8+1 Life Hacks to help you Succeed in College

2020 edit:  I wrote this article in 2017, long before the COVID-19 pandemic.  Today, I add one more behavior that will lead to success - wear your masks faithfully, be meticulous about social distancing, and don't cheat on virus safety rules. Even if you only get a little bit sick, you could infect other people who are at much higher risk.

_____________________________

The school year is starting and every year, college freshmen have to figure out how to live their lives independently.  For many, it will be the first time they have been away from home for very long.

All college students need to figure out how to balance their school work, social lives, jobs, and sleep.  Some never figure it out by the time they graduate (or leave school without graduating). Some struggle and eventually figure it out.  A few are in great shape from the beginning.

College is about academic learning, certainly.  But it is also about learning life skills, like organization, work ethic, and how to balance multiple priorities and stay in control.

If you are a new college student or are close to someone who is, consider the following eight strong recommendations I make for new students.  They may seem obvious, but when you are newly on your own, sometimes they are harder to accomplish than you think.

1. Go to class and take notes

This seems like it would be most obvious, but many new college students are too casual about their classes.  Some only attend sporadically.

Don't fool yourself into thinking "nothing much is going on in that class, I can skip today."  

Class is where you learn the professional skills that will get you a good job down the road. But it is also where you make connections with teachers who will give you strong references (or not strong).   

If you often skip class, remember that a prospective employer is likely to ask me "is she dependable?"  I can't lie. 

2. Turn in assignments on time

This follows from point one.  In addition to the fact that your grade is likely to suffer from a late assignment, being late also speaks to your dependability, work ethic, and initiative.   

Late assignments are a big flashing red light over your head that says "do not hire me."

3. Do not procrastinate; be ahead of the curve

You don't learn much from hurry-up rush jobs on assignments.  You teacher has made the assignment because it will help you achieve the objectives of the class.   

Doing the minimum to get by on the theory of "a D still passes the course" means maybe you should not be in college. Why spend thousands of dollars that either you or your parents will have to pay back if you aren't ready to apply yourself to learning? 

The same advice also applies in everything else you do in college.  Take charge and be in control of all the various parts of your life.  If something seems beyond your power to control, don't allow yourself to be helpless - figure it out.  

4.  Don't be a drunk

To be blunt, most college students drink, including before they turn legal age. Some do pot or other drugs. But if you do, like everything else in this article, don't let it control your life. 

If alcohol, pot, or other controlled substances control you, rather than the other way around, you are tempting failure.

The typical college students would ignore me if I encouraged complete teetotaling, but that's not the real point.  The point is to be in control and don't let it take over your life. Which leads to the next point...

5. Ask for help when you need it

College and university campuses have all kinds of help available to you, from special meetings with your teachers, to tutors, to emotional counseling, and everything in-between. Absolutely do not be too proud or too nervous to ask for help if you need it, whatever the needed help is.  

6. Schedule your study time

Sure, college is complicated.  There is a lot going on.  But other people are not going to keeping you on target anymore.  YOU need to take control of your life and your schedule. 

I strongly recommend scheduling your study time, just like you schedule other things in your life.  For every hour you spend in the classroom, teachers are supposed to be assigning your TWO hours of homework.   

Make sure you set the time aside, and do not low ball how much time you really need.  If you DO get done early, so much the better, but don't skimp on study time. 

7. Work at making college friends

You are not going to be happy in college if you are isolated and have no friends.  If you make the effort to find friends and join in campus activities, it will help your school work and your overall learning (as long as you keep your social life in balance).  Hang out and do things with your roommate and dorm neighbors.  Join campus organizations to meet people with interests similar to yours. 

Sometimes taking these steps to make friends feels awkward and makes you a little nervous, but it is worth it. 

Plus, this is where boyfriends and girlfriends come from, which are part and parcel of college life for many students.  Such relationships are great, but remember the basic theme of keeping all parts of your life in balance.  Don't ignore the advice in this article, just because there is someone new in your life. 

8. Get enough sleep

Again, this seems obvious, but college students your age need at least seven hours of sleep a night, with a little more on weekends.   

Not getting enough sleep will tempt you to violate all of the other recommendations above. Plus you will have higher stress, more chance of mental health issues, and you will generally be more miserable. 

Like all of the other points above, take charge of your sleep schedule and remain in control.

As I said, these things may all be obvious, but each semester I have students who stop coming to class, fail to turn assignments, or otherwise get their lives off track. Some get their act together and get back on track.  Some don't.

