at OldEuropeU where the students are allowed to take a class as many times as they want to get a passing grade (6 out of 10 BTW, not even an 8 or 9). In an educational system that is nominally free for the students, that’s a huge overall tax payer drain. I have colleagues that took 10+ years (in a 5 year program) to get a BS and a MS and they spent that whole time in school. They didn’t take time off for work or family or whatever. They just spent too much time partying. If they were in the US system, they would not have been engineers after year two. They would have failed more than the allowable amount of classes, had an insanely low GPA, and would have been kicked out of any ABET engineering program. I’m sorry but not everyone should be an engineer just because they want to.

In the real world, you have to deal with meeting deadlines. It sucks. Everyone hates it. And it’s a shame that we don’t have a culture of saying “No, we can’t move on because this thing isn’t ready yet. We haven’t learned enough to make this product fully do everything we wanted.” Everything from software (security flaws), to baby strollers (safety recalls), to cars (stick accelerators and faulty air bags), to food (E. coli and salmonella poisonings) has their issues because of deadlines. But, unless you’re going to change how the world works, people cannot be afforded indefinite time to do everything. Nothing would get done then.

So no, I don’t think everyone should get an A.

The Dreaded User Facility

Today, over at Engineer Blogs, I discuss how User Facilities at universities are stifling academia.

Independent Studies for One and All

I haven't blogged any this week because like anything that goes up, it must also come down. I finished last week on a decent high and Saturday was my birthday so I thought it was all going well. And then NanoGEARS caught some daycare baby plague and promptly passed it on to me. She seems to be fine now though, thanks for asking.

I'm somewhat disappointed that I didn't post earlier this week because writing usually clears my head and gives me some time to relax. And I know all of you were fretting that my daily post wasn't showing up in your RSS reader so I want to apologize to my ten(s) of fans out there.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

There was an Op/Ed in the New York Times on letting kids make up their own high school curriculum by Susan Engel that had some very interesting things in it. Essentially, 8 students who spanned the spectrum of high school success got to plan their own curriculum for a semester. It talked about the increased student motivation and how they set goals that were at least as high as a typical AP class. It's an interesting study and I think has some potential as an educational method.

One place that I would like to see this curriculum model applied to is at the graduate level. The reason I say this is because I took traditional courses (and wrote a MS thesis) at UGU whereas, at OldEuropeU there are no defined classes for your PhD. So I've seen both types of systems personally which both have some definite pros and cons. I'll tackle the traditional system first.

I ended up taking 8 classes at UGU during my MS work to satisfy the coursework part. Of those 8 courses, I only really learned anything in 3 of them and none of that stuff I learned is knowledge I really use now. I still remember the stuff from those 3 should I happen to need it but I really couldn't tell you what was useful in those other 5 classes. I remember doing work for them (and a lot of work for that one stupid graduate math course that was the biggest waste of....) and taking tests and getting good grades but nothing really stuck with me.

Taking 5 classes that were essentially useless for my previous research and my current research (I made a big left turn when starting my PhD) seems like a lot of wasted time and effort on my part and the part of those professors. It seems like going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions. I read all these blogs and hear all of these professors discuss how much work their doing for teaching, research, and proposals. Maybe not teaching unnecessary classes is the way to go.

On the contrary, at OldEuropeU, I didn't have any classes for my PhD work. This is a blessing and a curse. The good part about that is you don't have to take any unnecessary courses. You can spent all of your time doing research, which is what you and your advisors really want anyway. Without classes your first two years, you can really make headway on your research. This will hopefully translate to more papers, more conferences, and a competitive advantage for you when you finish your PhD. Also, you really focus on the things you need to learn for your research. You don't get sidetracked by "the new shiny" that occurs when you do take a class you like.

