Should I pursue this major?

A few days ago one of the academic advisors here at my institution sent me a letter in which a student asked about the utility of a biology B.Sc. I mulled it over in my head for a few days and then responded with (edited a bit to preserve anonymity and for better clarity) the letter below.

In this day of increasing media hyperbole – or dare I call them “attacks” – regarding the value of a postsecondary education, I can understand this student’s worry. For instance, here’s a very recent piece from a big regional/national network that begins with the description:

According to a new study from Statistics Canada, there are some areas of study that you should avoid if you want to get good value out of your education.

This, unfortunately, is what we hear more and more these days. Unlike the pablum normally served to us from the media, I would never argue that someone should not pursue their passion. If their passion is in carpentry, then trade school is the way to go. If they happen to like building cutting-edge technology in their garage, then they should go for it; it turns out that can work out pretty well. And if they really like biology or history or literature or physics, a good place to learn more about those things happens to be a university. When it comes down to it, it’s all about passion. If something is not your passion, then you should not cave in to pressure to pursue it. If it is your passion, then find the best place to explore it further whether it’s technical school, university, or your garage.

One more quick aside: I am bumping into more and more of these queries lately. I suspect it has something to do with a much more difficult economy than has been the case even a few years ago. As something resembling an archetypal GenX-er, I suppose that I have had some experience in this area, as I too graduated into a recession. I’d bet that many of you have thoughts in that regard as well.

Rather than go on any further here, I’d like to present my edited and redacted version of the letter below. Your comments are welcome, of course.

—–

Dear __________,

One of our academic advisors referred your question about whether or not you should pursue the biology B.Sc. major at UNBC to me. Thank you for asking, and I hope that I can be of some help.

Your question is not one that is completely easy to answer. If you are looking for a specific job – and if you know what that job is – then you should find a university degree or technical school certificate program that will lead you directly there. If you are not certain of where you see yourself in five or ten years (and who among us really has that kind of certainty anyhow?) then please keep on reading.

All degrees at universities – biology, chemistry, history, english, etc. – amount to what you make of them. Some university degrees – education, engineering, social work, nursing, etc. – will lead you almost directly to what might be regarded as one general job type. If you take a nursing degree, you end up being qualified to become a nurse. If you take an education degree, you end up being qualified to become a teacher. But, as you note in your question, if you take a biology or a history degree, your qualifications are not seemingly as clear.

So, it depends on what you want. Some degrees don’t lead to a specific career, but also give you lots of flexibility in life. Some degrees lead to – generally – a specific career, but you are mainly locked into that when you are done. No one is ever completely locked in, of course. But certain degrees prime you for quite specific careers.

In other words, the outcome of some degrees is riskier than for others. Perhaps it is appropriate to say that some degrees are more entrepreneurial than others in the sense of entrepreneurial risk.

Biology, of course, is in the no-necessarily-specified-outcome category for the most part. Yes, there are jobs for biologists after their degree. These range from environmental consulting to lab research to academic teaching and research (if you continue on with graduate school) to medicine (if you continue on in medical school) to grade-school teaching (if you complete a education certificate or graduate degree after your biology degree). But none of these is in any way “certain.” Each of them depends on how well you do in your biology degree and how much you embrace and enjoy the subject matter. Each of them also depends on the sort of job opportunities out there at the time that you graduate, and that is not something that anyone can predict (although some will try to convince you that they can).

In my own personal experience, my undergraduate degree was in zoology (animal biology) because I really loved biology and animals in general. I became fascinated with invertebrates and found insects to be particularly cool. I took the opportunities that were presented to me at my undergraduate institution to do lab research, even though it was not on animals. I really and truly enjoyed pretty much every course that I took because they all were showing me new things about the world. I also walked into courses that I thought that I might dislike with an attitude of trying to focus on finding aspects that were interesting to me. Since most of the information in the courses that I took was new, it was not hard to find really cool things about each and every course. For me, it was all about my attitude. Then, as now, I tried to always maintain an attitude of wonder. As a result – because I was engaged in the wonder of it all – my marks when I completed my B.Sc. were very high and I had all sorts of potential options to explore. So the attitude of wonderment served me well back then, and I think that it continues to serve me well today as it opens new doors in research, teaching, and general life.