It's true that college is a pretty desirable lifestyle, particularly if you don't worry about classwork. You have more independence than ever before and your lodging and food (most of it) are pre-paid.

But also remember that you are making decisions that will have consequences for years to come.  Be proactive and make them smart decisions.

The 97% eclipse (where I was)

I was not able to travel to the range of totaality, because I teach and had two classes meeting.  So I was at a place where 97% of the sun was covered by the Moon and 3% light still coming through.

Clouds covered the sun, minutes before the eclipse started:

The eclipse progressing.

And...the 3%/97% maximum, where I was:

Maybe by the 2024 eclipse I will be retired and will be able to travel further to see it.

It's not really about statues and flags

Charlottesville, and all of the other hot buttons about white supremacy, is about the symbolism, not about statues and flags.

It is all about the symbolism, and this means that it is not a stark "one or the other" of whether we can or cannot have statues and flags commemorating the confederacy.

It is highly complex and nuanced, and it is all about injustice and discrimination, committed to preserve social and political power.

Flying the confederate flag over state capitol buildings (and other places) has a symbolism of glorifying and endorsing the confederate cause of continuing slavery, which was highly unjust. This is true, even when that glorification is not the intent.

Does that mean we forget what the flag looked like? Of course not. But we have to understand the complexities that go with the pro-slavery cause it represented.

We remember Robert E. Lee as an effective general. There are positive and negative things about him. In giving loyalty to the state of Virginia over his vows to the national government, he exhibited a form of patriotism, but also supported the unjust political and social regime that was grounded in slavery. Is it appropriate to honor him on public property, without recognition of this complexity, and things that were NOT honorable about him?

I know people in the South today who feel that states should have the right to nullify all federal laws and regulations they do not like. For them, the confederacy is an uncompleted project that they would be happy to get back to, not in terms of another war, and not to return slavery, but in terms of transforming the federal government to eliminate the ability to impose rules on states and local government.  Remember that the emancipation was an imposed rule that the local whites mostly did not like.

The current national debate is about a movement that strategically uses intimidation, fear, and also politics to repress people who are not like themselves. It is deeply motivated by fear of becoming a minority and having to abide by the majority rule of others, not like themselves. There is nothing admirable about this movement.

But the debate also resides in today's hyper-sophisticated techniques of persuasion and brand marketing. The "brand" is what our target audience thinks about our company, product, or cause, based on all of the messages they have received about us.

So what is the brand of white supremacy?  What do they promise followers? How do they "tell their story"?

Their promise is to preserve white privilege.  And they personalize it.  All of these other non-white groups are harming you and you will be better off without them, they tell followers.

To a huge majority of the people, this brand is unethical, unjust, and confederate flags and statues symbolize this injustice.  But the white supremacy brand appeals powerfully to a certain small minority, based on their backgrounds and world-views.  To them, the symbolism of removing flags and statues is the growing threat of losing their power and provilege.

Counter-protests may change laws and official policies, but they are not likely to change the minds of those who have bought in to the white supremacist cause. Removing statues and flags that commemorate and glorify the unjust confederate cause also will not change their minds, and in fact will like make these guys even madder.

So what do we do about the statues and flags?

I think that this mission of remembering the complexities and nuances of history, particularly the negative parts of our history, is the role for museums, not for public property displays that lack explanation and context. So, move these things to museums, or put companion interpretive displays in the parks, or maybe even companion statues that tell the other side of the story.

Do a better job of teaching the underlying pro-slavery social and economic dynamics of 19th century American slavery in our history classes.

Our society has long-neglected addressing the underlying white supremacy driving many political agendas.  Just like a politician works to define the "brand" of the opposing candidate, the overwhelming majority needs to continually define the negatives of the brand of white supremacy.

The Limited Lifespan of Technological Civilizations

A recent paper in the Cambridge Journal of Astrobiology concludes that the typical
technological species becomes extinct within 500 years after attaining modern technology and that this extinction leaves the civilization's planet uninhabitable.

There is some cool information here for both my science fiction writers out there, but also for people concerned about climate change.

The paper, by retired astrophysicist and mathematics professor Daniel Whitmire, of the University of Arkansas, makes the following arguments:

1. Based on the "Principle of Mediocrity," a cornerstone of modern cosmology, when there is only one data point, we need to assume that the data is typical of other examples, even though we cannot detect them. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should believe that humans are typical of other intelligent, technological species out there in the universe. Statistically, this means we are toward the middle of the bell-shaped curve, where the vertical line is in the middle of the graphic.