There are some extreme downsides too. You need to be 100% self motivated to learn something. Just going through the motions so you didn't ruin your graduate GPA isn't enough. You end up lacking in something. In some cases, this is diversity, i.e. you weren't exposed to different concepts and different ideas because you had to take new classes. In other cases, you lack a basic and fundamental understand of the field. This is where I lack because of not taking PhD classes. I started out with some basic assumptions which allowed me to skip over the whole fundamental background in the field where my PhD subject rests and now it's hard to go back over to learn that.

I think graduate classes should largely be based around independent studies in predominately your research field. For instance, I took a controls class that I couldn't tell you a thing from it. Yet, during both my MS and PhD work, I had to build working control systems. In both cases, I managed to get them working but that was mostly though trial and error. Rather than taking a book-heavy course on controls, it would have been much more useful for my class to be a study on this particular control system. In both cases, I didn't need an advanced understanding to get it working nor for papers and such, but it would have been to my betterment to gone through it more thoroughly. Once I had a real system that I was using, then I could apply all of those textbook things like loop shaping, and overshoot minimizing, etc etc. It wouldn't have been entirely necessary for my research but it would have expanded my actual knowledge in an area that I should have known something about.

I think most graduate students could pick about 4-6 topics in their research and do independent studies more thoroughly on the subject than if they took a class on it and just went over the theory.

What do you think? Would you rather have defined your own series of independent studies than taken classes? How many classes during your graduate work have been useful for you and your research?

Templates, Why Matlab is the Awesomeness! (Part 3)

Powerpoint is ok for making basic graphs, as I explained yesterday. I still prefer to hardcode in LaTeX, but you can use something like Inkscape instead, which is open source and works with EPS files and is full vector graphics. When you need to plot data though, that's where Matlab comes in handy.

I hear from a lot of my colleagues that Matlab is too cumbersome to make consistent plots for their thesis's (is that the correct plural of thesis?). If you didn't take the time to make a proper template, then yes, it is too cumbersome to make consistent plots. But if you take the time to build a proper template, like yesterday with Powerpoint, you will be able to churn out nice graphs with relative ease. Let's face it, if you're working with large datasets, you're using Matlab anyway...

Basic Figure Setup

I'm going to assume you already have a plot on the screen. Prior to changing the figure properties, you an actual figure to work on. To build a test figure, I'm going to assume we have two datasets ( X and Y) that we want to plot with respect to time (t).

>> h1 = plot( t , X);

>> h2 = line( t , Y);

I typically work with colored figures so I want to change X and Y to blue and red. This is why I plotted them using separate line commands. If you want to change the MarkerStyle, and MarkerSize, and LineWidth, here's your chance.

>> set( h1 , 'Color' , [0 0 1] );

>> set( h1 , 'Color' , [1 0 0] );

The next step is to change the axes to fit the data. So if t is from 0 to 50 seconds and X and Y both range from -10 Volts to 10 Volts, then you need to set the axes to these limits. After setting the axes, it's good to go ahead and make sure you have enough tick marks and label the axes.

>> axis([0 50 -10 10]);

>> set( gca , 'XTick' , [0 : 5 : 50] );

>> set( gca , 'YTick' , [-10 : 2 : 10] );

>> xlabel( gca , 'Time [s]' );

>> ylabel( 'Signal Noise [V]' );

So now you have your figure with the right axes, tick marks, and labels, with the lines the colors that you want. But the figure size is scaled to fit your screen, and your fonts and font sizes are all off. Scaling to a particular width and changing font attributes are generally routine tasks that need to be done for all figures for publications. So I make a separate M-file called "Figure2c.m"and put it in a Path folder. Then I can just run it below my figure when I'm plotting my data.

>> Figure2c

Matlab will then just execute the commands in the file called "Figure2c". The 2c stands for two columns. I have other ones for log plots and wider figures as well.

Start with the Figure Properties.

This sounds eerily like yesterday. But if you know you only have 8.5 cm (sorry but I work in metric) of width to work with, you should start by making your figure only 8.5 cm wide. In you Figure2c file, you want to put the following text:

>> function Figure2c

>> set( gcf , 'PaperUnits' , 'Centimeters' ,...