Because I had developed such a life-long love for biology, and then found out that I also enjoyed the thrill of original research, I decided to go to graduate school. Even during my Ph.D. studies I was not 100% sure what I would “become.” I suspected at the time that perhaps I’d work toward becoming a professor, but I was fully aware that that is not the easiest profession to get into. So I knew that my work in graduate school might not take me to that end point – it did, and I am lucky and thankful that it did, but there were never any guarantees. However I knew that my efforts would prepare me for an interesting career one way or the other, and in the meantime I really, really enjoyed what I was doing.

It’s tempting to look at career opportunities in broad categories – nurse, firefighter, architect, physician, bank manager, accountant. These all exist, of course. But the reality is that most careers – even those on that list – don’t fit as neatly into those categories as guidance counsellors and others will tell you. Many people make very interesting careers for themselves in areas that you likely are not even considering.

I guess what I’m saying is this: when you head into your post-secondary education, take the time to explore the thing or things that interest you. Cultivate an attitude of wonderment. Talk to your professors. Talk to people you know who have careers that interest you and who seem to generally find interest in their daily work. Be willing to be flexible now, and throughout life. Work very hard. Be sure to find ways to enjoy each and every class that you take. And realize that there is no way that you can predict right now where the economy will be in four or five years and where your interests may lead you by then.

All the best in your decision, and feel free to email me with any other questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Dezene Huber

—–

So there you have it. I’d be interested to hear your ideas on improving this letter.

What are your experiences?

What is the value of a non-professional university degree?

Attached

A week or so ago I finished reading an article in the February 2014 issue of National Geographic entitled “Yukon: Canada’s Wild West” (written by Tom Clynes with amazing photography by Paul Nicklen). I have been to the Yukon all of one time in my life, and that just for a couple of days in the spring. Even that tiny taste of such a wonderland left me wanting more.

(If you have not read the article and viewed the photographs already, stop reading this and go and do that.)

But there is something going on beyond all of that beauty. The Yukon is in the midst of a new gold rush that is beginning to rival any other large-scale industrial activity going on in Canada at the moment. Most people, however, don’t seem to have a clue that it’s going on – and that even goes for people here in BC where the Yukon is our next door neighbor. My guess is that many Canadians – generally clustered along our southern border – forget that our north even exists.

It’s time for us to take more notice.

Here are a few of the highlights (or should I say low lights?) from the article:

  • Current legislation permits any adult to stake a claim almost anywhere in the territory.
  • Some royalty payments to the government were set way back in 1906 and haven’t been changed in any substantive way since. The article quotes Lewis Rifkind of the Yukon Conservation Society who says: “…we’re still regulating (mining) with laws written when that bearded guy on our license plates was crouching in a creek, shaking a pan.”
  • The Faro Mine Complex, an now-defunct open pit lead-zinc mine – will take over a hundred years to clean up and will cost taxpayers ~$700 million dollars.
  • The currently protected and virtually pristine Peel watershed is now under threat of development.

If you care about conservation, any of those points is worrisome enough. But nothing in the article was as worrisome as this quote attributed to Mr. Shawn Ryan, one of the most successful contemporary Yukon prospectors:

“I tell people not to get too attached to all this beauty. We just might want to mine it.”

While this is, to me at least, a shocking statement, I’d first like to thank Mr. Ryan for his honesty. Second, I’d like to point out that there is a great deal of wisdom (though wrongheaded) in that statement.

Specifically this: Mr. Ryan is absolutely correct in his realization that people who become attached to a place will be the first to question the proposed exploitation of that place.

