I am the MS of my Fate, I am the Captain of my Goals?

I'm a second year masters student, and I find there's a bee in my bonnet.

The BS is the new high school diploma, so for any kind of specialized work (especially science), a graduate degree is a must. However, PhD programs take such a huge investment of time and energy that they should only be entered if one has a clear idea of what they want to get out of it, whether it be a job in academia or leader of an industry project.

So, get a masters degree, right? They're one of the more rapidly growing degree programs, largely thanks to MBA and M. Ed degrees (and companies that sponsor the cost of higher education for employees). It also creates another pivot point to switch disciplines if you find that you don't entirely fit one, but would maybe feel more comfortable somewhere else. Many biological science doctoral programs require a masters beforehand, and credits can transfer should you choose to go on in academia.

The problem I find, however, or at least cannot shake from my personal headcanon is that it sort of feels like a consolation prize. This is a monumentally stupid perception considering the percentage of Americans with a graduate degree is ~11.77% compared to ~31% of Americans who have a bachelors or higher. . I know people with masters; I know people who have gotten MS degrees in the last several years. Within my department, though, there's about a handful of students who intentionally entered as a masters, and another few who got an MS after they had to scale back their initial PhD proposals. In other departments/disciplines, failure to pass qualifying exams means getting the consolation masters to indicate that grad work had been done, but not enough to be a candidate.

I'm a scientist (or at least, I'm nominally one- that debate is open to interpretation because I certianly don't attempt science daily), so let's consider those data points mentioned above.

Or maybe I am, if twitter documentation counts. 

It's again, incredibly dimwitted to view an MS as a consolation prize when one in five Americans don't go on to college after high school, and the graduate school matriculation rate is roughly around 460,000 people a year. If we narrow the lens on biology PhD programs (~16,000 a year), 70% go on to do a postdocs and of those, only 15% of postdocs will go on to a tenure-track academic job (ASCB 2014).

So why do I feel so down about it? A colleague mentioned Thesis Whisperer's Valley of Shit, and I've seen numerous other posts about grad student struggles and impostor syndrome. It weirds me out though, that these all often come from the perspective of PhD candidates- on the masters timeline, there's the added stress of trying to get done in two, or as is more often the case three years. I also have the personal problems of lack of focus and tying my success rate to my emotional well being, which are both again, hugely problematic areas. There needs to be a culture change- slowly, people are recognizing that tenure-track isn't a tenable position for every grad student. Perhaps the next step is recognizing that it's okay to not make the giant academic leap in one degree.

PBS wants you to THINK Wednesday, especially about your inner ancestors!

I confess, I don't watch PBS on a regular basis anymore (or TV in general really because I don't have cable- instead I opt to follow specific shows). However, it was probably the channel I watched the most as a kid- while I have nostalgia for Hey Arnold! and Rugrats like others of my generation, I have even stronger memories of The Magic School Bus, Wishbone, and of course, Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Perhaps on the tailwind of COSMOS, PBS recently started a lineup called "Think Wednesday", a three-hour primetime block from 8-11 PM of science, nature, and technology AWESOME. The first two hours are filled by PBS standbys NATURE and NOVA, and the third is reserved for special programs. Currently, that third slot is filled with Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish", a three-part miniseries based on his book of the same name. The first episode (which you can view here) aired last week and continues tonight with "Your Inner Reptile".

Neil is a fish paleontologist based at the University of Chicago and teaches Anatomy & Physiology to a bevy of med students. Some may wonder what someone who does their fieldwork with a shovel instead of a scalpel knows about the way our bodies function, but it actually makes sense- as precursors to tetrapods, you see many similarities between their morphology and ours. While Haeckel's "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" is a historical footnote in modern biology, side-by-side comparisons of tetrapods at early embryological states are remarkably alike. At a more molecular level, shared expression gradients like Sonic hedgehog indicate relatedness of animals.