'Units' , 'Centimeters' ,...

'PaperOrientation' , 'Portrait' ,...

'PaperPositionMode' , 'auto' ,...

'Position' , [2 1 8.5 4.5] );

>> PAPER = get( gcf , 'Position' );

>> set ( gcf , 'PaperSize' , [PAPER(3) PAPER(4)] );

The function command means the file runs when called from another file. The next block changes the current figure properties by grabbing the current figure (GCF). Matlab, by default, plots things relative to your screen size, which you need to change to real units. So I've switched them, and all other units in the figure to centimeters. Then I change the paper position so it start 2 cm from the left edge of the computer screen, 1 cm from the bottom and the figure is 8.5 cm wide by 4.5 high. I find this aspect ratio quite nice for figures. You can go higher if you want. The next two lines get the figure wide and change the maximum paper size to the exact figure size. When you save your figure, you won't have any excess white space around the figure because of the paper. This is critical for saving EPS figures.

Change the Axis Properties

After making the figure the right size, the next trick is to make the axes essentially fill the figure. This takes some trial and error (good thing I've done it for you). Like the figure properties, you need to change the current axis properties to work with your real units. So use the following...

>> set( gca , 'Units' , 'centimeters' ,...

'Position' , [1.3 1.1 6.9 3] ,...

'FontSize' , 8 ,...

'FontName' , 'NewCenturySchoolbook' );

This changes the axis units to centimeters. Now you need to position the axes within the figure box, and include space for the axis labels and tick marks. This where some trial and error can occur. I've found for most figures, the actual plot is 6.9 cm wide by 3 cm high and should start about 1.3 cm from the left edge of the figure window and 1.1 cm up from the bottom of the figure window. Then I change the fonts to 8 pt, New Century Schoolbook.

The last step for this part is to change the axis labels to the right font, fontsize, and color (if needed). To do this you need to first copy the previous label name.

>> holderX = get( gca , 'xlabel' );

>> holderY = get( gca , 'ylabel' );

Then you need to reset it based on the string from your original plot. That's what the first attribute is below. The next two change the font size to 9 and the font to New Century Schoolbook to match the other properties.

>> xlabel( get( holderX , 'String' ) ,...

'FontSize' , 9 ,...

'FontName' , 'NewCenturySchoolBook');

>> ylabel( get( holderY , 'String' ) ,...

'FontSize' , 9 ,...

'FontName' , 'NewCenturySchoolBook');

And there's so much more you can do

Using a template like this, I add gridlines in a light grey, but still have axes that are plotted in black (which is somewhat tricky to do). Also, you can add a format for you legend to make sure you have the right font and font size. You can do two Y-axis plots fairly easily with this and do color coding, etc etc.

The last step: Exporting

So now you have your beautiful plot and you need to save it. Since you're running this in M-files anyway, you might as well save the figure via the M-file as well. I export everything to PNG (portable network graphics) which is good for bringing it into Powerpoint. For papers, I use EPS figures with is a vector format. The two commands I use are based on print which prints the current figure.

>> print -r600 -dpng -loose filename.png

>> print -r600 -depsc -loose filename.eps

-r600 makes sure I have 600 DPI on the figures. -dpng/-depsc are the switches for which print driver to use. Matlab has both by default. -loose is very important. Don't forget that. That ensures the paper size and position that you specified in the beginning will be used for the bounding box. That's crucial for importing EPS figures and working with LaTeX. The last bit is the filename.

There you have it. It's a basic template but it works. If you have any questions or want some more tips on Matlab plotting, let me know.

Templates, Powerpoint Tips/Tricks (Part 2)

Yesterday, I discussed how typesetting your thesis and journal publications in LaTeX can make your work look much more professional than anything thrown together in MS Word. But there are instances (like my current one), where you have no choice but to use MS Word. This is either because you must submit it in *.doc format or because you need to work with track changes and things like that. If you’re working with MS Word and you need to trade text and figures with a colleague, then you’re probably going to use PowerPoint to make your figures. Below I’ve outlined a few steps that I take when making PowerPoint figures for documents to make them look professional, at least as professional as raster graphics can look.

