Spaced Out :: 01 2007

I have to admit to really liking this quotation from Einstein:

“As a young man, my fondest dream was to become a geographer. However, while working in the Customs Office, I thought deeply about the matter and concluded that it was far too difficult a subject. With some reluctance, I then turned to physics as an alternative.”

It’s great and I oft quote it to people as to the complexity of natural systems and, consequently, the importance of geography as a subject (and, lets face it, we all like to be better than physicists. DIGRESSION: I should really carry on with the Einstein train of thought, but the physicist bashing is too tempting. I therefore digress to a quote that Otmar Buser ((I don’t think its attributable to him though) at the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research. He said that physicists are actually quite stupid; request an explanation about some physical effect (e.g. how do snowflakes form?) and then proceed to ask “why” to every answer they give. They won’t be able to get to six responses!!

Anyway, returning from digression. This would be all very well and good except for the small matter than Einstein didn’t actually say it. Ho hum, well it was good while it lasted. Now I am probably not the only one alive who thinks this quote is still attributable to Einstein and I’m certainly not the first one to realise that this is misquoted; in fact, it’s a(n) (innocent) hoax. Well after some digging it would appear that quite a few people in the mid-90s didn’t think this was a quotation from Einstein and it took until 1997 and, yes, GIS, to root out the truth (well, at least I think so!).

And the place to look is that oft read journal GIS World. Jerome Dobson also thought the quote odd and so mused about it in one of his columns. The result was a large mailbox in response and an admission from Duane Marble that he had composed the quote as a dig at the physicists in his building. And, as with Chinese Whispers, it had propagated from there. If you Google it all the top hits will show that this has been debunked, but there are still a good spattering of sites that do actually quote it (University of New England for instance).

Whilst GIS World has finished as a title, the back issues will be available online in the not-too-distant future. I’ll link to them then.

This question has been posed to me in a variety of guises by, several different people, over the last couple of weeks and remains a perennial problem for students taking A-levels. It started out with a discussion on how best to recruit students and I mentioned that my wife (Middlesex University) had had considerable success in engaging six formers through the organisation of a revision conference. These are very popular and actually make money!! She had organised some lunchtime sessions, the most popular of which were on how to select a degree. This was then followed by a query from my niece as she was bewildered by the vast choice of degrees and locations. And from the discussion with her, the point was made that actually very few careers (and at the time we could only think of medicine) require you to take a degree in the particular subject area. Law, teaching and accountancy are all good examples of where you can cross-train with a conversion course (although if there are other careers then let me know). Indeed it reminded of a Steve Wright (in the afternoon) joke about how many DJs actually have a media studies degree. Or (in reverse), what careers does a sports science degree actually lead on to and how directly relevant is the academic content of the degree (and the sterotype is of people becoming PE teachers, which I am sure is both unfair and not true). Actually, my wife made the point that many vocational degrees need academic content to be validated at degree level, yet much of it is of little use to the career then pursued.

So thinking about this question got me pondering the poor recruitment that geography has seen over the last 6 or 7 sever years in HE. Geography went from very high numbers in the mid-1990s to a low in 2003/4 with a gradual rise since then. This is directly attributable to the drop in numbers of students taking geography at GCSE and A-level, a result of the introduction of more vocational style subjects at GCSE and A-level (business studies for example).

This somewhat rambling series of thoughts brings me back to the original question of what degree should you actually choose? Well in my experience most employers are concerned with the classification (grade) of your degree, not specifically the subject that it is in. First and foremost then you want to select a degree that you are good at and, perhaps more importantly, that you enjoy as a subject (and these both held true when I studied geography as an undergraduate). I also think, with my lecturers hat now on, that it is more beneficial to study academic rather than vocational subjects. This was partly why geography was so successful as a subject; it combined together science and social science and introduced students to a broad range of skills and experiences that were invaluable in the workplace. Vocational subjects have their place but not, in my opinion, at degree level. No doubt I stand to be corrected on this point!

I set my first year class an exam and one of the questions asked what TOID was the acronym for (I would have used the OS definition but it wasn’t as good as Wikipedia!). I’ve copied below a list of the wrong answers. Pick your favourite!!

modelling data
topological identifier
topographical indicator
topological
topographic observation identifier device
topographical output international datums
topological object identification
topology only identified data
transformation of informational data
topology orientation identities data
topography identification
topographical ordinary information data
topography oriented identity
map projection
topographic order integrated data
topographic identification number
database use
topographical
topographic ordinary intergrated data
type of geoid
topographically oriented information demographics
topographic origin information database
topological order intergrated data
topographic identifying

The BBC has reported (admittedly a year ago) on a study at the University of Paisley that was looking at the impact of different forms of sex on stress levels. Blood pressure was monitored during a variety of situations designed to increase stress, including public speaking. And the study found that participants who had had penetrative sex had reduced blood pressure and recovered from stress quicker than all other groups. The worst off were those who abstained from sex.

What does this mean for lecturers? Well I won’t spell it out, but I suspect our stress reduction courses don’t involve this kind of therapy ;)

It’s difficult to go a day without reading some loon story in the newspaper or seeing a reporter making ludicrous claims based upon flimsy evidence. Whilst as a scientist it can be relatively easy to “debunk” some of these stories (or find more reliable information about it), the “general public” are far less aware of the scientific arena and methods of research and subsequent reporting upon it. And for every opinion “!based upon evidence”, there is an equally compelling counter argument. Some “hot potatotes” include:

• does smoking cause lung cancer?
• is global warming occurring
• what are the benefits and weaknesses of nuclear power
• is stem cell research ethical
• should we perform animal testing

The list is almost endless and there are no quick and easy answers. Thankfully the charity Sense About Science is trying to address the balance by presenting reasoned scientific information to the public. This is based upon a group of “grass roots” scientists who provide specialist input upon specific topics. The charity has a reading room of relevant titles for “public consumption”, as well as a phone number that people can call for further advice (and this includes, for example, any kind of employee, employer or civic group, not just the general public). There is also information relating to how the scientific process works, including a useful introduction to peer review.