SGC has strengthened my scientific thinking skills while exploring the causes and effects of global change.
The material I have learned in SGC has extended its use outside of class. For example, when reading articles about the COP 28 conference, I noticed that they often mentioned that the 1.5 degree warming goal was not guaranteed -- but they did not always mention what the consequences of that are. From SGC, I know that changes in temperature more drastic than this can easily lead to mass extinction events which would prove detrimental to all life on Earth. Another example of applying SGC material outside of class is using the hypothetico-deductive method in school projects. For example, I had to design an I-beam to support a certain amount of weight. Using formulae describing stresses within beams based on their material and cross section parameters, I predicted at what load the beam would fail. Then, I hypothesized what would cause the beam to fail -- whether the wood would crack, the glue would shear, or something else. Then, we tested constructed and tested the beams to see if our hypotheses were correct. Defining proper hypotheses that were able to be proven wrong was important to making meaningful conclusions.
Other classes I have taken have built off of material in SGC. My landscape architecture class was specifically about urban agriculture. It explored the options for incorporating agriculture into urban environments -- this included rooftop gardens, plots reserved in parks for local residents to garden, and gardens incorporated into schools. This class explored the benefits of urban agriculture, which often happen to go hand-in-hand with mitigating global change. For example, urban agriculture reduces the amount of transportation needed for produce to travel from farm to table. This reduces the amount of greenhouse gases produced through agriculture. Additionally, urban agriculture practices can encourage less meat in diets, which can translate into less greenhouse gas emissions from meat production. Additionally, this class referenced many scientific studies to justify its proposed practices. For example, it addressed the positive impacts on biodiversity from urban agriculture, and it addressed the positive impacts on diets and mental health of people participating in urban agriculture. This class showed an option of making cities more sustainable. A second example is my archeology class that explored the evolution of humans. This class is where, outside of my major-specific classes, I have seen the greatest use of the hypothetico-deductive method. Every discovery that was mentioned was backed by science and chemical analytic techniques that revealed more about samples. The class explored the art of sample-taking -- understanding how to gather meaningful samples that would, with analysis, produce meaningful results with reasonable extrapolation. Additionally, this class showed misunderstandings of the scientific method -- many archeologists in the past presented studies with logical fallacies and misunderstandings of the scientific method. They went into studies with flawed reasoning which led to flawed conclusions which often just happened to support their preconceived conclusions and beliefs.
Living with SGC students was an enriching experience. I am a mechanical engineering student. Most SGC students are not engineering students, and those who are are typically biomedical or chemical engineering students. Because of this, this living-learning community was not entirely helpful in surrounding myself with students with similar curriculums. However, I think that this is exactly what helped with learning, in a way. By living with cell biology and genetics students, environmental science and policy students, and computer science students, I have been able to learn about each discipline tangentially. I enjoy having conversations about where our disciplines might overlap, and what ideas we have about innovation in those mutual spaces. Not having this living-learning opportunity may have resulted in me not making connections with students like those, who are in disciplines that I never imagined myself studying but still have a tangential interest in. An example is discussing with my roommate the manufacturing process of pharmaceuticals, and how it is an example of the intersection between medicine, manufacturing, and chemistry.
Participating in SGC discussions was rewarding. Often, it can be difficult for students to start discussions in small groups. Small group activities often quickly become an exercise in delegating parts of a project or assignment to individuals, and then working to complete it in as little time as possible with as little collaboration as possible. I enjoy the opportunity of talking to students who are studying different subjects and who come from different backgrounds, as I find that everyone's backgrounds allows them to contribute ideas that I would have never thought of. Instead of letting the awkward silence and traditional "I'll do questions 1 and 2" govern the discussions I was a part of, I often encouraged my group mates to talk. Something as simple as encouraging us to turn our chairs around so that we could speak face to face was helpful. Just one person encouraging us all to speak, showing understanding and interest in the ideas of others, and asking more about their thinking yielded discussions that were much more fruitful, exciting, and fulfilling than when I did not take that initiative. In this way, I feel that I have personally contributed to SGC in making our small group discussions more valuable and making them into an event where everyone's ideas are heard, acknowledged, and valued.
SGC was intellectually enriching in that it challenged my perceptions and introduced me to new perspectives. For example, I never understood the degree to which people were unwilling to accept science. Furthermore, I did not understand why people were ever against the conclusions of science. I thought it was ridiculous that people did not trust science. SGC made me realize that science is often untrusted not because of the science itself, but because of the media that reports on it. Most studies that are published are not headline material (to most people). The media is an entertainment business: their priorities are to get your attention so that they can influence you and earn money while doing it. The media's priority is often not to tell you the dull results of the study, but to spin the results in a way that makes it sound much more exciting -- "cancer-curing treatment discovered!" might really just mean "a drug was positively correlated with a reduction of cancerous cells in four patients." Additionally, the media often exhausts our sensitivity to important news. I can't count the number of times that I've read that a day or month or year was "the hottest on record." This fact is often reported in the news -- but that's all. What is someone unfamiliar with the justification supposed to think? The news becomes old, and the importance of statements is often lost due to a distrust in the media since their priority is to entertain, not always to inform. SGC helped me to see the other side of the coin: I have always been so engrained with science that understanding how to question it and how to interpret the misleading media has been engrained in me. SGC helped me to understand why groups of people may be against science as a result. Additionally, SGC made me realize that often, the public does not know how to question science properly. Without an understanding of what a valid hypothesis is or an understanding of the scientific method, it is difficult to distinguish between what is a valid media report of science and what is a foolish extrapolation designed to catch attention. The ability to question science and to have good judgement on the validity of a study is a skill that is developed in many ways -- you must understand the scientific method, be willing to think critically, and willing to put effort into learning more independently. This is not apparent to all groups of people.
My experience in SGC has shaped my future. Learning about the energy storage methods that are currently used was a really interesting and informative lecture for me. As a mechanical engineering student interested in renewable energy, I knew that energy storage was an integral part to making renewable energy a larger part of our electrical consumption, but I didn't know exactly how that was put into practice. I learned that excess energy produced during peak production times is often stored as potential energy: the electricity is used to power pumps to pump water to reserviors at higher altitudes, or to power pulley systems to raise concrete blocks. The potential energy can be harnessed when the water or concrete block is released and makes its way to a lower elevation, doing useful work that results in power generation that can be used during times of peak demand (which often do not align with times of peak production). Understanding that this was what energy storage really meant was a relevation to me, and it made me start thinking about other methods of energy storage, and encouraged me to research other methods as well. This interest, along with clear alignment with my education, may one day lead me to working on energy storage systems in my future. Additionally, the hypothetico-deductive reasoning method is something that will never leave my side. I have been engrained with it previously to SGC, but its importance was only underlined by SGC.