1. Scale your figure right from the start

Typically, you know your size constraint right from the start. There’s nothing more annoying than resizing your figure, changing all of your font sizes on the fly. If you’re writing a two-column journal article, you probably have 3 inches of width or about 8.3 cm to play with. For single column journals (like Optics Express), the columns are a little wider 5.3”/13.3 cm. Each university thesis template varies but you generally have more space than that.

Start your figure by building a box a few inches tall with the maximum width allowable by your intended publication. In PPT, go to properties and check to make sure your set your figure width in inches (or cm). When drawing your figure, everything must fit inside that box. If you go outsides of the box, you have to resize on the fly, which screws up your text sizes. This gives you and idea of what you can fit within one column and if you need to make a figure that spans two columns. Remember, you can always go taller (to a point), so think about your figure layout and if you can make it taller than wider, as necessary.

2. Set your fonts and font sizes to match the template

Once you have your maximum box size, it’s now time to put something in that box. Most figures have some text, which must conform to publications standards. Probably, your text shouldn’t be smaller than 9 pt or 10 pt font and you should select a font that closely matches the main text font. Maybe I’m picky, but seeing a Times text font with figure labels in Arial just really stands out to me. This is especially the case when you can tell there was some effort put forth to make a good looking figure.

With the outline box and the right size fonts, you should have a better idea of how your figure needs to be displayed without making things too crowded.

3. Remove textbox borders in PowerPoint

A common problem when copying your figures from PPT into Word is the textboxes show up outside of your figures. You can see this below where the text box is extended outside of the outline.

When you have grouped your figure and copied it into your document, you get an overhang which makes your figure wider than desired. (FYI, Blogger scales the figure to "medium" so it doesn't exactly match the other two.)

To remove this, Right click on the Textbox, go to Format Textbox. Under the Textbox heading, make all of the internal margins zeros. If you want, you can make this the default setting by Right clicking on the Textbox again and select Set Autoshape Defaults. All of your properties for this box (font, fontsize, linestyle, fillstyle, etc) will become the new default for PPT objects. Once the margins are zero, you can reduce the size of the box to make it just bounding the text. This will remove the overhang.

4. Import your figures as BMP, JPEG, PNG, or TIFF.

That means never use “MS powerpoint object” or “Windows Enhanced Metafile”. MS Office likes to link all of your documents which, in principle, would be great if it wasn’t so bloated. But Office products have a hard time staying open on their own, let alone when linked between different files. I always paste special and select either BMP, JPEG, PNG, or TIFF (depending on how my figure was saved). Also, make sure that figure is “in line with the text”. If you still have overlap or disappearing figures, make sure your line spacing for that figure is set to 1. If it’s set to “exactly” or “multiple”, your figure might appear under the text.

Tomorrow, I’ll discuss some Matlab templates for figures. Do you have any additional tips for drawing figures in PPT? Comments?

Templates, Because MS Word Makes it Hard Enough (Part 1)

Yesterday, Cherish the Scientist (@mareserinitatis) was kind enough to indulge my twitter (@profgears) rant about how I hate MS Word. It all started when I had to review a paper for a conference proceedings and the only template they offered was either *.doc or *.docx. NewPhD, just starting out, has a brand new laptop with Office 2007 on it. Meanwhile, I have the 4 year old tank laptop with lowly 2003 on it.

And MS, in their infinite wisdom, decided to change their proprietary format, so converting back between *.docx and *.doc destroys any formatting you thought you might have done. Now, I'm not going to keep ranting about this (at least for this post), but rather, I'm going to spell out how students writing their first publication should approach things like pictures, figures, and graphs.