No, not that one. Source: Wikia

The graphics are slick, and not as jarring as many other "3D Ancient Life POW!" specials have been. I especially enjoyed seeing prehistoric animals crawl around Neil's locations, half-translucent so their bone structure could be visible.

Neil is a great guide, too- not just another talking head. We follow along with the Tiktaalik discovery, we visit friends (and learn things in the process).

Incidentally, I found out my ear pits are actually a developmental error showing a remnant of my first gill arch.

I am the 1%! Though your odds may be higher if you live elsewhere.

I hope PBS continues this structure beyond the life of "Your Inner Fish"- it's nice to have engaging science content distributed throughout the week (and especially when it doesn't have to fight with other shows in the same timeslot like COSMOS does with The Walking Dead and now Game of Thrones). Props to PBS! Hopefully this is the start of a new age in edutainment.

For us, does it get better?

The Damon Fowler story in Louisiana irritates me infinitely, especially given that the school completely disregarded the first amendment.

If you need a refresher, it says

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though I have seen a few supporters of the student who led the Lord's Prayer argue she was expressing her freedom of speech and exercise of a religion, they seemingly forget the forget the wall of separation between church and state implied by author Thomas Jefferson.

Also, Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe as a precedent. Because even if the school didn't print it on the program and made it a 'Moment of Silence' instead, by not pulling the mike from Ms. Mattice implicitly endorsed her speech.

The internet support has been wonderful (See Hemant Mehta's posts linked above, r/atheism on reddit, etc.), but it really makes me wonder: why isn't there a nontheist equivalent to the "It Gets Better Project"?

There are some parallels between the homosexuality and nontheism movements: minority perspectives, distrusted by various segments of the population, and ostracization of 'out' individuals in homogenous populations. This last part troubles me in particular, as I've seen people I knew in high school only come out of the closet as a gay person after arriving at college, away from the dog-eat-dog world of high school. I also know people who've come to the conclusion they don't believe in a God on their own, but refuse to publicly admit it for fear of familial backlash.

There are differences between the movements, true, as I can't think of any specific legislation against not believing (in fact, as mentioned above it's protected as a right to believe or not), whereas both at the state and national level laws have been made denying GLBT individuals the right to marry, the right to serve, and in some states the right to adopt (or any single parent for that matter, which is silly considering the number of children that need homes).

Also, as a friend asked me the other day, does it really get better for nontheists? We may not be legislated against, but certainly receive flak for merely existing. And that's as adults, so not sure I could honestly say it gets better.

But what we could borrow from the LGBT movement is an equivalent to National Coming Out Day, so individuals don't have to feel like their hiding their true selves, as well as showing other people, "Hey, we're not alone, and we do exist!" Having a supportive framework would help towards this, which is why I applaud the increase in high school chapters of the Secular Student Alliance, as well as at college campuses (including our very own Clemson! Check us out). Especially in places like the Bible Belt, it really does help to know you're not alone. I almost wish we had an equivalent at my very Mormon high school, but then I remember I hung out with all the nontheists, Catholics and other religious minorities anyway.

There is the Out Campaign for individuals to come out (and encourages people to let others 'out' themselves when they feel ready), and I highly recommend it.

Taking my own advice and declaring myself (though subtly put on my facebook) as an agnostic atheist, meaning: I don't believe there's a God or gods, but I also don't know that it's true (see explanation for definitions here)

Another attempt at a wedge?

The New York Times today had this article about antievolutionists now adding global warming and climate change to their "Teach the Controversy" agenda. Denialists bother me, and it's disturbing to think that two kinds merging into some kind of horrific hybrid could descend upon schools with "Academic Freedom Bill" nonsense. I almost want to ask if alchemy and Stork theory can be included, but all facetiousness aside, this is frustrating. It also reminds me of the mock stickers Dr. Waldvogel showed us last year warning that books may contain information about gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Climate change may be the "new kid on the block" scientifically speaking, but the current consensus is that it is anthropogenic. Volcanos can account for only so much... but I'm not going to climb on that particular soapbox until I can do more research for a clearer, better-cited post.

