Paradigm: June 2005 Archives

I'm through seven days of summer madness - physics in the morning from 7:30 to 9:45am, physics lab in the afternoon from 3:00 to 5:20pm, and calculus in the evenings from 6:15 to 8:15pm (with Fridays off, for calculus). A physics test every Friday morning, a lab report (which take something like two to four hours to prepare) due every day, and calculus tests... whenever he (the professor) feels like it. Needless to say, I don't have time for much else. I do my homework between physics and physics lab; today I forgot to eat until 2:30pm, because I was trying to get the damn report done. One might wonder why I'm doing this to myself. The answer: the prerequisite flowchart for Architectural Engineering (my major) resembles nothing so much as a diagram to invoke Cthulu. If I don't have Calculus II, Physics I and Physics I lab (MATH 1960, PHYS 2110, and PHYS 1154, on that flowchart, respectively) finished by the end of summer, I can't take the series of courses prescribed by the flowchart. Since I'm behind a chemistry course, and because I'm already taking physics and calculus this summer, I thought I'd ease things by taking Physics II and Physics II lab (PHYS 2120 and PHYS 1164, respectively) in the five week session following this one. And you know, it's not as bad as all that. My physics professor is really awesome (which I'll get back to). All the physics tests are open-book (which doesn't quite help as much as it sounds like it might). My physics lab will be over in a week and a half (a full two weeks early). My calculus professor is out of town this week, so no class - and he's going to give us our first test as a take-home. This substantially lowers the stress. Still, those labs are a lot of work. It's all a lot of work. And it's all because of that flowchart. You know, if you squint your eyes and tilt your head, you might notice that there aren't any electives on there. Not any real electives, anyway. You know - they kind where you elect to take something you enjoy, without the nature of the course being dictated by someone else? The "electives" they have on there all have to fulfill at least one requirement - like, for example, your social science elective has to fulfill the U.S. Minority and Racial Studies (aka how to hate yourself if you're white) requirement. It looks suspiciously like a tech school. The only difference is, tech school kids graduate in two or three years. There's a year that doesn't even show up on that flowchart - a one year master's (which is what they sell it as, even though it's three semesters) is tacked on the end. You can't get licensed as an engineer without it. So, five and a half years of micromanaged existence. Hey, it's what I signed on for. I knew it, going in. I'd be fine with it - if I were enjoying the AE classes. The truth is, I'm not. At least - not yet. There's a chance that there are courses down the line, there'll be classes I enjoy. In particular, the lighting and acoustics classes in the last year, and the later social classes (microeconomics and a class on sensation and perception) look like fun. But you know what? I'm having fun right now. In my egg-head physics and calculus classes. After struggling last semester with calculus taught in a completely incomprehensible manner, I finally feel like I get it. My professor glared at me in that "you're too smart for your own damn good" way the other day when I integrated a problem in my head. It felt great. And I sit in physics class at 7:30am - 7:30am! - and the pieces fall into place, click, click, click. I feel like I'm learning again, and the stuff that I'm learning - I can see how I can use it down the road, and it excites me. Unlike a lot of the AE classes in my future. That's a very long prelude to what is probably a foregone conclusion for anyone who isn't up past their bedtime. I'm seriously - very seriously - considering switching majors, to physics. I had a discussion with my physics professor today, and the things he had to say made a lot of sense - not in the generic, high school counselor sort of way, but specifically they made sense to and for me. It's really easy to do just about anything with a physics degree. A lot of times you can say, "Lookee me! Physics degree!" and people will hire you for stuff that has nothing to do with physics, because a physics degree indicates mental discipline and analytical thought. And if you want to keep going with school - into engineering, for example - it's a lot easier to go the physics-to-engineering route than the other way around. It's the gist of the Paul Graham "staying upwind" argument - put off specialization as long as you can. Maximize your options by learning skills and hard ideas that are widely applicable, regardless of what happens tomorrow. (Computer science hasn't always been around, but those math nerds sure had a leg up on the competition when it all started, now, didn't they?) The question I asked my professor was, "What sort of career paths are open, with a physics degree?" He didn't want to go on and on and on, so he asked me what sorts of directions I might consider taking it. I gave him a couple of rather broad fields (sound and optics) as the things I found most intriguing, and he was off - dropping directions within those sub-fields that I'm actually interested in, myself. The fact that he narrowed in on my interests was very encouraging. Then there's the overall advantage of having a liberal arts education. Yeah - like the title suggests, there's an instinctive flinch whenever I come within two miles of the word liberal (I once used calamine lotion that exhorted me to "apply liberally"; I itched worse after using it). Goodness knows I've done my share of putting down the liberal arts experience as, well, fluffy. My opinions on the merits of learning a broad range of ideas have changed a lot over the past few years, though; I have a lot of fun (and see a lot of value in) learning even bad ideas. (They're still ideas, and the fact that someone takes them seriously teaches you valuable things about people.) Paul Graham suggests treating high school like a day job, and finding something you really enjoy to work at and invest yourself in. I suppose I realized at some point late in the spring that I was treating the AE stuff like a day job. And why? Because honestly, it doesn't stir much enthusiasm in me. I picked it because it seemed like the most marketable career move that I could make, limited to UNO for school. I didn't think they offered anything I could really get passionate about. I don't come home and have dirty thoughts about the Next Big Thing in structural engineering or bar joist fabrication. But maybe physics could be that. I do get rather excited when I read about the Next Big Thing in physics, after all. (String theory? I sure as hell don't understand it yet, but it seems awfully conceptually sexy. Branes? WTF? Yum, BRAAAAANES!) And since the physics department is much less likely to invoke fascists or Lovecraft's tentacle demons, maybe I can diversify a little, learn a broader subset of Everything, and enjoy college a little. I'm not going to let me sell myself short, based on some misguided idea that changing paths (or majors) equates somehow to failure. I'll keep you guys posted on what I decide. I'm going to be smart and at least not make a decision until after I'm done with Physics I. (Would hate to get another week in and find out I hate everything but the basics!)

