Overeducated & Unemployable

Look at that: scientific proof for something every teacher knows and struggles with.

"Also important, especially for parents and teachers, is the fact that this study demonstrates that the same response – namely, disinterest or boredom – may result from two different, entirely opposite mechanisms. Children are likely to become disinterested if the learning material is either too simple, because the material is either already known or may be picked up and understood quickly; however, they'll also show that same response of disinterest if the material is overly complex, likely because such material is just too overwhelming."

The study from the University of Rochester (Kidd, Piantadosi, Aslin; 2012) tries to quantify which amount of stimulus is exactly right. As teachers we can only guess after the fact.
They also made a video discussing this so-called Goldilocks Effect.

Via Boing Boing. Quote taken from there.

On Sunday some activists of the so-called 'Field Liberation Movement' destroyed a potato field where researches of the University of Ghent were growing experimental crops of genetically modified potatoes. This variety was made resistant to a fungal that causes a high percentage of lost crops, and asks for a large use of fungicide. One would cheer this new variety on, including the fact that genetic engineering led to the same result one would get with classic breeding, but much quicker.
But the FLM thinks otherwise. "Genes will be patented," they say, "They will be sold to the highest bidder." And genetically modified organisms are bad for your health. Best of all was the fear that this potato crop might have contaminated nearby crops. Taken into consideration that the potato we eat, is the product of asexual reproduction, this is a very bold statement. 'Contamination' with other genes requires sexual reproduction, which results in seeds. Does anyone sow potatoes?
They do make some valid points when talking about multinationals, but I don't believe taking on scientists working on fundamental research, is the correct approach. Yesterday on the news, their arguments fell flat, because we had two sides that couldn't quite grasp they were agreeing.
Today the newspaper has a very good article on why those arguments aren't worth listening to.

Recently I have enjoyed Heston Blumenthal's search for perfection on television. His methods are quite unique, and not always so handy in the kitchen (whatever he says he's trying to achieve with his work), but I liked the scientific he gave into the cooking process. Did you know why slowly roasted meat tastes better and juicier than the one that's got a quick stay in the oven o na higher temperature? Well, it's all about the molecules changing shape and texture. Now Science News has found out about scientific cooking.

Via Boing Boing

P. had some work to do in Chicago (he was attending a conference) so on the first couple of days I was left to my own means. The ever reliable lijability sent me to The Field Museum. It's filled with stuffed animals and has a wickedly cool old-fashioned feel. P. didn't really like that, and thus I went on my own, while he sat in an air conditioned room and listened to talks fooled around on the wireless internets.
Thanks to being a teacher I got in for free and could afford some additional temporary exhibitions. I did the one on Darwin – a good, well-informed exhibition explaining Darwin's life, his work on his Theory of Evolution, and how this theory must be viewed next to creationistic beliefs (as in creationism and intelligent design aren't scientific, Darwin's theory is).
Most of the information wasn't new to me, but it was fun to see the actual instruments owned and used by Darwin (shipped over from a museum in London) and to look at his collection of beetles (some nice specimens he had there). There even was a real life lizard. They had to put a sticker on its terrarium that it truly was alive for it didn't bother to move about much. It did sneeze when I was looking at it, leaving the window grosely covered in snot. Lizards aren't the kind of animal that carries around a hanky just in case.
The biggest portion of an exhibition like this is of course reserved for Darwin's stay at the Galapagos islands and the animals he encountered there. There were pictures and descriptions of different beasts only to be found on specific islands. As much fun as it is, sometimes it's even more fun to view moving images. And look: what the museum doesn't provide I find of the internet. These 60 seconds out of the life of different animals on the Galapagos Islands come from Ironic Sans via Boing Boing. (Also check out the Galapagos photos.)

The day after I write a gigantic rant which ends with the urgent demand for a new route within feminist thinking, my newspaper has this as a headline: "Bad grades caused by testosteron". (Sorry only a headline, the actual article is hidden behind a subscription wall.) No, it's not about secondary school students doping themselves, and then getting even worse grades. It's about the fact that boys underachieve in school when compared to girls. I've seen this train of thought on the internets before (and I've seen the irritation it provoked). Now it's irritating me, because it says that schools are built around so-called female values of obedience and neatness, and boys can't cope with those, because of the inherent agressive and energetic streak testosteron gives them. Just a couple of remarks:

(1) What do we do with cat-fighting girls? Do they have too much testosteron and therefore we just put them on the pill to turn them into purring kittens?

(2) Now can someone point out the femininity of said values to me, because they could just as well be the last bits of patriarchy that still lives in this society.

(3) This might as well be a good piece of research, but no-one will know since the newspaper decided to make it into a caricature with that headline. There are no questions for follow-up research, no solutions as to how to get the boys involved without disrupting the class structure. There's only the fact, but in this case it doesn't really speak for itself.

Usualy I try not to rant and rave in the class, and I try not to tell them things that I'm not sure of. Younger kids think anything you tell them is the truth. We talked about boys and girls this year – the differences in perception. Then I can only tell them over and over that the boyish boy and girlish girl don't ever exist. But then there's research like this, presented in the newspaper as if my idea of equality between the sexes is only a fable.

2³ = 8

Such a beautiful number of planets to have. Therefore 9* (beautiful + 1 isn't as beautiful as 8) can't be a good number of planets (at least if you follow Keplerian aesthetics). This is why Pluto has been banished to dogsize**.

*Although 9 = 3² this isn't as beautiful as 2³. 2∙2∙2 ≠ 3∙3, you decide.
**This entry has been edited to add the stupidest pun ever: Pluto has been downsized.