During my time in SGC I learned about the logical fallacy of correlation not equaling causation. A week ago I was having dinner with a friend who became paranoid after a group of people came into the restaurant. We had both noticed one of the guys in the group, whom neither of us knew, gave my friend a particularly dirty look and after a few minutes the group left without ordering anything. He falsely argued that this correlation of the group leaving and the dirty look was causation. I argued that although both events happened within a small span of time, it was extremely unlikely that my friend’s presence had caused the group to leave since we did not recognize or know anyone in the group. I also learned about correlation not equaling causation in my Principles of Genetics class. The topic was hereditary traits and how some traits such as long arms and long legs are correlated but one does not necessarily cause the other. They are correlated because the alleles that cause long arms and long legs are close to each other on the chromosome and therefore are more likely to be inherited together rather than be split up and crossed over during meiosis.

Although not necessarily a topic or set of materials, the field trip to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation helped me connect with my major most. This trip was especially enlightening as conservation work with coastal ecosystems is what I want to do in the future. I was inspired to begin applying for an internship or volunteer there when the applications are released. Another class that helped me connect with my major was Principles of Evolution. As an Ecology and Evolution major, this class has helped me understand the evolution side of my major, and we also talked a bit about the Chesapeake Bay and the relationships between the organisms there.

As I was one of the students on the Costa Rica trip, being able to do the work with my fellow SGC scholars allowed for an experience that was much more engaging than if I were alone. By working with the others on the trip, we got work done faster and therefore could spend the rest of the day traveling in Costa Rica and learning about the local culture and ecology. Additionally, when faced with problems or tasks, having more people to openly discuss our ideas allowed for greater brainstorming and subsequently allowed us to handle the task with ease. Everyone in scholars is smart and unique, therefore being in this environment of peers provided only benefits such as sharing ideas, increasing my ability to contribute in a team, and communication skills. Outside of the Costa Rica trip, doing the group projects (posters, elevator pitch) has allowed me to trade information and balance work load. Particularly, I enjoy doing my own work then swapping opinions and feedback. For example, during the elevator pitch assignment, after reading the rest of my groups’ individual responses, I was pleasantly surprised by many of the points that I had not even considered and subsequently modified my own to include their feedback.

In terms of discussions and projects and smaller activities in general, I tend to participate a lot because I like getting feedback and actively learning. On the other hand, in regular Colloquium lectures, I tend to stay quiet because I am shy in larger settings. So although in terms of frequency, I have been more on the passive side, when it comes to smaller activities, I’m very expressive and tend to be a leader. However, coming to the end of my time in SGC does not mean I lose the opportunity to contribute to scholars. In fact, the aforementioned Costa Rica trip was the highlight of my SGC experience and I intend on encouraging the freshmen to participate in the trip as well. It would be very exciting for this trip to become a tradition and have close ties and future connections with the people at Alturas.

I cannot recall a time that scholars has put me in contact with someone I have had an argument with. For SGC in particular, I think the majority of the people who take this class recognize the scientific trends that are supported by data (global warming, round-earth). Similarly to myself, they probably are informed of the general problems and took the class in hopes of learning the causes as well as potential solutions for the future. I have not had to justify my beliefs to anyone, but if I were to have a challenge like this, I would know how to argue using: objective data, recognizing logical fallacies, and implementation of the concepts behind the hypothetico-deductive method.

I believe SGC will help me in my future career. In particular, I think the topics of resilience, natural cycles, climate change, and anthropology will help me most. This is because I want to work in conservation with a focus on marine microecosystems. These topics reflect the ways to identify and combat the damage that development by humans has caused. For example, when considering what types of methods to implement to recover an ecosystem, I know to consider resilience by including nature’s own ability to recover. This means I could include more natural elements to recover a location, such as adding more trees, which would increase soil stability, increase filtration of the air, and provide shelter/food for animals. This type of recovery strategy (introducing one element and nature does the rest) has been used during the wolf project at Yellowstone National Park. The rampant deer population had reduced the natural flora due to grazing, consequently reducing the natural beauty of the park. After re-introducing wolves to the park, the deer population was quickly reduced and a balanced predator-prey population was reached.

Overall, I believe scholars has been a beneficial experience and I would recommend it to any incoming freshman who may consider taking it. Although it is only one class, the topics coincide with many topics one will learn about in any sort of biology, climatology, or geology class, thus supplementing their main courses, regardless of what they are. They may even benefit an individual outside of these classes and school in general because we also discussed identifying logical fallacies and where misconceptions regarding science and pseudoscience has originated from. Furthermore, you are given connections with many people who may help you in the future. Personally I am very grateful for the connection to David Tana and plan to reach out when the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is looking for students that can help with research.