NASA has a Soundcloud channel where they post audio recordings from space. The channel includes items such as Kennedy’s speeches about space exploration, the shuttle’s rockets, as well as interstellar sounds. You can share the content or sample it in your work.
In a project sponsored by Google and Catlin Seaview Survey, Google Maps now offers “Street View” of the Ocean Floor. A majority of the images have been collected off the coast of Australia and the Caribbean. Scientists in America will be exploring fish-eye under water photography this week in the Florida Keys.
I love listening to podcasts! In fact, I hardly listen to the radio any more. Instead, I plug in my SmartPhone and cruise listening to an episode about comedy, literature, history, technology, and the broader world at large. Most recently, I listened to this week’s Freakonomics Podcast (published for free). If you are unfamiliar with Freakonomics, it was a a popular book in 2009 “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economists Explores the Hidden Side to Everything.”
Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool?
What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?
How much do parents really matter?
These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to parenting and sports—and reaches conclusions that turn conventional wisdom on its head.
Freakonomics is a groundbreaking collaboration between Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, an award-winning author and journalist. They set out to explore the inner workings of a crack gang, the truth about real estate agents, the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan, and much more.
Through forceful storytelling and wry insight, they show that economics is, at root, the study of incentives—how people get what they want or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing.
The popular book resulted in a lot of conversation about how the world around us works and resulted in several more book as well as a popular website, blog,
and radio show. What I love about it is that it’s not just about money (although I’m sure I could use that advice as well), but it explores hidden cause and effect. As a historian, this is my bread and butter.
This week’s topic focused on the power and our inherent fear of “I don’t know.” In fact, they argued that these three words are the most difficult words for people to say. In fact, in our own world we stigmatize a lack of knowledge and, as such, people are hesitant to admit when they do not know information – even when confronted with an unanswerable question! This behavior starts in childhood.
In the world of learning, we know that exploration, challenge, and even failure are our most important tools. As Levitt says, “There’s only one way to learn, and that’s through feedback.” If you think you already have the answers, then you don’t go looking for them. Instead, you must admit when you don’t know something and then work to find the answer! In fact, if you refuse to admit your own lack of knowledge, the consequences can be both financially and emotionally expensive. By refusing to acknowledge a lack of knowledge, we then forgo the process of exploration and learning.
You can listen to the podcast below:
A great infographic about the future and technology courtesy of the NY Times
The next session I am attending is a topic near and dear to my heart as a liberal arts major, “Can the Liberal Arts Survive in an Age of Innovation?” The speakers are David Maxwell, President of Drake University, Liz Willen,
Quite famously, the President dissed the Liberal Arts not long ago with a sleight directed at Art History. Although he then followed up with a letter of apology to an upset professor. At the same time, he highlighted an issue in higher education. How do we resolve Liberal Arts with workforce readiness in higher education? Many educators, administrators, and law-makers are focusing on changes in education with a greater emphasis on STEM, leaving the Liberal Arts behind.
David begins by reaffirming his belief in and support of the Liberal Arts and Sciences in higher education. They have a long tradition in education. They are narrative tools that describe the world around us – help us to understand who we are, why we are, our place in the order of things, and our record in the human condition. They are proof of the fact that we were here. They are also how we try to answer the “big questions” in the world. However, he does acknowledge that the Liberal Arts alone are not sufficient in preparing students for the broader world. Preparation for a professional workforce is a necessary but not sufficient outcome of higher education. We must ensure that our graduates can fulfill their personal and professional aspirations and needs. Sadly, we cannot get away from addressing the financial model of college – especially as costs for higher education is increasing at such an exponential rate. David also expresses his concern that the discussion about higher education and jobs seems to only be “about jobs.” Our objective is not simply job training – but to prepare students for meaningful personal lives, professional accomplishments, and global citizenship.
Michelle next steps in to discuss her concerns about the “myths” of Liberal Arts – namely that the Liberal Arts are the antithesis of workforce/vocational training and that increased technology means the need of the Liberal Arts. This is the result of the division in this country between colleges and technical schools – that technical schools are where we learned how to do “mechanical thinking/acting” and that higher education was where we “learned to know.” Of course, college is no longer a luxury good, it’s a necessity. Additionally, college costs are becoming more prohibitive. Also, in a knowledge economy or learning society, learning is becoming work and work is becoming learning. A college degree is not enough for the learning economy of our time. We cannot let students assume that a liberal arts degree will “sort itself out” due to buzzwords like “critical thinking” and “creative problem solving.” The pursuit of passions has become a privilege, even a luxury good. Academics has never been good at proving its relevance to industry. As the cost of academics continues to rise, the onus will be put on higher education institutions to prove their relevance and return. Whoever can link non traditional pathways and preparation for the workforce, will fill a great need.
Scott Kinney of Capella University, a for-profit online institution, feels that his institution (and similar) have a role in addressing this issue. You can still receive the benefits of a liberal arts education and come out prepared for the workforce. Scott argues that no matter what happens in Liberal Arts Education, we need to do a much better job of serving non-traditional students who are looking to be job-ready immediately upon graduation. Scott states that 75% of currently enrolled students are “non-traditional” (I guess that makes them “traditional”?). Embracing a non-traditional student needs to be a focus and can be the solution for the issue of resolving Liberal Arts with Industry. Scott argues that we determine outcomes/competencies and then build curriculum around that. He also argues that we have to focus on lowering the price and raising completion rates. Additionally, we must connect that with job readiness – that they enter the workforce with the necessary skills and competencies. Scott argues that we need to navigate job competencies in conjunction with employers.
Liz (our moderator) asks David if the for-profit model by Scott’s institution is in conflict with the traditional model at Drake. David is surprisingly in agreement with the other members of the panel. He feels that colleges must do a better job at preparing students for careers, we must fit the needs of all of our students, and that we need to work with employers to ensure that they get from their students what they need. Michelle also highlights the challenge of enacting change from within an institution – especially at Colleges and Universities where tradition is so valued. Additionally, Scott highlights that job preparation does not undermine Liberal Arts objectives – you can still hold discussions on novels and works of art. David states that the real issue is “How does learning take place? What is assessed and how is it assessed?”
Ultimately, Liberal Arts is vital to the human experience, but we must find a way to effectively merge it with our modern needs. However, I would argue that it’s dangerous to make education solely about training for jobs. Education is about developing sophisticated thinking and learning skills.
My students are currently working on a research project and one just introduced me to a very cool source, an interactive timeline courtesy of the History of Vaccines. The timeline presents information on the history of disease, treatment, and prevention over the course of its medical history. You can explore key individuals, such as Louis Pasteur, or science’s impact on society and civilization.
Explore the timeline by visiting the website the History of Vaccines.
Alexander Graham Bell is one of America’s most important scientists and inventors. Moved by the experiences of his mother and wife (both deaf), Bell heavily investigated the realm of sound and recording. He made several early recordings that, until now, were unplayable. Researchers at the Smithsonian have finally mastered the technology necessary to play these “unplayable records.”
Check out their research and listen to Bell’s actual voice in the article here.