My time as a Science and Global Change (SGC) scholar has been a valuable experience in providing me with the tools and critical thinking skills necessary to approach scientific questions in the most effective and meaningful way. Within the context of global climate change, SGC has taught me about the vast array of misunderstandings of proposed carbon neutrality missions, the methods of effectively (and ineffectively) communicating research and data regarding global warming, and how to remain resilient despite the series of challenges involved with combating climate change. SGC, more so than any of my other previous academic experiences, allowed me to better understand how to take a scientific approach towards solving complex problems and communicating these solutions efficiently.
In the first semester of SGC, we learned about the hypothetico-deductive method of science. This problem solving approach breaks down the process into easy to follow steps, starting with developing a problem statement, followed by the formulation of a testable, empirically measurable hypothesis. This hypothesis can be tested through measurements and experiments that collect empirical data. The data can be analyzed and put into the context of the hypothesis and problem statement to determine if the proposed solution is viable or not. Prior to SGC, my experience with the scientific method was limited by my hypotheses. For example, in chemistry and physics labs in high school, my hypotheses were not empirical but were more qualitative instead. This made it difficult to assess the results of the data and conclude whether or not my hypothesis was correct. SGC was able to point me in the right direction through the hypothetico-deductive method.
An example of this in practice was for my ENES220: Mechanics II class that I am currently taking. We were assigned a group project where we needed to design a wooden beam to withstand an applied force no less than 1,000 lbs and no greater than 2,500 lbs. Our task involved selecting the dimensions of the cross section and its material, calculating the stresses and performances, and then finally assembling the beam. The task was intimidating at first, being riddled with numbers and variables. However, I was prepared and used the hypothetico-deductive method to approach the task. Instead of making a qualitative, rather useless hypothesis such as “a thick and compact beam made of pine would be sufficient,” I made an empirical one instead. I hypothesized that an I-beam with a web thickness of 0.75 inches and depth height of 4 inches, made of a material with a specific weight below 0.02 lb/in3 would have the best performance for this project. By being able to simply run the numbers through calculations in a spreadsheet, it was easy to use the empirical data to construct feedback on our design. On testing day, my team’s beam successfully fulfilled all of the requirements and had the highest strength-to-weight ratio in our section. Formulating an empirical and testable hypothesis through the hypothetico-deductive scientific method is very valuable in optimizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the design and testing stage of an engineering project.
Another valuable lesson that we learned in SGC was how to think critically in any scientific discussion. It is important to be able to recognize and avoid the use of logical fallacies which can manipulate others into a false understanding of the topic. An experience I had with this was through the student organization I am in: UMD Loop. We design and build a Mars rover to compete in an international competition in May. I have the role of the science sub-system lead, where I am in charge of the system of the rover that collects and analyzes soil samples for their ability to support microbial life. A major discussion point of this semester was deciding which life-detection methods we should select. With so many options, each with a lot of uncertainty regarding budget, feasibility, and strength of argument, there were many long discussions between myself and my team regarding the selection process. Being on a strict timeline and budget, these discussions sometimes grew tense and stressful, with some people unintentionally falling into logical fallacies during conversations.
Specifically, this occurred when we decided to build a custom Raman spectrometer for our primary life-detection instrument. The system was expected to cost over $1,250, making it one of the most expensive parts on the entire rover. A problem emerged when we discovered that our selected laser was missing several electrical components that were necessary for safely running it. The missing parts would cost over $500, a hefty addition to an already daunting price. With this massive increase in cost and over a thousand dollars already spent, some fell into the slippery slope fallacy, fearing that if we could not afford the spectrometer and the budget already having a dent in it that all of science would deem to be useless, making the entire rover and the team’s efforts for the year to be useless. However, I remained calm and instead of jumping to conclusions based on panic, re-ran the numbers of our budget and moved some funds around. Turns out, we were able to afford it the entire time and even discovered an additional surplus which we invested elsewhere on the sub-system. Being able to recognize logical fallacies and avoid slipping into that way of thinking allows for easier and more successful problem solving when faced with setbacks and obstacles.
In addition to colloquium, the SGC elective classes also proved to be valuable in thinking critically and developing communication skills. A class I took to fulfill the DEIJ requirement was HIST284: East Asian Civilization I. In this class, although it was not in any way a STEM class, it still taught me valuable lessons in communicating information and thinking critically. In our discussion sections, we often analyzed primary and secondary sources of historical events, where my classmates and I had to point out the biases that the writer may have had due to their social, political, or economic background. This is directly applicable to STEM when reading articles and papers, especially when it comes to climate change. Being able to recognize when information is skewed in such a way to deceive the audience to further an agenda or argument is crucial to developing an objective view of the scientific data. Additionally, for the C-type elective course, I am taking ENES200: Technology and Consequences: Engineering, Ethics and Humanity. This class goes over the ethics of engineering and technology, where we have to do a lot of written and oral presentations discussing what we have learned and concluded from the assigned readings. By being able to effectively communicate our conclusions in a way that is concise, objective, and understandable, our experiences in STEM become easier as communicating information is always a requirement for any major or job.
Being a part of the living-learning community of College Park Scholars made it easy to interact with scholars outside of the colloquium. Befriending classmates in the dorm halls and in other classes allowed for better chemistry and communication for group projects. For example, after meeting Akiro in Centreville during move-in week, the two of us were able to become friends. When doing our communicating global change projects both in the second and third semester of SGC became much easier and more informative. It is certainly easier to commit to a long group project when you are comfortable with your group members, which the community of scholars was able to provide.
Active contribution to the College Park Scholars community is a major priority of the program and maximizes what a student can gain from the program. This idea is what inspired me to become a Scholars Peer Mentor. I was happy to go back to service day and welcome the new cohort of SGC students to the university and help them along the way with face-to-face meetings and being a resource for any sort of questions. Being active within the scholars community made me appreciate the program more, as I was able to witness first hand the collaborative and diverse community that is SGC to a higher degree.
Being a part of this Scholars community has exposed me to different perspectives that I had never experienced before. I came into the university with the mindset that college was about becoming more independent and figuring things out on your own. However, when I got to scholars, I quickly realized independence wasn’t about struggling through challenges alone, but rather being confident and well-equipped to face these challenges in the most effective way. I was able to work in groups better and learn from people and their experiences in a new way. The diverse perspectives, on both in-class and out-of-class topics, inspired me to not be so narrow-minded in my worldviews, even if I still agree with the opinions I share.
I believe that College Park Scholars and SGC has provided me with a set of tools to be able to think critically and communicate effectively in my future classes and professional field. I have already improved on my presentation and interviewing skills. I can better recognize biases and use of logical fallacies in both readings and in discussions. I believe that the network of individuals who stick with scholars and SGC all the way through are a valuable resource in the future professional world, as we have a shared value of approaching scientific questions in the most effective manner possible, with the goal of making the world a better place. I am much more informed on the real-world crisis of climate change and can use this knowledge to make healthier and cleaner decisions in my daily life as an adult. I am excited to see where what I have learned as an SGC Scholar takes me, and I have full confidence that I am equipped to tackle any challenges and obstacles in the way of that.