When I found out I was placed into SGC for my scholars program, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I wondered what exactly “science and global change” meant in the context of this particular program. I also wondered how I could best apply my interests within the realm of information science in the context of what was to be taught in the class. Fast forwarding a few months after I had found out, and knowing that I would definitely be doing my freshman year online, I wondered how I would make the best of SGC mostly from the desk in my bedroom. I also wondered what I would learn both in colloquium, but also in the supporting courses that I would be taking. I can say for certain that, as my last semester of colloquium draws to a close, that I can speak on the many things that I have learned, and have come to appreciate my experience in SGC. One of the topics that is discussed in SGC is learning about the different types of logical fallacies that are used, and how to best identify them. I especially loved learning about this topic, and it was especially interesting considering that at the time we were learning about it, the 2020 presidential election was at the forefront of everyone’s minds. I appreciate that Drs. Holtz and Merck honed it into everyone’s heads to be aware of the fallacies that we would encounter as election day drew near, and to be aware of the different types of fallacies that people would use to try and persuade people against one candidate over another. For example, in my own observations, there was a lot of cherry picking going on on both sides of the aisle, with people trying to find the facts that made the opposition look as bad as possible. It was a struggle, especially on social media where most people my age get their news, to find reliable sources of information that would better help me in understanding the candidate that I wanted to vote for. I also observed that many people were using the Ad hominem fallacy in their arguments. Particularly during the presidential debates, I was appalled at the many fallacies that the former president was using in his arguments, especially targeting personal tragedies that had occured in the other candidates life, and using it against them. I also noticed that alongside this, I also observed that people were particularly disposed to using Tu quoque fallacy to shift blame from one person to another. One particular thing that I noticed was people would say that one particular candidate was not equipped to lead the nation because he was ineffective in being Vice President. They used the argument that because he was also ineffective during his vice presidency, that he would be ineffective again as president. Outside of colloquium, I also noticed these, and more fallacies in my anthropology of global health class. We learned about how such fallacies were made out to be “sound” arguments, which allowed people to perform medical racism against those of marginalized communities, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis case, as well as during the AIDs epidemic. Again, seeing these fallacies on social media and throughout history made me frustrated, but I think it was really cool to be learning about these fallacies, and to be able to apply the knowledge that I was learning in real time. But it wasn’t just the in-colloquium activities that solidified my understanding of science and global change. Taking courses that served to solidify concepts learned on colloquium also helped enhance my experience in SGC. Learning about the scientific method and other scientific information in SGC has allowed me to gain the skills to point out not only fallacies in arguments I hear, but also misapplications of scientific concepts. One of these examples occurred in my environmental health class, in which we were talking about weather and climate, and how the presence of bioaccumulates is increasing because of rising sea levels. When beginning our discussion, my professor defined climate as “global weather.” I remember this exact moment because it was the week after Dr. Merck had posted his lecture on “Climatology 101,” and I remembered that he focused on the difference between these two definitions. I knew the difference between weather and climate, and how climate is an average of atmosphere conditions over a long period of time. I was slightly amused at how fast I was able to catch my professor’s mistake, and I was glad that through SGC, I am able to point out that small, but very important difference. However, as much as I loved all the topics covered in SGC, there were times that my beliefs were challenged, especially as someone who considered themselves very spiritual. I always struggled with my beliefs as a Christian and being so interested in science, because at face value, both of these never mixed. Christianity seemed to always contradict science, and science always had an answer to something that seemed to contradict my religious beliefs. I felt that I had to abandon one to be good at the other. However, there was one concept that I learned in SGC that I found a bit comforting in me learning about how to deal with this internal conflict. Methodological naturalism, or the assumption for the purposes of science that no supernatural forces were at work, helped me in understanding how to separate my religious beliefs from what I recognized as science. There are still some things that I hold sacred, however, this concept has helped me understand that there are ways to conduct and understand science without completely abandoning my religious beliefs. Methodological naturalism has helped me even more separate spirituality from science, and through this, and through my own research, I am slowly learning how both can co-exist in my life. One of the greatest downfalls of having my freshman year being online was that I was not able to really interact with my fellow SGC scholars. We made a GroupMe to communicate with one another, but conversations went no farther than reminding each other of deadlines, or looking for roommates when that time came around. And with me being an information science major, there was no one to join certain sections of classes with because everyone else was in engineering or some other major that I would say, more closely related to SGC’s learning concepts. I have made a couple of acquaintances in SGC, and are people that I occasionally talk to, but overall, I did not get much of a chance to interact with my fellow classmates. I think it’s very unfortunate, considering that I think that our cohort overall are a group of smart and likeminded individuals, but I believe that because of the pandemic and other factors that I didn't really get the chance to interact with my other SGC scholars. Regardless of these circumstances, I do appreciate everything that I have learned in SGC, and I wanted to make sure that I gave back to the living-learning program in some way. I am someone that likes to get involved, and I made sure that I was very active in scholars as well, as a way to give back to such a great community. The two best ways that I believe that I have done so is by being a Scholars ambassador, as well as a Scholars Peer Mentor. As a scholars ambassador, I speak at events to try and get students interested in the program, and as a representative for SGC, I especially want to make SGC appealing to other students, so that they can reap the same benefits that I did. When telling about my experiences, I am honest, and make sure that students know just how great SGC is. As a Scholars Peer Mentor, I am able to help a small group of freshman SGC scholars navigate their way through their first year at UMD. In both of these ways, I feel like I am using my skills best to better serve the Scholars community. For SGC specifically, I feel that I am contributing to helping students understand what exactly SGC is, as well as helping current students in making their transition into college a bit easier. In conclusion, I think that SGC has made me even more interested in global change, and how to be part of solutions that are able to mitigate the effects of climatic change. Learning about how global change is not just an environmental issue, but a national security issue has changed my career trajectory path, and has inspired me to apply to the Hollings Scholarship, and to look for more opportunities on campus to be involved in activities that enhance the lessons I learned in SGC even as my time in scholars draws to a close. Overall, I thank Drs. Holtz and Merck for making SGC still such a great experience, and doing their best in the face of a global pandemic, to help our cohort understand all the concepts covered in SGC.