I grew up eating only cereal for breakfast, usually cheerios. My dad ate wheaties every day of his working life and they were always an option, but I was put off bran-flake type cereal for about 10 years after I discovered an infestation of itty bitty mealworms halfway through a giant bowl of wheaties. To this day, I have a bowl of cereal every single day for breakfast. I never get tired of cereal.
Lunch is different. Growing up, lunch was two cookies, a piece of fruit, and a sandwich comprised of wheat bread (which I hated), one slice of meat, and one slice of cheese. I went through lunch-meat fads (bologna! Ham! Chicken loaf! *shudders*) and after about a year of eating whatever, I never wanted to have it again. By the end of high school, I couldn’t stand sandwiches.
Then I got into fieldwork and sandwiches became my default lunch again. Does anybody who’s worked in the field more than a couple years actually enjoy sandwiches? How about sandwiches that were slapped together 7 hours before, have spent some time marinating in the sun, and have been mangled by various field implements in the field bag? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
I will eat anything other than sandwiches for lunch if possible. Aged leftovers? Check. Ramen noodles? Check. A varied selection of vending machine snacks? Check. I need to be ravenous (i.e. in the field after a long, hard morning) in order to overcome my aversion to sandwiches. And it’s too bad. They’re super cheap, relatively shelf-stable, and don’t require any other gear to eat.
Hmm. I should try some sandwich alternatives. Hummus and pita bread? Granola bars? Nuts? I’ll have to work on that.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
grad program rejections
FSP had a post several days ago (I’m hopelessly behind on my blog reading) about students who don’t let programs know if they will or will not accept an opportunity.
As I mentioned before, I communicated a fair bit with potential advisors when I applied to grad school. I’m not sure how annoying they found this (opinion seems to vary by discipline and professor disposition), but it saved everyone some effort if our early communication determined that it would not be a good fit. So I’d been in touch with professors before and it was a fairly simple exercise to give them a heads up when I made a decision.
My “rejection” note said something along the lines of this:
“Dear Professor X:
Thank you for answering my questions and helping me through the application process [as applicable] at School X. It was a difficult decision to make, but I accepted [gradschool]’s offer of admission and will be working with [advisor] on [some sort of contaminant-related problem]. I will [follow whatever the department requires for a response], but I wanted to let you know personally that I appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Short Geologist”
Each professor I’d been in touch with sent me a gracious e-mail thanking me for the information and wishing me luck in grad school. I’m not sure how common this is, but I’d recommend sending something personal like this, especially if you’re planning on starting a career in academia and you could see collaborating with folks in the departments you “rejected”.
As I mentioned before, I communicated a fair bit with potential advisors when I applied to grad school. I’m not sure how annoying they found this (opinion seems to vary by discipline and professor disposition), but it saved everyone some effort if our early communication determined that it would not be a good fit. So I’d been in touch with professors before and it was a fairly simple exercise to give them a heads up when I made a decision.
My “rejection” note said something along the lines of this:
“Dear Professor X:
Thank you for answering my questions and helping me through the application process [as applicable] at School X. It was a difficult decision to make, but I accepted [gradschool]’s offer of admission and will be working with [advisor] on [some sort of contaminant-related problem]. I will [follow whatever the department requires for a response], but I wanted to let you know personally that I appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Short Geologist”
Each professor I’d been in touch with sent me a gracious e-mail thanking me for the information and wishing me luck in grad school. I’m not sure how common this is, but I’d recommend sending something personal like this, especially if you’re planning on starting a career in academia and you could see collaborating with folks in the departments you “rejected”.
Friday, March 27, 2009
geology cuts
My posting has been somewhat irregular, and I'm going to be really busy in the next week or so. So I make no guarantees that I'll be able to write my usual 5 posts per week. But in the meantime, check out this link. Looks like U of Florida's flagship school may decimate their geology department. Yep, the state with a zillion sinkholes. Does this remind you of any recent boneheaded anti-geology rants?
