| Evidence-based education |
[Nov. 15th, 2009|07:07 pm] |
Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway?
The panel found little if any credible evidence supporting the teaching philosophy and practices that math educators have promoted in their ed-school courses and embedded in textbooks for almost two decades.
...
The mathematics educators’ response to the panel’s report came as no surprise. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, a journal put out by an NCTM state affiliate, was the first to declare the party line in its July 2008 issue, which featured highly critical essays by five mathematics educators. Issue editor Greer declared in his overview that the panel’s report offered nothing useful, since it had “restricted” itself to scientific research and ignored the “rich reflections” of educators, who, in his judgment, had produced the “deepest work in the field.” Anecdotes over data - and these people want to teach math? |
|
|
| The truth behind CERN |
[Nov. 13th, 2009|11:12 am] |

The sad thing is, I'm not sure my students are old enough to get the reference. |
|
|
| Restraint bias |
[Nov. 13th, 2009|11:10 am] |
Restraint bias:
In a series of four experiments, Loran Nordgren from Northwestern University showed that people suffer from a "restraint bias", where they overestimate their ability to control their own impulses. Those who fall prey to this fallacy most strongly are more likely to dive into tempting situations. Smokers, for example, who are trying to quit, are more likely to put themselves in situations if they think they're invulnerable to temptation. As a result, they're more likely to relapse.
The restraint bias stems from the fact that we're generally bad at predicting the future and how we'd feel in circumstances that are different to our current ones. Related, perhaps, by my inability to judge whether I can take on more work in the future without going completely mental. |
|
|
| Connecticut cunning plan for revitalization: more vacant lots |
[Nov. 11th, 2009|11:16 pm] |
Remember how eminent domain justified the Kelo decision based on economic growth? Yeah, about that:
Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation. Oops. |
|
|
| Genes and punishment |
[Nov. 9th, 2009|03:59 pm] |
Gene-level information used to decide criminal sentencing:
An Italian court has cut the sentence given to a convicted murderer by a year because he has genes linked to violent behaviour — the first time that behavioural genetics has affected a sentence passed by a European court. But researchers contacted by Nature have questioned whether the decision was based on sound science.
...
For the new report, Pietro Pietrini, a molecular neuroscientist at Italy's University of Pisa, and Giuseppe Sartori, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Padova, conducted a series of tests and found abnormalities in brain-imaging scans and in five genes that have been linked to violent behaviour — including the gene encoding the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA). A 2002 study led by Terrie Moffitt, a geneticist at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, had found low levels of MAOA expression to be associated with aggressiveness and criminal conduct of young boys raised in abusive environments. Does anyone know of any earlier examples? The article suggests that they exist, but I'm unaware of 'em. |
|
|
| iGEM results |
[Nov. 6th, 2009|11:49 am] |

Two gold medalists, one best software tool for the comp team, hours of lost sleep -> ∞. |
|
|
| iGEM 2009 |
[Nov. 1st, 2009|07:08 pm] |
Waiting on the results. 
|
|
|
| Attention Boston area people |
[Oct. 28th, 2009|06:49 pm] |
I will be in Boston this weekend for the International Genetically Engineered Machine contest. If I promise to wash my hands first, would anyone be interested in meeting for a drink sometime Sunday (11/1) night near MIT?
If so, please comment.
PS - Not 100% sure I'll be free yet, but I want to know if I should yearn for freedom, so to speak. |
|
|
| Biotech roundup |
[Oct. 28th, 2009|02:44 pm] |
23andMe presents novel genetic associations at ASHG. I heard a few of these in a talk by one of the founders late last year - nothing groundbreaking, but there's some proof of principle goin' on.
Catching cancer from your mother:
In early 2007, a 28-year-old Japanese woman gave birth to a girl. Thirty-six days later, the mother was hospitalized with vaginal bleeding, which became uncontrollable. Doctors diagnosed leukemia, and she soon died. The baby developed normally until age 11 months, when a huge tumor appeared in her cheek. A biopsy determined the cancer was not sarcoma--a cancer of certain connective tissues--but a leukemic tumor somehow trapped in the child's cheek.
...
Finally, tests showed the child's cancer cells were almost all maternal cells, with no genetic material from the father. Reminds me of infectious sarcoma. |
|
|
| "Prestige is just fossilized inspiration" |
[Oct. 26th, 2009|03:16 pm] |
The fact that could destroy academia:
Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do it is to bait the hook with prestige. That's the recipe for getting people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be department heads, and so on. It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn't suck, they wouldn't have had to make it prestigious. The jig is up! |
|
|
| Failure pedagogy |
[Oct. 23rd, 2009|10:19 pm] |
You learn better when you fail:
People remember things better, longer, if they are given very challenging tests on the material, tests at which they are bound to fail. In a series of experiments, they showed that if students make an unsuccessful attempt to retrieve information before receiving an answer, they remember the information better than in a control condition in which they simply study the information. Trying and failing to retrieve the answer is actually helpful to learning. It’s an idea that has obvious applications for education, but could be useful for anyone who is trying to learn new material of any kind. Also an excellent justification for the occasional homework problem that is much, much harder than intended. |
|
|