Analyzing Success in the Stories of Martin Dressler and Robert Irwin Essay

At the point when I previously read Martin Dressler: The Tale of An American Dreamer, I thought it was an extremely motivating book. It discussed the life of a person whose hardwok and steadiness took him to the highest point he had always wanted. All things considered, it tends to be motivating somehow or another. Holding to your fantasies and attempting your best is one of the principle topics of the story. In any case, after I completed the book, I understood that it was not as rousing as I suspected it may be. For me, it is presently a book that educates something regarding the unpleasant side of life and achievement. It uncovered one of the difficult things this world is attempting to concealâ€that achievement is the brilliant crown of an unfilled heart. From the account of Martin Dressler, I understood that achievement isn't as incredible as what a large portion of us think and dream of. Achievement is a backstabber that hijacks the people’s chances to be content with the one they love. When achievement has hijacked you, it will request your most valuable possessionâ€your familyâ€as its payoff. As Martin Dressler moves to the highest point of his stepping stool of achievement, he additionally descends to the pit of his rotting family. Following his fantasies was surely an accomplishment for him, however it was additionally something very similar that drives him to a hopeless family life. As I would see it, a large portion of us share a similar circumstance with Martin Dressler. I, myself, have likewise experienced to be abducted by progress. At the point when I began school, which I consider as perhaps the best accomplishment in light of the fact that not every person could have the entrance to great training, I saw that I was getting excessively occupied with my investigations that I nearly neglected to invest some quality energy with my family. I got excessively blinded with the accomplishment that I was holding with my hand. During that time, I expected that I may lose the opportunity to be in school on the off chance that I would not quit fooling around with my tutoring. Therefore, I invested the greater part of my energy inside my room and in the library examining. Until one day, my mom requested that I have a discussion with her. From that, I figured out how quick my relationship with them has changed since I set off for college. I understood my mix-up and from that point on, I consolidated great time the board to my regular day to day existence. For me, achievement can never bring peril in the event that one realizes how to deal with his time well. Achievement can never sell out you on the off chance that you realize how to manage it. Something else that I saw with the character of Martin Dressler is his extraordinary capacity to get things going. Whenever inspected, he began scarcely from anything. His diligence was truly splendid, particularly during in his time when just the rich individuals could stand to set up a systematic what he had. On my own assessment, however, hardwork and determination isn't sufficient. One’s character isn't the main thing that issues when following a fantasy. An individual ought not feel that he can make progress by depending entirely all alone. He ought to likewise think about the individuals around him. Through structure great associations with individuals, one can have a superior reach he had always wanted. Everybody of us is a visionary. The vast majority we had always wanted are really an American dream. To be effective isn't terrible. To be on our accomplishments isn't narrow-mindedness. In any case, I understood that in the event that we let our fantasies to be our lords, the more it is difficult for us to accomplish them. Our fantasies are our pilot to where we need to be later on. In any case, they ought to never be the focal point of our life for we may miss the genuine treasureâ€our family. In the mean time, another book shares nearly very similar things of Martin Dressler’s storyâ€Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees, introducing the life of the American establishment craftsman Robert Irwin. Albeit the two characters have contradicting characters and were conceived in two diverse time periods, Martin Dressler and Robert Irwin still offer similar encounters and reasoning throughout everyday life. Both of their accounts are a portrayal of a satisfied dreamâ€Dressler in accomplishing his fantasy about turning into a fruitful agent, and Irwin in accomplishing his fantasy about finding the best field where he exceeds expectations at. The two historical scholars in particular Steven Millhauser and Lawrence Weschler, be that as it may, utilized two unique methodologies in depicting Dressler and Irwin. Millhauser, in his book The Tale of an American Dreamer, has included not just the delightful and moving part of Dressler’s life yet additionally the drawback impact of the achievement he accomplished. This was not consolidated by Weschler in introducing the life of Irwin. For me, his book essentially describes how Irwin began to have enthusiasm for the field of expressions, how he turned into a painter, how he got curious with his aesthetic confinements, and how he at long last got his way to the field of establishment craftsmanship. Perusing the initial barely any pages of the book Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees, I effortlessly got guided into it. The initial segment was portraying Irwin’s youth and the individuals and the sort of condition that primarily affected him. Be that as it may, as I keep perusing, I felt estranged in the way Weschler portraying things on Irwin’s create. Here and there, I got myself dumbfounded of what he was describing. Presumably it is on the grounds that I have no clue at all with a portion of the languages in painting and establishment craftsmanship. There were a few words that I didn't comprehend and expected me to investigate about them. The book, for me, appears to be somewhat specialized whenever contrasted with the book The Tale of an American Dreamer. Investigating the principle character’s life, however, drives me to presume that his story is by and by equivalent to our own. In some point in our lives, we get confounded on which way it is that we truly will be taking. Everday, we are gone up against with numerous decisions, from the time we conscious up to the time we take rest. It at that point settles on me wonder how individuals settle on decisions, explicitly the correct ones. What could be their rules? In my own perspective, individuals settle on their decisions by choosing the choice where they would feel more noteworthy satisfaction or satisfaction. Be that as it may, contingent upon what sort of individual you are, satisfaction and satisfaction is extremely abstract. Everybody has his own story when gotten some information about what it is that makes him glad and satisfied. Eventhough it is difficult to concede to such an issue, I think the significant thing to recollect is that we completely recognize and know ourselves. By realizing ourselves implies knowing our needs, including our requirement for satisfaction. At the point when we perceive this need, at that point I think it is simpler for us to know where we can discover joy. This for me is the thing that the book about Irwin’s life speaks to. He searched for his satisfaction by tending to his need to communicate his musings and his self. For me, the works that he canned cause him to feel that a segment of his self is being satisfied. Discussing dreams, Dressler and Irwin, for me, are its two portrayers. Be that as it may, they speak to dreams in two distinct faces: one is a fantasy in return for something, and two is a fantasy in scan for something. I can't help suspecting that Dressler’s American dream is crueler than Irwin’s dream. Albeit inevitable, Dressler’s thought of accomplishment yields more on the money related perspective when contrasted with the mental one that Irwin has. For me, that of Irwin’s is a degree higher than that of Dressler. Therefore, them two picked up victories that are in two unique angles, as well. What Dressler made is a budgetary progress while Irwin achieved a progressively close to home one. Works Cited Millhauser, Steven. The Tale of an American Dreamer. New York: Vintage Books, 1997 Weschler, Lawrence. Seeing is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees. USA: University of the California Press, 1982