This came to my attention via Pharyngula. Watch out for the comments, though - when I got there, it was past 600. Needless to say, the topic of geology dropped out of the discussion relatively quickly.
This came to my attention via Pharyngula. Watch out for the comments, though - when I got there, it was past 600. Needless to say, the topic of geology dropped out of the discussion relatively quickly.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
easy classes
I keep track of a fair number of blogs by professors and other academic folks. The topic of clueless students and exams comes up fairly often. Here's a relatively recent example.
I always thought of easy classes as a gift and a chance to bring up my grades. Even as an undergrad, I was mystified by students who would bomb a really easy class.
When I was a TA, the lab sections were worth ½ of the course credit, and the students would have around 10 labs for the course. They also had a lab exam. So each lab was worth somewhere in the vicinity of 2% of their grade. A surprising percentage of the students – 20? Maybe more? – decided that 2% wasn’t worth trying for. They would skip labs, avoid answering questions that took any intellectual effort beyond looking them up in the textbook, and spend most of the time chatting instead of doing any actual work.
Sure, you can write off 2% of your grade. But collectively, your labs are a significant portion of your grade for the entire course. I wasn’t a terribly strict grader, and I was eager to help out and lead (and lead, and lead) students toward the correct answer. Students who showed up, made a good-faith effort at the work, and asked a TA when they had a question generally got at least a B for their lab grade.
The class average for the labs was a C-. And this was not an introductory class! I don’t get it…
I always thought of easy classes as a gift and a chance to bring up my grades. Even as an undergrad, I was mystified by students who would bomb a really easy class.
When I was a TA, the lab sections were worth ½ of the course credit, and the students would have around 10 labs for the course. They also had a lab exam. So each lab was worth somewhere in the vicinity of 2% of their grade. A surprising percentage of the students – 20? Maybe more? – decided that 2% wasn’t worth trying for. They would skip labs, avoid answering questions that took any intellectual effort beyond looking them up in the textbook, and spend most of the time chatting instead of doing any actual work.
Sure, you can write off 2% of your grade. But collectively, your labs are a significant portion of your grade for the entire course. I wasn’t a terribly strict grader, and I was eager to help out and lead (and lead, and lead) students toward the correct answer. Students who showed up, made a good-faith effort at the work, and asked a TA when they had a question generally got at least a B for their lab grade.
The class average for the labs was a C-. And this was not an introductory class! I don’t get it…
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
subcontract secrets
My least favorite task in environmental consulting was when I had to contact potential subcontractors (say, drillers) because I needed pricing or technical information, but I wasn’t supposed to let them know too much about the job yet. Why not? A couple of reasons – I may have been required to get a number of “blind” bids, so I couldn’t divulge any real information. Or I was working for a particularly sensitive client, or at a site that we didn’t have access for yet/was in litigation.
The conversation often went something like this:
Me: “Hi, I’m working for [X company], and I had a couple questions for you…”
Drilling Co.: “Sure! Are you looking for a price proposal?”
Me: “Um, not…yet. I’m just [working on a spec/doing some early budgeting/writing a work plan]. Do you have the capacity to do [X], and would you be able to work around [conditions Y and Z]?”
Drilling Co.: “That depends. Where is the site, and would we be able to use technique A or technique B?”
Me: “The site is in [some vague geographic area] with [some sort of general geology] and due to the [nature of contamination/field conditions/prejudices of the person who needs to approve this work], we probably couldn’t use technique B.”
Drilling Co.: “Oh! This is site C, right? Wow, they’re pretty high profile. Are you working for [litigating party] or [regulator in the cross-hairs]?”
Me: “Um…this is just preliminary, so I can’t really talk about that…”
Drilling Co.: “So, when can I expect to see a proposal for this?”
Me: *mumble mumble*”…preliminary…”*mumble* “I’ll let you know when I can give you more information…”
I've gotten better at this sort of thing, but I still dread those conversations.
The conversation often went something like this:
Me: “Hi, I’m working for [X company], and I had a couple questions for you…”
Drilling Co.: “Sure! Are you looking for a price proposal?”