A few days ago, I post about Advisor-Advisee Expectations, which included things like making sure to communicate, to respond rapidly to emails, etc etc. One of the things I forgot to add for students to do is Learn Compatible Software and one of the things I will teach them is How to Make Templates. I'll tackle the software stuff first.

One of the best things I've learned during my PhD studies is "if it looks professional, people will treat it professionally". This is very important for two aspects, namely written work (thesis and papers) and for presentations. If you want to make professional documents, the best way to go IMHO is with LaTeX. Latex is an open source typesetting system for preparing professional documents. I use the MiKTeX distribution. It has a high learning curve but once you get the hang of it, it makes everything easier. LaTeX is something that I would strongly advise any student starting out to learn. I know it seems crazy with all the other stuff you have to do, but once you start, and your peers start, you'll be able to help each other and rapidly climb the learning curve.

For large documents, the content and the format are largely independent. For instance, once you make your thesis template, you'll never have to change it. If you add more content, you just recompile the document and it's done. And, most journals and universities have LaTeX templates for their publications. In those cases, you don't even have to make the template, you just add content. I watched DrWife bitch and moan about MSWord changing fonts, section headings, chapter spacings, you name it while she was writing her thesis. Everything in MSWord is linked and you have no control over that. In LaTeX, everything is still linked, but you have full control over it. Fonts and Sections headings don't change because of the moon rise. Also, the files are a lot smaller, so you don't have to worry about it crashing.

Another reason why LaTeX is great is because it gets you making *.EPS (encapsulated postscript) pictures. Just google vector graphics or check out the wikipedia page. This is the real reason why I wanted to use Latex. I wanted my figures to look professional and be resizable with issues. That's really useful for transferring journal figures into presentations, which need to be scaled larger.

Over the next few days, I'll talk about how I set up templates and what programs I work with to make figures and drawings for publications.

The Rite of Passage

Over at Engineer Blogs, they've had a theme week, focusing on their favorite classes. I thought I'd chime in and tell you about the most difficult but decidedly the best class at UGU.

Junior Design.

It's not really a class, more like a Rite of Passage. At UGU they have four design classes in the UG ME curriculum and three lab classes. Nothing can quite compare to Junior Design. Right in the middle of hell semester with Thermo, Fluids, Materials, and a Hard Lab Class sits the most difficult class in the curriculum.

Have I built it up enough?

Basically, it combines everything you've done up until that point. You've had all this theory (and some machine shop stuff) and now you've got to do real engineering. The tasks for the class all center around building a robot/vehicle of some sorts. Mine was to build a vehicle to drive over an obstacle course and deploy a bridge to hold a weight 10 times heavier than your vehicle. Alone the way, you had to climb a 30 degree incline. Oh, and you only get 4 AA's to do it. And you vehicle has to fit in a specified shoebox-like volume.

You have to work in groups, build your own controls and electronics, and do all of your own machining. Oh, and there's a written portion to this class as well with weekly lectures, reports due throughout the semester, and three presentations to give.

You have to back up all of your design decisions with calculations proving it will work. You have to make your drawings with tolerances. You have to calculate the power needed to propel your vehicle. You have to design your electronics for controlling your vehicle. And you have to work together as a group, which is a lot harder that it seems.

When you're going through it, it is total hell. When it's over, you really appreciate it and even miss it. Because it gives you your first taste (at least in my case) of real engineering.

Advisor-Advisee Expectations

A few days ago, I posted about Submitting it Anyway, which was a dig at advisors who take forever to give comments on papers. Or in my case, take forever to the paper and say "I have no idea what's going on but it looks good. Submit it".

If I take a step back, that's a somewhat terrible relationship to have with your advisor. That's really good way to sow dissension amongst the minions. Students don't want to work for you. You appear (as their advisor) to not give a damn because you're some really uber busy professor. That's why when I posted about my research group and number of students, I didn't think having more than 4 or 5 students was worth it. With the downward spiraling of academic funding, I don't think it's easier to maintain more than that. You're too focused on funding rather than your students, your teaching, and your research.