Have you all heard about the X PRIZE? (I'd assume so, but you know what they say about assumptions - they make an ass out of u, and mption.) Alrighty, then. Did you know that 7 UP is giving away a free ride on one of the first commercial space flights? It's one seat, it's sub-orbital, and the fine print says you have to sign a waiver (and possibly, a lot more forms) emblazoned with the fact that acceptance of the prize includes HIGH RISK TRAVEL (because it's not just high risk travel, it's HIGH RISK TRAVEL). Knowing you couldn't go with your ( best friend | husband | wife | child | source of moral support ), that it is sub-orbital, and that it is in fact HIGH RISK TRAVEL - would you go? (I would!)

I'm sure you've all heard about the ever so scandalous homosexual pheromone studies. Actually, maybe you haven't. I didn't see anything about it on Instapundit, so who knows what the bloggy-world is saying about it. For those who are impatient or hate ABC News (I won't ask), the story is this: the brains of homosexual men have been found to respond similarly to heterosexual women, when exposed to male pheromones. (Analogous studies with lesbians and female pheromones are in the works, but not complete.) The gay-rights boys and girls are claiming this as a huge victory, clearly evidencing that homosexuality is a product of biology. I've also heard people on the other side saying that this proves nothing, with regards to whether homosexuality is a choice or a product of biochemistry. It could be a learned/trained response! they say. As far as the whole question of whether sexual preferences are determined at birth, the right is actually... well, right. The fact that gay guys get hot-'n'-bothered sniffing boy-pheromones only really says that yes, there is a biochemical facet to our attraction - which I don't think was really in dispute, anyhow. The question of whether sexual preferences are determined at birth is, in my very humble (in this case) opinion, fairly irrelevant, and silly, besides. For further information, ask a five-year-old boy if he likes girls. (In other words, we aren't sexually active at birth, so who gives a rip?) Anyway, here's an odd hypothetical question, and I'd really love to have y'all answer. Set aside questions of whether homosexuality is determined at birth or later, whether it's a choice or biochemistry or a combination. Say you've got a homosexual man who, for religious, psychological, or personal reasons - or say, any reason, wished to end his attraction to males and stimulate an attraction to females. Say this study, in this hypothetical universe, allowed advances in pheromone blocking and reception, much like anti-histimines, and such a thing were possible through drugs or some sort of medical treatments. (I am neither a biologist nor a doctor. Blame any and all bad science on reading too many Michael Crichton novels. Then hit yourself over the head. This is hypothetical, damn you!) Would you support that man's right to effectively change his sexual preference? Alright, round two. Same situation, but the guy starts off heterosexual. Would you support his right to, pardon the phrase, "go gay"? Are there any conditionals you'd place on either answer? Also, just for my own demographic-related amusement: how do you feel about transgenderism (or gender-queer-ism, or whatever you want to call it), on the clothing (cross-dressing), lifestyle (living life as the opposite gender), and operation (surgical alteration) levels? Are you religiously or politically inclined, and do those play into your answers? (Flame free zone; I'm purely curious, and I won't get a good range of answers if people scare people off. Comment away! Oh, and if you're reading this via some other sort of service, come visit the original post to comment. Thanks!)