2.  So...assuming we really are typical, we only know two fundamental things, a) that we are the first technological species to evolve on the Earth and b) we are early in our technological evolution.

No archaeological evidence of a previous technological civilization has been found, (Erich von Däniken doesn't count) and a true technological civilization would leave evidence that could be found for millions of years.

3.  The evolution of technological species IS statistically probable, Whitmire says, because our typical technological civilization evolved in the first 22% of the projected total lifetime of the part of Earth's biosphere suitable for land animals.  If a technological species were to be improbable, then we would expect to have evolved toward the end of Earth's biosphere lifetime, i.e beating the odds.

4.  If technological species go extinct while leaving the biosphere viable, then later technological species are likely to evolve, Whitmire says. On the other hand, if extinction leaves the land biosphere uninhabitable, the reset time could easily take too long for evolution of another technological species, he contends.

5.  Given the principle of mediocrity, which says that humans are typical of other existing technological species, and because we are early in our technological evolution, the statical likelihood is that other existing technological species we encounter will also be in the relatively early stages of technology development, and be the first to evolve on their planet.

6.  When you calculate the bell-shaped curves of probability, the best we can say, based on current evidence, is that a technological civilization is "likely" to last 500 years or less, says the author.

• If our technological civilization survives another 1,000 years, then statistically the "likely" survival range would jump to 5,000 years or less.
• Note that we are already 100 years into our own technological civilization.

7.  Therefore, the best evidence we have, based on the statistical principle of mediocrity, is that the typical technological species has a short lifetime and that their extinction typically coincides with the extinction of their planetary biosphere.

Note: A technological species in defined by the author as those biological species that have developed the ability to affect the global environment and utilize electronic devices. That means that one of the signature characteristics defining a technological species is invention of radio!

I said that this blog post is for my science fiction writers out there, because I think that there is some cool basis for speculative writing here.  I would also caution that it is always POSSIBLY for a civilization to be an outlier, but the ODDS say that both we, and any aliens we encounter, will be toward the center of the curve, and thus similar to ourselves.

When it comes to climate change, this logic can also serve as a basis for what we know, based on statistics, about civilizations faced with climate change and other extinction-level events. Based on the very limited statistical information we have (one data point), the likelihood is that in 400 years or less, we will make OUR planet uninhabitable.

All of this speculation is based on statistics. It is not a prediction of real world events. But it matches pretty well with the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change that our society faces. It would be nice to prove that we are NOT typical, as current defined, because we beat the odds.

This blog post was inspired by this article, but I went to the original published journal article to write my summary.

Hate

Causing or advocating injustice is hate.

Opposing injustice is not hate.

We need to be prefectly clear about this.

Who Posts Trump's Tweets?

When I first read the president's tweets about Charlottesville, my immediate reaction was that some of them didn't read the way he says things.  It turns out that some of them MAY have come from a staffer, not Trump himself.

During the campaign in 2016, we know pretty certainly that some @realDonaldTrump posts were made by the candidate himself, and some were made by staffers.  The language was different, but also some were posted from an Android device and some from Twitter for iPhone.  Trump was using the Android device during the campaign and staffers had the iPhone.

This is not unexpected. There are a LOT of politicians and celebrities who have staffers or publicists manage or contribute to their social media.  It is pretty much standard procedure, except that most politicians probably do the hands-on tweeting less than Trump has.

This article from March scrutinizes the Twitter dynamic of the Trump campaign/presidency. It turns out that some tweets are STILL probably written by somebody other than the president, personally. Again, not at all unreasonable for a politician.

The @TrumpOrNotBot bot analyzes the president's tweets and uses machine learning and natural language processing to estimate the likelihood Trump wrote a tweet himself.  It uses an algorithm that compares new tweets to the president’s massive Twitter record, and calculates the odds that Trump, personally, wrote the new tweet. Supposedly the algorithm is continually updated.

So what do I conclude from looking at the analysis?

I think it's really hard to accurately analyze the language, but the platforms the tweets come from are interesting.  This week, most tweets have still been sent from an iPhone, but some are from the "Media Studio" Android app.

The Media Suite Android posts are more likely to be announcements about events, videos of the president, government reports, etc.  Advocacy posts (and insults) are more likely to come from the iPhone app.