Later tonight, I have a presentation over the interwebs for first year grad students at SnowU who are looking for an advisor. In this presentation (and in the future), I lay out what I expect from students and what they should expect from me. If there's a discord in the future, then we should both be adults about it and discuss it to make things right. Miss MSE's comment on my post that she had to involve her department chair and graduate coordinator in her advisor's lack of involvement is very unfortunate. I'm speculating (and you can tell me if I'm wrong) that if Miss MSE's advisor was approachable and available, that they could have discussed this issue to iron out some kinks.

Below are the main points that I want to get across to first year students looking for an advisor. They should know what their advisor expects from them right from the start and they should know what to expect from their advisor.

As a Grad Student, I expect you to...

• Show up, be diligent, be willing to try new/odd experiments, be creative
• Treat this like a job. When you have your PhD, you'll have to anyway
• Get comfortable in the lab, you'll be there often
• Write journal papers and attend conferences (it helps both of us)
• Present your research regularly, both internally and externally.
• Support your colleagues as needed
• Not be afraid to ask for help from myself or any of your colleagues. We should be willing to say I don't know

As a tradeoff, you will learn a ton of things along the way, such as...

• Lab Skillz. When you walk into any lab in the future, you will feel comfortable
• Multi-disciplinary approach to problem solving. See that soldering iron? It works for mechanical engineers, optical engineers, physicists, just about anyone.
• How to write and review journal papers, critique your work, write tactful answers to dumb reviewers
• To give presentations where no one will be asleep
• To be confident about your research and your abilities
• Enough knowledge to give you a sizable base for a career in _______

But you should have expectations from me. As your advisor, I will strive to...

• Answer your emails in a timely fashion
• Show up in the lab (frequently!, daily?!)
• Help you transition to be an autonomous researcher
• Work with you to achieve your career goals, whether they're in industry, academia, or national labs
• Get you connected in our greater research community
• Be available, approachable, and reasonable.

If, for any reason, neither of us are living up to this, then we should be able to discuss it like adults and come to a suitable conclusion.

Dual Advisor Conflicts

Currently, I’m in that grey area as far as my job/research is concerned. Mainly, I’m trying to finish a few more papers before I officially move on. One of my other tasks is mentor the next PhD student to continue this current research trend. So with NewGrad, I’m trying to get a few more experiments completely, enough for maybe 1-2 papers and we collectively have a few conference proceedings submitted/accepted.

Research with NewGrad is going well. I expect a lot from my mentees and I give them a lot of tasks, but I also support my mentees much more than other PhD/Postdoc students do for their mentees in my group.

But as I’m slowly faded out of the picture, it’s time for the real Advisor (also technically my advisor) to take over. Since I’ve been pretty autonomous as a researcher for the past ~2 years, I’ve had to set my own path for the research, so I know where it should go. Not to toot my own horn, but I have been pretty successful at doing so. Advisor does not have nearly as in depth knowledge about the research topic as I do and thus, Advisor doesn’t exactly know where it should go. And Advisor wants NewGrad to go in a different direction than the direction I’ve set forth. These are also the same wonky decisions Advisor steered me toward.

Concerning my future, I am not so worried. Once I have moved to SnowU, I will be guiding my own research, unless I get myself as a grad student. In general, I will be able to proceed down the path I want on this topic.

I am more concerned about NewGrad and how this will change NewGrad’s situation. There is clearly a disconnect between myself and Advisor and NewGrad is aware of that. Also, NewGrad knows that I’m leaving shortly and Advisor will be the main person to turn to for the rest of the PhD project. And NewGrad does not want to run the risk of alienating Advisor so early in the project.

I think it is a weird situation to be in for the both of us. What would you do if you were in NewGrad’s shoes? Have you been part of a supervising tandem where you had conflicts with the other supervisor? How did this affect your underlings? Thoughts? Comments?