This hit home to me even more this past weekend with the annual hoopla surrounding Earth Hour. Of course I recognize that this is just a symbol to remind people of their impact on the world around them. That is fine and good. But the big problem that I see with events like Earth Hour is that there is no real effort made to get people to find attachment to the world around them. How many people actually know where/how their electricity is generated or what specific impact that process has? And how many of those who know that actually contemplate it very often?

The unfortunate reality is that without an attachment to place, many environmental concerns are going to be at best esoteric and at worst not even considered. In complete honesty I worry that I’m really not much better than anyone else in that respect. I’m currently typing on a computer for which I have no clue where the component parts came from (perhaps some of the metals were mined in the Yukon? They were certainly mined somewhere.). I am drinking tea that claims to be ethically sourced, but what does that really mean? I ate yogurt for lunch, and the oil-derived plastic container that it came in is staring at me on my desk hoping to be at least recycled.

Those admissions are coming from someone who considers himself to be pretty attached to the environment around him and beyond. What about the person who does not have the opportunity to spend time in a natural setting or to even read a magazine like National Geographic?

Take a moment to read Mr. Ryan’s unintended wisdom again:

“I tell people not to get too attached to all this beauty. We just might want to mine it.”

Now contemplate your attachment to your place and how it impacts your decisions. Then think about creative ways to begin to stimulate that in others around you.

Addressing each other

After many years of postsecondary education, there came a day in the Convocation Mall at Simon Fraser University when a hood was dropped over my head, I shook hands with my graduate supervisor, and I was given the right to refer to myself as Dr. Huber. Getting to that point was no small feat. It meant spending more time in school and living in general privation than many of my friends who chose different career paths. It meant periods of high levels of stress (candidacy exam, I’m looking at you). It meant taking on a career where landing a job was in no way a given. And it meant hours, days, weeks, and years of intense study.

On the other hand, I was studying subjects that fully intrigued me. I was able to spend large amounts of time doing field work in the forests of southern and central British Columbia that I love so much. I made lifelong friends. I received, and continue to receive, amazing mentorship from some incredible scholars who I’ve met along the way. And many of those people have become close friends as well. I wouldn’t trade the experience for anything.

The moment I was given the title “Dr.” I knew that it represented all of those things. The hard times and the good. The failures and the successes. The friends I had made and would made. The continuation of my journey as a scholar. Because of all of that, I took the title seriously then, and I take it seriously now.

Some folks reading this will likely currently be thinking “elitist.” And I hope that I don’t come across that way in this post. If you know me personally, you will also know that I work to stay as far away from that charge as possible. If you don’t know me, please bear with me for the remainder of this post and see if your mind is changed.

Why am I writing about this now? Well, thanks to one of my friends and excellent colleagues, Bill Owen, I read a great piece by Katrina Gulliver entitled “Too Much Informality,” and it really hit home because it’s exactly what I have said and thought for a long time. I would like to support her excellent and comprehensive thoughts and perhaps add a few of mine.

So, I’ll start with this: In the academy, professors with PhDs or MDs (or similar) should be referred to by undergraduates as “Dr.” Other instructors with varying academic qualifications should be referred to as “Ms.” or “Mr.” This includes, I believe, TAs.

And, while I have been completely remiss in doing this, Dr. Gulliver points out that it’s a two-way street. Professors and other instructors should really be addressing undergraduate students as “Mr.” or “Ms.” as well. While it’s too late for this semester and precedents have already been set, I plan to think about this more and potentially implement it in upcoming teaching semesters.

I should note that I have spent time, as a student, in just such a system. For a period in 1989 my family lived in what was then the final days of the entity that we knew as West Germany. I attended “gymnasium,” which is pretty much the equivalent of what we call high school in North America. There we called all of our teachers “Herr” or “Frau.” In return they addressed us a “Fraulein” (“Miss”) or “Herr.” I don’t know if this style of classroom address is still in practice in Germany, but if it is I am guessing that 25 years later “Fraulein” has chaged to “Frau.”