So what did @realDonaldTrump tweet?

iPhone:  We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one! 

iPhone: What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. #Charlottesville 

Android Media Studio: We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST. 

Android Media Studio: We will continue to follow developments in Charlottesville, and will provide whatever assistance is needed. We are ready, willing and able. 

iPhone:  Deepest condolences to the families & fellow officers of the VA State Police who died today. You're all among the best this nation produces. 

iPhone: Condolences to the family of the young woman killed today, and best regards to all of those injured, in Charlottesville, Virginia. So sad! 

iPhone: Our thoughts & prayers are with the families, friends & colleagues of #Virginia's @VSPPIO Lt Cullen & Tpr Bates #Charlottesville

I don't think it is likely that sometimes the president uses one phone and sometimes another, sometimes iOS and sometimes Android. It would not surprise me if more than one trusted person using an has access to post to the account. So I interpret the Android Media Studio posts as being the White House Communications office or other trusted party, and most, if not all, of the iPhone posts being directly from the hand of the president

In some ways, none of this matters, other than as a curiosity to observers. If something is released over the signature of the president, it IS functionally the president saying it, no matter who wrote it.  But given the unique Twitter dynamic the president has established, I find it to be intriguing to try to understand which tweets fall into which categories.

And particularly in light of the recent criticism of whether Trump should have called out white supremacists the way he calls out everybody else, I do wonder who really is posting what content to the president's accounts.

Streaming video becomes the "surface streets" of the Internet superhighway

Disney has announced its own streaming video service, and it will pull much if its content from Netflix when the new service premiers.

This article asserts that the growing number if streaming sites (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, CBS All Access, Disney, ad infinitum) means that the video piracy industry will remain healthy.

I agree, and I think it is the result is clueless corporate executives.  But the growing number of streaming services is going to be a bigger and bigger problem for consumers.

The article above continues:

While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.

The music business has a better model, or had initially. Services such as Spotify allowed fans to access most popular music in one place, although that’s starting to crumble as well, due to exclusive deals and more fragmentation.

I am often pretty hard on movie and TV studio/network executives. They do not generally come from the creative side of the industry.  Because of the way our capitalist free enterprise system works, their world revolves around quarterly profits reports for investors.

Such executives study success, and then look for ways to replicate that success. That's why there are vampire shows all over right now.  Every time a TV show is succesful, we tend to get clones.  And this is not just the 36 different CSI series. Vamires are all over the place in the media because of Twilight.  Harry Potter spawned Percy Jackson, Miss Peregrine, and The Magicians (yes I know about them being books first).

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has resulted in DC developing its common universe of individual hero movies plus team-ups.

It's why the X-Files and Stargate and Star Trek are back, or coming back.

Studio and network executives see past success as a path to future success.

So what does that say about streaming services?

Netflix and Hulu have been successful.

Studios/networks have shared in that success, via contract.

No doubt the executive think somewhat along these lines:

A lot of people watch our shows, but the streaming service takes a cut, so we don't make as much money as we could.  If we had our own, we wouldn't have to share.  But we'd better have something BIG to launch it and get people to subscribe (with automatic renewal if at all possible).

The problem is, as the article above says, people aren't going to pay for endless streaming services.

Making money from people watching TV and movies is marketing. Marketing is SUPPOSED to be about understanding the customer.  I think the studios and networks have failed to properly analyze their customers.

For decades, the consumer's model was "set your DVR or other recorder to get the program on cable."

Then it was "I pay for one or two places where I can catch the shows, if I mess them on cable).

Now for many people the home video model is "discontinue cable and subscribe to a couple of inexpensive services."  Or downloading copyright infringed video, of course.

The industry argues "piracy is unnecessary because pretty much everything is available inexpensively online."  But this breaks down if you REALLY understand your customer.

The five streaming services I mentioned above would cost more than my current cable bill, but the expectation is that I will subscribe to more and more, because I like one or two additional shows on each?

People with unlimited entertainment budgets probably will. The TYPICAL consumer will have to make value judgments.  Some will just say "____ sounds interesting, but I guess I won't be able to watch it because it's not available on my services."

Others will find the copyright infringed shows.  

I am NOT advocating piracy.  I teach copyright law in several of my classes and infringing other people's intellectual property is never a good idea.

I AM saying that the studios/networks are chopping up the superhighway into a bunch of less desirable surface streets.  Not in terms of bandwidth, but in terms of convenience and usability.