Among the comments was this gem (oh Highlights feature, how awesome art thou) from a clergyman concerned with the rise of anti-intellectualism among the evangelical movement, who, like Randy Olson points out that science is terrible at public relations, that the man on his pulpit can reach into the hearts of people to guide them to Christ's light and that scientists need such a person to show people that proper science is by extension an indication of a creative God.

In my podcast last year, I highlighted this issue- that while I personally adore PZ Myers and his cephalopod love, having such a popular figure also tear down theism on a regular basis isn't likely to help "bring people into the fold" of scientific literacy. Dr. Ken Miller is an excellent example of someone who practices a particular belief and still understands and appreciates how science works.

I'd rather not tell you what to believe, to be all condescending and make decisions based on my particular world view. Instead, I opt for spreading critical thinking and rational thought in hopes of raising scientific literacy. Whether you see it as evidence of the existence of a higher power or not, I don't care so long as you can intelligently reason. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into mens souls"

Review: Flight of Dodos

Apologies for the dust. Unfortunately I never got around to writing an appropriate eulogy for Dr. Waldvogel; I may get around to that at some point.

Another year brings another Darwin Day, this time being the 201st birthday of the Bearded One. The Biological Sciences Club along with Dr. Kelly had a viewing of filmmaker Randy Olson's 2006 documentary "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", which is a film I've been wanting to see for a while since I saw its name tossed about last year in my browsing.

Olson uses humor and animated graphics to capture the attention of a general audience, and his interviews are conversational (in fact, one of his meetings with scientists is actually a poker game) He highlights both sides as potential (if not already) 'dodos'- ID populists who insist on 'teaching the controversy' as well as erudite scientists so far removed in their ivory towers that they've lost how to connect with the general public.

This being 2006, he takes his camera to Kansas to talk to the Kansas Board of Education members still reeling from Evolution War II (as opposed to Evolution War I which was a more obviously creationist attempt to wedge 'alternate views' in the 90s), one of whom coincidentally lives across the corner from his mother. He also talks to intellectuals around the country including Michael Behe (who despite his views I still regard as some kind of scientist, even if his 'theory' doesn't hold water).

Olson makes the interesting observation that the Intelligent Design movement is a more marketable approach, with buzz phrases 'Teach the Controversy', 'there are flaws', 'where's the proof?' etc. and friendly supporters you could easily have a beer with (or at least lemonade and brownies). The scientific establishment, however, can't seem to communicate effectively and are somewhat argumentative (or at least during a poker game with alcoholic lubrication).

The neighborly barmate analogy he borrowed and used from the 2004 Presidential campaigns, and unfortunately the same attraction seems to appear today in the form of the Tea Party movement along with its darling, Sarah Palin. Folksy populism and mild sex appeal are great advertising, shiny wrappers. However, Sarah, the Tea Party, and Intelligent Design all share the same lack of substance beneath the glitz and glamour. Intelligent design, as previously discussed in this blog lacks testable research and actually discourages finding natural explanations beyond 'somebody did it.' Likewise, for all the outrage and screaming they've been whipping up, the Tea Party is still largely that- angry people who misappropriated historical events for their outrage (the original Boston Tea Party was more in protest of the British East India Company becoming a monopoly on tea, etc. etc. like a nightmarish WalMart). But I digress.

My seemingly irrelevant tangent to modern politics merely restates the documentary's message- science needs to better communicate information, research, and models to the general public, educating them with interesting things to combat attractive anti-intellectuals with ad company slogans. In my personal opinion based on my background, I feel one step would be to better promote public television programs if children must be parked in front of the boob tube. Relatable icons like Bill Nye the Science Guy and the characters of The Magic School Bus captivate attention and effectively promote scientific literacy.

As a postscript, I'll sadly note that the majority of the audience for this viewing were students largely there for extra credit in their Biol 102 course, uninterested in a discussion afterwards. Olson's humor was appreciated though, and hopefully brought his points across. This was a much more digestible film than Ben Stein's Expelled last year.