While, to a North American, it seemed rather stiff and formal at the time, I also saw a level of two-way respect in my classrooms that I had never experienced in high school back in Canada. Some time thereafter I completed my undergraduate studies in zoology at the University of Calgary, and we certainly called all of our professors “Dr.” back then.

Then there is today, and the pendulum has swung all the way the other direction. In fact, even my 5-year old son in preschool is asked to call his teachers there by their first names. This amazes me, and I’m not sure that it is the best thing, because from preschool to the senior year in university, the classroom is a place of professional activity and a place where respect is required to flow in both directions.

What are the main reasons that I prefer to be called “Dr.” in my undergraduate classroom?

Privilege – Dr. Gulliver outlines this reason well, so please read her piece. It is easy for those of us who are privileged by gender, race, or various accidents of genetics or birth to not notice the struggles that our fellow professors and instructors go through. Respect comes to us easily, but not always to our colleagues. When we downgrade our own title for the sake of fostering a more informal atmosphere in the classroom – as noble as the intent may be – it has knock-on effects for others. It’s not possible to force anyone to use a title that they would prefer not to use, but it would be good for some of us to think about the effect that not doing so has on others. Of all of the arguments, this is the one that carries the most weight for me, and is the one that I hope others contemplate the most.

Professional distance – When I visit my physician, I always refer to him as “Dr.” I know his first name. Academically we are equals. But it is a situation of a power imbalance. And it is a situation where he may need to be completely frank with me about my health or a treatment plan. We are not buddies, and it is a a professional relationship. In the same way, while I really do like my students and often have a great time in class discussions with them, we are in a professional relationship in that situation. Ultimately I need to assess their proficiency in the subject matter, and I need to do it without bias. We, too, are in an imbalanced power situation. Students also need to respect the time that I spend preparing for class, and should show that they are prepared as well. Referring to each other as “Dr.” or “Ms.”/”Mr.” reminds us all that, while learning is a complete rush, there is serious side to it as well.

Signal of maturation for later-stage students – You may have noticed that I have been writing in the context of undergraduate students. When I arrived in graduate school instead of calling professors “Dr.” we were encouraged to call them by their first name. It was a signal that we, as graduate students, were seen as maturing as scholars and on a road toward becoming scholarly peers with our professors. In the same way I ask graduate students to address me by my first name. My policy goes even a bit further than that – I encourage undergraduates working in my research group to call me by my first name as well. That is because such work is a first step beyond their undergraduate lives and into the uncertainty and reward of scholarly pursuit.

Respect – I do my utmost to show respect to students in my class. I am sure that I could do better, and I work on that at all times. But when I receive an email with the salutation “Yo Dez!” (true story), I do not feel that respect is being reciprocated. In fact, I feel just the opposite. And, getting back to the idea of privilege, I am sure that others run into much, much worse than “Yo!”

I know that this post is not going to be popular with everyone who reads it. Some of you probably still think that I’m an ivory tower elitist. I simply ask that you think about it, and feel free to discuss it in the comments below or elsewhere. Perhaps those of us who think this way are wrong. Opinions and practice always vary, so I’d love to hear from anyone who feels that substantial informality in the classroom is the best policy. Until I’m convinced, though, I prefer to be called “Dr.” in a professional setting.

My favorite Christmas present

Either I’m over two months late in writing this little blog post, or else I am 9.5 months early (only 292 shopping days left). You pick. I’ll take the latter.

At Christmas I’m generally the kind of guy who’s happy with some new wool socks, a glass of egg nog, and watching the kids play. This year, however, by far my favorite gift has been a book entitled “Natural History: The Ultimate Visual Guide to Everything on Earth” given to me by my lovely wife. This book is completely epic. It was put together with help from the Smithsonian Institute’s National Museum of Natural History. And it is stunning. Just plain stunning. There is not a page of this book that you can turn to where you won’t be completely amazed by the amazing diversity, color, and various facts about life (and other things) on earth. If you want to see for yourself, head over to the Amazon page for the book; there are a few sample pages there.