Me: “Um, not…yet. I’m just [working on a spec/doing some early budgeting/writing a work plan]. Do you have the capacity to do [X], and would you be able to work around [conditions Y and Z]?”
Drilling Co.: “That depends. Where is the site, and would we be able to use technique A or technique B?”
Me: “The site is in [some vague geographic area] with [some sort of general geology] and due to the [nature of contamination/field conditions/prejudices of the person who needs to approve this work], we probably couldn’t use technique B.”
Drilling Co.: “Oh! This is site C, right? Wow, they’re pretty high profile. Are you working for [litigating party] or [regulator in the cross-hairs]?”
Me: “Um…this is just preliminary, so I can’t really talk about that…”
Drilling Co.: “So, when can I expect to see a proposal for this?”
Me: *mumble mumble*”…preliminary…”*mumble* “I’ll let you know when I can give you more information…”
I've gotten better at this sort of thing, but I still dread those conversations.
Monday, March 23, 2009
me, teach?
So, I’ve gotten an offer be an instructor. Teaching is about the last career path I ever wanted, as I mentioned fairly early on. But the economy is in the dumps, as you may have noticed, and this pays, well, ok money. I don’t have any real fear of public speaking anymore – my graduate program was pretty heavy on presentations, so I got lots of practice.
Unlike, say, my TA experience, this instructing gig involves a subject I know well. And I’ll be instructing adults, so hopefully they won’t make it their mission to drive me out of the classroom. Also, the course has a detailed syllabus already and I’ll have a good deal of institutional support. We’ll see how it goes, but I’m going to maintain radio silence on this for a while.
Unlike, say, my TA experience, this instructing gig involves a subject I know well. And I’ll be instructing adults, so hopefully they won’t make it their mission to drive me out of the classroom. Also, the course has a detailed syllabus already and I’ll have a good deal of institutional support. We’ll see how it goes, but I’m going to maintain radio silence on this for a while.
Friday, March 20, 2009
geology you should know
So, there's another meme going around the geoblogosphere - the top 10 things every geologist shoould know. But it's one of those "think up something utterly unique" things and I'm way too late. So I'm borrowing Silver Fox's idea and changing it around a little: what are the top things that you wish the general public knew? Here's a few of mine:
1. Just because something is natural does not mean it is stable or permanent. If you've got steep cliffs made of relatively soft material, they will be eroded. Don't build your house directly on the edge of such cliffs, especially if they're, oh, in an earthquake-prone area.
2. Natural resources, such as oil, are not infinite, but they're also not totally easily accessible either. When folks talk about "peak oil", they're talking about economically/technically extractable oil. There's a ton of oil/coal/whatever still underground; the issue is whether it's at all feasible to get to it.
3. There's lots of different "bad effects" on the environment. You have loss of habitat; production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses; contamination of air, soil, and groundwater; species loss; humungous anoxic dead zones out in the ocean; accumulation of trash; etc. The culture and media are obsessively focused on climate change/greenhouse gasses right now, but some solutions for one problem (using minimal gasoline) involve creating another problem (more battery disposal issues).
I'm sure you can think of some other biggies...
1. Just because something is natural does not mean it is stable or permanent. If you've got steep cliffs made of relatively soft material, they will be eroded. Don't build your house directly on the edge of such cliffs, especially if they're, oh, in an earthquake-prone area.
2. Natural resources, such as oil, are not infinite, but they're also not totally easily accessible either. When folks talk about "peak oil", they're talking about economically/technically extractable oil. There's a ton of oil/coal/whatever still underground; the issue is whether it's at all feasible to get to it.
3. There's lots of different "bad effects" on the environment. You have loss of habitat; production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses; contamination of air, soil, and groundwater; species loss; humungous anoxic dead zones out in the ocean; accumulation of trash; etc. The culture and media are obsessively focused on climate change/greenhouse gasses right now, but some solutions for one problem (using minimal gasoline) involve creating another problem (more battery disposal issues).
I'm sure you can think of some other biggies...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