How PowerPoint ruins America’s STEM Education

On Monday, I alluded to some things that could be changed about America’s Higher Education system, particularly focusing on STEM Education. One of those changes would be to wipe PowerPoint from every computer, in every university, and pass out some chalk.

Ok, well that’s not entirely fair. I do believe in fair arguments so there are times when PowerPoint is a great tool for teaching. PP is great when used as an accent. Having trouble describing a system on the chalk board? No problem. Show a picture of it in PP. Need to demonstrate a little gizmo? Build a small animation in PP. PP is also great for presentations. It’s the standard medium for most (all?) conferences. It helps keep you on track and gives your audience something to look at while you’re explaining how great you are.

The problem with PowerPoint is that it’s taken for granted. Everyone expects you to give a presentation and it is soooo common, that no one teaches you how to do it effectively. Luckily, at UGU, they stressed giving presentations so you learned how to convey your information in PP without getting lost in PP. I was one of the fortunate ones. A lot of people I talk with didn’t get that during their education. Making graphs? Be sure to change the axes and font sizes. That’s a common mistake that kills me every time I see it. You know when you’re standing in the audience that you hate not being able to read the labels, make sure to fix it for your own presentation. You spend more time trying to figure out if it’s “nm” or “mm”, rather than focusing on what’s important.

Equations + PowerPoint = Knife in my Temple. Sitting through PP lectures in STEM fields which rely heavily on math makes me want to kill myself. As the student, an equation *magically pops up and on the next slide, it’s *magically in the form you need it. Those 4 pages of derivation? Don’t worry about those. Most times math is presented in PP missing huge steps and little tricks/transformations/substitutions. That’s where some real learning occurs.

If you have the PP and the note, what’s the point of going to class? Read it on your own time. Students shouldn’t be reading the PP before the class. They should be reading the textbook, otherwise why assign it? It’s like looking at the Cliff’s Note before the class and saying you’ve read the book.

On the professor side of the equation (which I’ll have to deal with soon enough), I think PP makes you a less effective teacher. You are already stressed with proposals, papers, and students. Who has time for teaching? Oh, lecture at 1 pm today… hmmm.. there’s that presentation that I gave a few years ago… maybe that’ll work. That’s an unfair oversimplification but I think it gets my point across. Once you’ve made your PP slides and tweaked them after the first semester or two, you probably rarely go back and change them. And that leads into a downward spiral where you assume you’ll remember the lecture once you’ve seen the slides so you don’t need to prepare. I was the culprit for this once. I gave a guest lecture one year and was asked to give it again the following year. I assumed I’d remember the material once I saw it, but that wasn’t the case. It was one the worst presentations I’ve ever given.

When PP is not used as an accent and is the sole medium for conveying information, that’s when you have problems. And, as more and more distance learning/web learning is pushed at universities, you’re going to have more and more problems. Apparently, PP is a huge problem for the US military (albeit for different reasons). Let’s not make it a huge problem for education.

Fix what you know is already broke

In Sunday’s paper, and by paper I mean the Washington Post’s iPhone app :-D, Daniel deVise had an interesting article on Eight ways to get higher education in shape (linky). The 8 methods are:

1. Measure how much students learn at every college

2. End Merit Aid

3. Standardize the three year bachelor degree

4. Revive Core Curriculum

5. Bring Back Homework

6. Tie Public fund to finishing college

7. Cap athletic subsidies

8. Stop re-teaching high school in community college

I think from the descriptions, most of you should be able to figure out the basis for the arguments, so I’m not going to do that here. Instead, I’m going to rip a few holes in the arguments because these might fly for non-technical degrees but these will do little to help in the engineering/science areas. At the end, I’ll name a few that should be considered for engineering (and STM) programs.

Measure how much students learn at every college: While in principle, I’m not against measuring how much students learn at college, qualifying how much engineers have learned is not an easy thing. Plus, you have that endless battle of theorists versus experimentalists for engineering supremacy. Personally, I’ll take the person who knows how to use a wrench rather than the person who can FEA the wrench the best. But how would you test that on a piece of paper?

