When I first applied to the University of Maryland and received my acceptance letter, it told me that I was also invited to join College Park Scholars. I had to pick a program within scholars, and after reading all of the descriptions, I picked my top choice to be Science and Global Change. I was interested in this program because I was interested in learning more about our changing world on a global scale, in both a political and scientific context. After three semesters in this program, I can confidently say that this class has impacted me with respect to my academics, critical thinking skills, and social presence.
One of the things that we learned about in Colloquium was Carl Sagan's Toolbox. We discussed logical fallacies, and discussed the different ways in which they may be used in an argument. We learned about how it was a lack of critical thinking that enables this argument, and practiced identifying different logical fallacies. At the end of the sophomore fall semester there was a group project, and we chose our topic to be on logical fallacies. We recorded various videos depicting different scenarios or arguments which employed one of the logical fallacies that we had learned about in class. I have found that this has applied to my college life in everyday discussions. In different classes or simply in normal conversions, I found that people would regularly utilize some variation of Carl Sagan's logical fallacies. This was even more so occurring when the person was losing an argument or discussion, and seemed more desperate to prove their point. For example, in my Geology 204 class discussion, I had noticed classmates dismiss scientific evidence by attacking the credibility of scientists without engaging with the data, as an ad hominem fallacy, or argue that because solutions are not perfect, no action should be taken at all, which is a false dilemma. My experience in scholars narrowed my critical thinking skills to be able to identify these arguments present within my everyday life and also enables me to build an argument that does not require these techniques. Therefore, I am able to prove a point more effectively, while also being able to identity weakness in other people's arguments.
Another thing that was often discussed in scholars colloquium was, of course, climate change. We discussed the science behind climate, discussed weather patterns, evolution, and so on. One of the things that stuck out to me was when we discussed decisions made by governments. We discussed motivations, drawbacks, and things that shape what those most in charge choose to do with their power. We also did this on several scales, from government, to organizations, to private companies. One time in colloquium we were assigned groups and acted as countries, each with a given context. Some had many natural resources, some had advanced technology, and some were extremely wealthy. However, some were undeveloped, poor, or struggling. We had to make decisions and work with other governments, if we had chosen to do so, to try to build our country up, or maintain a high economy, technology output, etc. We also had to decide what to do under sudden changes in climate conditions, where there was issues with weather and natural disasters worldwide. I found this group work and active decision making very engaging and enjoyable. It also got me thinking more about the government, and its roll in climate change. Outside of our colloquium, one news article I read recently was from the New York Times, and described how the Environmental Protection Agency has been removing information about how human activity facilitates climate change. This was extremely alarming to me, not only because of the scientific implications but because of what it revealed about government transparency and public trust. Without my scholars experience, I might have read this article with frustration but little deeper analysis. However, my learning helped me contextualize this event within a broader pattern of political decision-making, misinformation, and the manipulation of scientific narratives. I understood that this was not just an isolated incident, but rather an example of how political motivations can interfere with scientific communication. I was able to critically evaluate the sources, recognize the consequences of suppressing scientific information, and connect this event to the larger global struggle over climate accountability.
This lack of accountability seemed to be a common theme throughout my Anthropology class as well. For this class, I have written two papers that identify issues stemming from governments that contribute to global health crisis's. I discussed mental health in the Philippines, as well as preventable maternal deaths. Both arguments centered back to the common theme of governments not prioritizing their own people. There are many different factors for this, such as economic limitations and social stigmas. However, the issues in structural inequality, healthcare systems, and holes in education all contribute to the larger issue that is the government being responsible for people dead or depressed. The way that governments address mental health and maternal deaths are similar to the way of climate change. This course strengthened my skepticism toward institutions that claim to act in the public's best interest while failing to protect vulnerable populations. It also reinforced themes discussed in scholars colloquium about how governments often prioritize power, image, or profit over human well-being, particularly in marginalized communities.
Another thing that I got from my scholars program was a few friends. Living in the living and learning community meant that the people in my dorm mostly consisted of students within College Park Scholars. Typically students are also housed near people within their program, but because of my roommate being in another program and us having requested to live together, I was not in the same building as those in Science and Global Change. I only met one person in my program in my building, and we have become good friends. We take similar classes, and have studied and reviewed together. We are also socially friends, and within a larger friend group consisting of scholars in other programs, we represent SGC. However, I did not find it difficult to connect with those who were in other programs. Everyone would refer to their program as simply "Scholars", rarely specifically SGC or any other program. This gave me something in common with almost everyone that was around me- we were College Park Scholars! Here I made very good friends with various majors, backgrounds, interests, and life goals. Many of them were in the same classes as me, and it saved me the trouble of having to search for a study buddy, or help on an assignment. There was always someone in the dorm lounge who could help me with whatever was giving me trouble. I found community within Cambridge Community, and it shaped my freshman year.
This living and learning community also brought me people that were very different from me. I am from a little town in New Jersey, where most people are the same variation of each other. Now at school, some of my best friends are people who had immigrated to the United States when they were ten years old. There was also the opposite, or people who were born and raised in Maryland. There were many people who thought very differently than I did, or had different opinions and priorities. This became particularly obvious when the election came around. We all watched the election in our dorm lounge. There was debate and arguments in which I participated. Although my fundamental beliefs did not waver, I found it interesting to hear other peoples' opinions or perspectives. Each person's background shaped their arguments, and this was interesting for me to see, since my hometown was much more black and white.
The friend from my building that lived in my building, I had actually not met from where I lived. Early on in our freshman year, one of the excursions that was required was a scavenger hunt in Washington DC. This is still one of my favorite memories in SGC. We were randomly assigned to a group of three, and one of the people in my group happened to be the person who lived in my building, although I did not know it yet. The three of us went to DC, and had a lot of fun. We enjoyed the scavenger hunt, which took us throughout the city and to museums. After we had completed the assignment, we decided we were having too much fun to leave yet. We decided to walk forty minutes to The WHARF DC, where we got tacos, walked around, and had a lovely evening. This trip allowed me to learn how to use the metro to get to DC, explore the city, start making friends within my community, and gave us an opportunity to have fun. Although arguably, I was only contributing within this little group of three, it remains one of my favorite nods to their program. I enjoyed other excursions to various museums as well throughout the last three semesters, often travelling to other museums in DC.
Finally, I think that my experience in scholars may shape my future in how It has caused me to double think. This class has given me opportunities to take a step back, use critical thinking skills, analyze situations, and consider alternative perspectives. This may apply through the rest of my undergraduate education, into my potential post graduate education, and into my job and the rest of my life. I am very grateful to have been a part of this program.