“Natural History” covers everything that you can imagine; the claim of “everything on earth” is not far off of the mark. There are excellent sections on evolutionary and geological history. There are impressive phylogenetic trees (the details of which I’m sure everyone will argue about). There are well-written essays about large-scale topics, and there are pages and pages and pages and pages of stunning photography. The book covers minerals, rocks, fossils, archaea, bacteria, protists, plants of all types, and a ton of animals. If it resides on our planet and you can imagine it, it – or one of its close representatives – is there. Besides the many pages covered in photographs and facts, there are also focus pages that feature one particular species of interest. One of the really amazing things about this book, if you think about it, is that even as massive a tome as it is, it doesn’t come close to covering what we know about the world, let alone what we don’t know or don’t even know that we don’t know.

And yes, this is a massive book. It’s not the sort of thing that you can comfortably read while sprawled on the sofa. Nor is it written to encourage linear reading, which is a good thing because the size would be prohibitive. I like to think of it as a nightly trip to a fantastic museum, and indeed, upon entering its front door I feel as though I’m browsing around the Smithsonian. I tend to open it up either randomly or to some group or topic that I happen to be interested in, and just see where my reading leads me. Each “specimen” has a short blurb of information associated with it. Often those little bits of information have prompted me to do a bit of deeper digging (PDF) on things that catch my eye, and in that way this book has taken me on some really interesting trips into nature.

Winter is coming to an end here in the northern hemisphere, and we’re all going to get out a bit more in the coming months. All of the animals and plants that we love will be making their annual reappearance. I’m guessing that my copy of this book will see a bit of an hiatus in use over the next while, but it has been a great companion during these past winter months, reminding me of all of the life that’s been sleeping under the snow and waiting to greet me soon.

Beetle Byte (20 February 2014 edition)

A few bytes worth chewing on.

Kids have always been kids

It’s all a great reminder that even legendary scientists had family lives, and that when we think about history, it’s important to remember that famous figures weren’t working in isolation. They were surrounded by far less famous friends, family members, acquaintances, and enemies. And sometimes, when we get lucky, we see some of their artifacts from the past too.

 

Another reason to treat animals well

In a study carried out at an elephant camp in Thailand, we found that elephants affiliated significantly more with other individuals through directed, physical contact and vocal communication following a distress event than in control periods. In addition, bystanders affiliated with each other, and matched the behavior and emotional state of the first distressed individual, suggesting emotional contagion.

 

More on including field journals in coursework

A primary goal in assigning field notes is to help students realize that there are many ways to document and present natural history. In addition, educators hope to encourage the sentiment that natural history is a much needed and topical endeavor. Increasingly, colleagues fear that students situate natural history as an outdated practice of discovery. Requiring field notes allows each student to learn that natural history is a current and critical investigatory practice for understanding the natural world and for promoting conservation (Greene 2005, 2013).

 

It’s never too late to become a bobsledder

Their eyes and ears are everywhere, on the lookout for athletes who might never have dreamed of careering down an ice-encrusted chute in a carbon-fibre half-capsule. They’re at rugby pitches and football stadiums and every major track meet in the country. If you’re an athlete with decent numbers—or at least with conspicuous muscle mass between the waist and knees—chances are, you’ll hear from them.

 

“The Sims” software patch poetry

If you are on fire,
you will no longer be forced to attend graduation
before you can put yourself out.

 

If you like poetry, try this

Poem Viewer is a web-based tool for visualizing poems in support of close reading. It is part of an on-going research project and is a work in progress. … You can either start creating your own visualization for your chosen poem or have a look at a collection of sample visualizations that we have created.