End Merit Aid: This is one that I’m on the fence about. I wasn’t good enough to receive merit aid in HS but I did have a friend go to Yale because of Merit Aid. He was also an athlete, thus, he couldn’t get reduced tuition price. Yet his parents were generic, middle class. My wife’s (henceforth, DrWife) cousin goes to Princeton on Merit Aid and her parents are also generic, middle class. While both could have gone to state schools without a problem, Merit Aid allowed them to go to Ivy schools. I know it’s supposed to be for poor and maybe they should cap it saying families with over X income per year cannot receive Merit Aid, but I don’t think that should apply to the middle class. Obviously, I’m biased but I don’t think it’s that simple as ending, just capping based on income level.

Standardize the three year bachelor degree: What? Are you kidding me? An engineering degree in 3 years? What is this? Europe? Actually, that last part wasn’t a joke. Most European institutions have their engineering bachelor’s degree in 3 year programs. I’ve seen what happens in those and I’m not impressed. Besides, even here (FYI, I live in Europe right now…) no one finishes in 3, or even 4 years. My UG (in the US) had 127 credit hours and thinking back, it probably should have had about 3-5 more classes in it. Maybe you should beef up your paltry Communications or Poly Sci degrees from 30 credit hours to a respectable 60 or 70??? I mean com’on. 30 credit hours in engineering is an easy year and it’s their whole degree program. That’s terrible. Maybe for non-STEM degrees but in STEM degrees, 3 years is a joke. It’s so laughable, I’m not even going to waste time flaming it more.

Revive Core Curriculum: While you’re reviving core curriculum, why not add a little engineering/problem solving to it?

I’ll admit that the core classes I had to take for my general degree requirements were a joke. I remember taking a freshman US history class to satisfy my general degree requirements during my senior year. The big term paper was 2 pages, single sided, double spaced. And those history students, who will spend the rest of their careers reading and writing complained about it.

Also, it’s a little hard to pack in more “core curriculum” into programs with 120+ credit hours. If they did so, those classes should be added and taught for senior level. By that point, you’ve been in college for a few years and you’ve probably learned a lot (even if they can’t measure it, see #1). If you had core classes during your senior year and taught at that level, they would be much better than having a few seniors in freshman courses.

But, if I have to read ancient literature (and we know my feelings on Shakespeare), then some Lit major should learn a Mohr’s Circle and have to build a balsa wood bridge.

Bring Back Homework: Ummm, last time I checked, you don’t graduate with an engineering degree without doing homework. Homework never left engineering curriculum. ‘Nuff said.

Tie Public fund to finishing college: This can never be. You’ll always have students who drop out for money, transfers, can’t take it, jobs, other “life” things. Also, the first two years of engineering is full of weed-out classes. And those students are weeded out on purpose. But, if they implemented this, you wouldn’t be able to weed out students who can’t hack it because you need the money.

It’s the same issue at the MS and PhD level. Some students pass simply because the state gives X amount per graduated PhD student. And sometimes that X amount is really needed. Implementing this means you’ve just relaxed your education standards.

Cap athletic subsidies: I think athletics versus academics is an entirely different beast. I’ll leave this alone for now.

Stop re-teaching high school in community college: Engineering isn’t really a community college thing. Not applicable here.

How could they really fix higher ed, focusing on things they know are already broken?

Fix the current research funding system: Maybe if professors didn’t spend 80% of their time writing proposals, students would get taught, graduate students would learn more, and professors could actually get in the lab once in a while.

Stop hiring un-qualified TA’s to teach classes: I once took an EE class that was taught by a Math grad student. That’s pretty messed up, but it obviously made perfect sense to the university. TA’s are assistants, not lecturers. If you make them lecture, pay them like a lecturer and hold them accountable. Remember, some people paying many thousands of dollars for an education expect to be taught by qualified people.

Get rid of PowerPoint! I’ll save that for tomorrow.