In my always humble opinion, I think that they would succeed better by consolidating their individual lanes into a single interface with feed equal to or less than cable.

Strategic Distraction in Social Media

Given the power that social media has to influence society and social agendas, it's become a regular tactic to use social media ti divert attention away from the bad stuff.

Trump does it.  Lots of other organizations do it. But we are hardly aware of what is going on.

Two stories have prompted this post. The first is about a study that concludes that the Chineses government employs a tactic of diverting attention from bad news or dissent. They do this NOT by addressing the issue to counter arguments, but by inundating social media with other, positive content that leads the conversation away from the dissent. The study concludes that they do this with an "army" of 2 million people who flood the internet with positive news posts.

The article quoted one of the authors of the study as saying:

We had always thought that the purpose of propaganda was to argue against or undermine critics of the regime, or to simply persuade people that the critics were wrong. But what we found is that the Chinese government doesn’t bother with any of that.  Instead, the content of their propaganda is what we call “cheerleading” content. Basically, they flood the web with overwhelmingly positive content about China’s politics and culture and history. What it amounts to is a sprawling distraction campaign rather than an attempt to sell a set of policies or defend the policies of the regime.

The second story I read recently concludes that bots are a major factor in spreading "fake news" on Twitter. Automated accounts are particularly active in the early spreading of viral claims, and tend to target influential users, according to the authors.

I have addressed bots before and not all are bad, but in the political realm, they are doing more than just auto-liking posts.

So what can we learn from these two stories?

• There are organizations and governments that are actively manipulating the flow of information via social media and the Internet, for their own benefit.
• Often, their goal is distraction.

The Chinese government uses "good news" to overwhelm the "candle in the wind" of dissent.

Donald Trump uses insults to distract from the criminal investigations centered on his election campaign.

But whether he knows it or now, Trump also distracts from OTHER important things going on in the American government.  Because the insult of the day has to be reported and analyzed in the media (it doesn't but they haven't figured that out yet).....

Other important things never bubble up to the surface for broad discussion, like this story about a Commerce Department plan that could reduce the size of 11 marine sanctuaries and monuments.

If the opposition wants to retake Congress in 2020, and retake the White House in due course, they have to get MUCH more sophisticated about how they disseninate simple, straightforward Twitter-like talking points that will REALLY get the attention of undecided voters. Armies of people doing coordinated posting and bots are clearly fair game, but false information is not, in my opinion.

Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery premiers next month and I have largely been avoiding the growing hype from CBS.  But I will be interested to see how they fit this series in to established Trek continuity and the overall Star Trek "brand."

This series is acknowledged to be set a decade before The Original Series.  Way back in the early stages of production development, Brian Fuller said it revolves around an event that has been mentioned, but not seen on screen.  I have been wondering what that event is.

There have been indications that Discovery is set in the context of a cold war between the Federation and the Klingons. There have been allusions in previous Trek to conflict between the Klingons and Starfleet in the years before Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise.

The inconclusive Battle of Donatu IV would have taken place around ten years before Discovery (mentioned in The Trouble with Tribbles).

Kirk once mentioned having seen what Klingons do to occupied planets - organizing slave labor camps, eliminating all freedoms, confiscating goods, and taking hostages (Errand of Mercy).

Kirk was in his early 30s in The Original Series, making him barely out of Starfleet Academy ten years earlier, or maybe even still a cadet.  Of course, his reference to having seen what Klingons do does not necessarily mean he was on the scene in person.

So, that's about all we know about the Klingons a decade before The Original Series.

Somewhere in there was also the Battle of Axenar. It would be an interesting choice to incorporate this battle, given that one of the semi-copyright infringed fan productions purports to tell the story of Axenar.  I don't think it is definitive that the Klingons were involved, but they may have been.

And of course, the "decade before The Original Series" time frame puts it right at, or just after, the Enterprise's first visit to Talos IV (as seen in the Cage and The Menagerie).

It is also interesting that one of the main characters is apparently Spock's adoptive sister, although he may have moved out of the household of Amanda and Sarek by the time she came along.  Of course, Spock went for at least 20 years without mentioning a half brother (Sybok) so we can't assume that he would have mentioned an adopted sister.

