Over the last three semesters, the Science & Global Change (SGC) program has fundamentally shaped the way I understand scientific reasoning, climate systems, uncertainty, and the role of communication in addressing global challenges. When I entered the program, I had a broad interest in STEM and a basic awareness of climate change, but I did not yet have a clear framework for evaluating scientific claims or understanding how scientific ideas evolve over time. The sequence of courses, supporting coursework, and collaborative projects built that framework piece by piece. Looking back, I recognize that SGC has not simply provided knowledge; it has reshaped how I think, how I interpret information, and how I engage with scientific ideas in my daily academic and professional life.
One of the most valuable aspects of SGC has been repeatedly applying the hypothetico-deductive method in settings beyond the colloquium. The program emphasizes that the backbone of science is not memorizing facts but testing hypotheses, interpreting results, and refining models. This mindset proved extremely useful in my physics and engineering courses. In Physics II this semester, for example, we analyzed electric and magnetic fields in capacitor systems, RC and RL circuits, and inductive materials. Through every problem, I found myself subconsciously using the SGC approach: identify assumptions, make predictions using equations, test those predictions against the experimental setup or computational results, and iterate. When solving Biot–Savart problems or analyzing phase differences in AC circuits, I used the same logic structure that SGC taught us to apply when evaluating climate models. SGC helped me recognize that scientific reasoning is transferable, it is not confined to climate science or lab work but applies across disciplines. This became even more apparent during my Calculus III coursework. Whenever a problem involved multivariable systems, such as computing flux through a surface or analyzing a parameterized region, I approached the problem like a scientist modeling a real system: define the boundaries, identify relationships, and reason through approximations. SGC reinforced the idea that models are simplifications and that part of scientific literacy is understanding where those simplifications succeed or fail. Before SGC, I often approached math as a set of procedures, now I approach it as a modeling language, which has made me a stronger engineering student.
Another major area where SGC has influenced me is in recognizing failures of critical thinking and misunderstandings of the scientific method in everyday conversations. One recurring example involves discussions about extreme weather. Without SGC, I might have accepted claims that “one hurricane proves climate change,” or the opposite claim that “cold weather disproves it.” Throughout the colloquium, we were taught to distinguish between weather and climate, emphasizing that climate is defined by 30 year statistical patterns, not isolated events. Because of this, when friends or family reference single storms or temperature spikes as evidence for or against climate change, I now see the logical fallacy immediately. I am able to explain that scientists look at long term averages, variance, and forcing mechanisms, not one off events. This ability to diagnose the misconception and correct it is a direct outcome of the SGC curriculum.
Similarly, SGC taught me to recognize when people treat science as a provider of absolute truth, rather than an iterative process grounded in uncertainty. During recent conversations about energy policy and new climate technologies, I noticed that many people assume scientific predictions must be 100% accurate or else the science is “wrong.” My experience constructing and interpreting climate model projections, especially during our work with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) project, helped me articulate why uncertainty does not undermine scientific conclusions. Instead, uncertainty provides boundaries for informed decision making. SGC allowed me to explain this nuance in a way that is accessible to non scientists, something I could not have done three semesters ago.
One of the most memorable parts of SGC was applying its concepts through collaborative, real world contexts, notably the AMOC presentation and the carbon emissions board game project. The AMOC project gave me a chance to analyze scientific literature, assess the robustness of model predictions, and communicate complex climate processes to an audience. Working through the details with my group required constant critical thinking: Which research findings were reliable? What uncertainties mattered most? How do we present these concepts without misrepresenting the science? This experience made climate science feel less abstract and more like an active, evolving field.
The board game project strengthened a different set of skills. Designing a game around carbon emissions forced us to think about human behavior, economic incentives, and scientific constraints all at once. I contributed heavily to the systems thinking structure of the game, connecting energy choices, emissions pathways, and societal consequences. SGC’s lessons on feedback loops, positive and negative, were central to how we designed the mechanics. The experience showed me that science communication is not limited to lectures or essays, as interactive models can also teach complex concepts effectively. It was one of the most applied examples of SGC’s interdisciplinary approach. In addition to the colloquium, supporting courses profoundly shaped my understanding of science. BSCI 151: Beyond Race reinforced the scientific backbone behind scientific modeling and curious thinking, while my calculus/physics sequence strengthened my comfort with multivariable systems and physical interpretation of equations. My work as a mechanical engineering student also connected naturally to SGC themes. For example, in my engineering mechanics courses, we analyzed load distributions, dynamic systems, and material behaviors using assumptions and approximations, constantly checking whether results were physically meaningful. This mirrored the model approach in SGC: define assumptions, create a model, test its predictions, and evaluate uncertainties. Although the subject matter differed, the reasoning process was the same.
Another important aspect of the SGC experience was the community interaction. Working through challenging material with fellow Scholars, whether on field trips, in-class discussions, or joint projects, made learning far more engaging and effective. Talking through climate concepts, debating interpretations of scientific papers, and collaborating on creative projects pushed me to clarify my own understanding. Sometimes I did not grasp a concept fully until I heard a peer explain it in a different way. Being part of a learning community also made me feel more accountable; I wanted to contribute meaningfully, not just complete the minimum requirements. These interpersonal interactions made SGC unique compared to traditional lecture-based courses.
SGC also encouraged active contribution. I tried my best to participate in class discussions, brought in examples from my mechanical engineering coursework and my construction internship that applied to classwork, and helped shape group projects. In the AMOC project and the board game project, I took on roles involving systems organization and the integration of climate concepts with practical applications. In discussions, I often contributed engineering perspectives, especially when topics involved infrastructure, renewable energy, or climate resilience. By connecting SGC themes to real world engineering contexts, I felt I was adding something valuable to the scholars community.
An especially meaningful part of the program was encountering ideas and evidence that challenged my existing beliefs. Before joining SGC, I saw climate change primarily as an environmental issue, not as a system level problem involving economics, politics, engineering, and human behavior. SGC forced me to confront how intertwined these components really are. For example, I had not previously considered how financial incentives shape climate decisions or how communication strategies influence public understanding. The program pushed me toward a more holistic and realistic view of how climate problems are addressed. It also encouraged me to question the assumption that scientific knowledge alone is enough to drive change, as the science is complex, uncertain, and often misunderstood.
As I look ahead to my junior and senior years, and to my future career in mechanical engineering, I see numerous ways that my SGC experience will continue to inform my development. Engineers frequently work with incomplete information, model uncertainty, and complex systems, skills that SGC has prepared me for. Whether I am evaluating the safety of a structure, designing a mechanical system, analyzing energy efficiency, or working on climate adaptive infrastructure, I will rely on the scientific reasoning skills I developed in SGC. The program also strengthened my confidence in communicating complex ideas, a skill that will be crucial whether I am presenting to colleagues, clients, or the public.
In a broader sense, SGC has influenced how I view my place in society and my responsibility as a future engineer. Understanding climate systems and the nature of scientific knowledge has made me more aware of the stakes involved in technological and environmental decisions. I now feel a stronger commitment to using my engineering skills to contribute to resilience, sustainability, and responsible innovation. Even if my career does not explicitly focus on climate engineering, the mindset I gained in SGC, question assumptions, evaluate evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, and communicate clearly, will guide my approach to problem solving. In hindsight, SGC has been one of the most formative components of my early college experience. It taught me how to think like a scientist, evaluate information critically, collaborate effectively, and understand global challenges through multiple lenses. The program has not only enriched my academic development but also shaped my future aspirations and my understanding of what it means to engage responsibly with scientific issues. I believe the lessons from SGC will continue to influence how I learn, how I work, and how I contribute to the world long after I complete the program.