I have a great dislike for the dystopian stories that are so common today, which I have described as "unlikable people doing unethical things to each other."  This cold war storyline COULD go that direction, but I hope it doesn't.   I hope that when they say they are being faithful to the vision of Gene Roddenberry about characters being professional and respecting each other, they are telling the truth and not just making empty claims.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

Five things "Digital Natives" need in Educational Technology

Today's younger generation is considered to be "digital natives" because they have
grown up with Internet/mobile technology and are highly comfortable with it.

But what are the implications of that? Should educators really treat them differently?

According to this story, a recent academic study suggests that today's students are no better at information skills simply because they grew up in the digital era. It also finds evidence that “digital natives” are no better at multitasking than other age cohorts.

So, as a teacher, I wonder what this says about instructional technology (and here I am talking about systems that go beyond PPT slides and playing YouTube videos in class).

There is a lot of research that shows that, in general, students like using technology for schoolwork.  In part, this is because they are already used to technology, and in part because it tends to lead classes away from boring lecture-memorization methodologies.

But I teach specialized technology, used for broadcasting.  Many of my students are great users of the technology, but......

If there is a problem, many of them are stymied. Some of them cannot even explain what the problem is sufficiently for me to understand it, without going to look for myself (and then I can often solve the problem in two minutes).

Then there's the recurring problem of the students who save a file, and then cannot come back and find it again, because of lack of understanding of file folder structure. That should not be college-level curriculum!

So my take is that today's generation of students is sophisticated in USE of technology, but not necessarily in UNDERSTANDING how the technology works.

Again -- what are the implications?

1. The technology used needs to be highly intuitive do it doesn't NEED figuring out.
2. Students need ample instruction in how to use it (called "induction training"). As long as it is confucing or hard to use, it will reduce their motivation.
3. Teachers need to use scaffolding -- giving high levels of technology support early, but gradually lessening the support to encourage students to become more independent and able to solve problems.
4. As much as possible, the technology needs to be cross-platform, i.e. suitable tfor desktop computers, laptops, and smartphones. Of course, this is not always possible.  My broadcasting assignments need to be done with professional hardware and software to be effective, not Garage Band. But for example, our school's Learning Management System (the only system allowed for online instruction) is just finally being updated this year to be friendly to mobile devices.
5. Teachers need to guard against mobile devices as distractions in class.  They can add to the classroom experience, such as for quick research during class discussion. But whenever a student blanks a screen or minimizes a window when the teacher walks up, you can bet that the device has been a distraction, not an learning aid.  This can be challenging because students resent being told they cannot text message during class, etc.  

I think that my particular Electronic Media program does a pretty good job of teaching the technology in a way that is not too intimidating and builds complexity step-by-step in reasonable increments.  And we'll need to, because we have new hardware and software we'll need to start using the first week.

Guerrilla Tactics for Corporate Tax Cuts

From The Intercept

The billionaire Koch brothers have plans to plant questions and comments at August congressional recess town hall meetings to make it appear that there is a grassroots demand for lower corporate taxes.

That's according to a confidential plan obtained by The Intercept, reported in this story. (The Intercept is the site that released Edward Snowden's documents about NSA hacking.)

Such guerrilla tactics are not new in politics. Over the years, there have been plenty of examples of paid rally attendees and planted questions -- more times than you can count, all across the political spectrum.

Sometimes the politician (or staff) does it, to make the politician look good or get a foot in the door for a prepared answer. Sometimes it really is to persuade the politician. But sometimes the goal is to allow the politician to JUSTIFY voting the way certain lobbyists and campaign contributors want.

"Every place I went this August, people were encouraging me to support cutting corporate taxes."

See how this helps justify voting a certain way?

But it's also hard to NOT see this underground campaign in the context of "back home" political events earlier this spring, in which activists hammered away on progressive social causes -- so much so that some Republicans were scared away from holding public events at all.

Don't get me wrong -- most politicians are honest, hard working, and devoted to serving their constituents. But they can also become seduced by power.  If you want to serve your constituents, you need more and more power, such as better subcommittee and committee assignments. To get those, you need to be seen as supporting the party leadership. And that means voting for litmus test legislation, like repealing the Affordable Care Act.

If you're going to vote on a controversial bill like that, it helps to have a strong rationale for WHY you voted the way you do. And that's where the guerrilla questions and comments at public events come in. When "constituent" questions go the way the politician wants, it's great. When they go a different direction, the politician resorts to avoidance.

To counter this kind of tactic, advocates for the other side need to keep turning out in force and keep countering the guerrilla operatives.