Apple’s iphone – Not “made in America”

1) What is implied by globalization of human capital? Is this unavoidable as firms increment their worldwide tasks? Globalization of human capital infers that individuals are moved out of their local nation for work in different fields. Since there are numerous organizations around the world and have branches in different nations, qualified individuals get a chance to move out and work. It is unavoidable since globalization is built up and the organizations utilize the aptitudes, work, ability and information as a piece of globalization of human capital.2) How does this case outline the dangers and openings confronting worldwide organizations in building up their systems? The primary danger is when president Obama got some information about decrease of openings for work in United states and giving occupation in different nations, which caused a to feel of danger in their own nation. And furthermore numerous suicides at Foxconn lead a negative impact on Apple. The open doors looked by them are high benefit of $ 321 for each I telephone. It shows the benefit of a worldwide company.3) Comment on Apple administrators declaration that the organization's just commitment is making the most ideal item. â€Å"we don't have any commitment o explain America's problems† I think it is extremely unforgiving to state these words. Everybody ought to have some commitment towards their nation. Be that as it may, this is business and as an official he is correct he ought to consistently consider the development and nature of the item. Furthermore, should make most extreme benefit from minimal effort. So I think he is right.4) Who are the partners in this circumstance and what, assuming any, commitments do they have? The primary partners are Apple organization, Foxconn, and the administration. These have commitments. Since Apple is a brand organization and all expect best from them it is their commitment to be devoted and best quality supplier to the customers and furthermo re to the laborers who work 24 hours for them. It is same for Foxconn as well. They ought to be worry about the laborers they ought to get the satisfactory compensation and rest. Likewise, governmentâ should safe watchman the individuals of every nation from a pressure.5) How much extra would you say you are set up to pay for an iphone whenever collected in the United states? I figure I won't pay even a solitary penny extra to purchase an iphone since they have a benefit of $321 now itself. That is an excessive amount of benefit. I suggest they should diminish the pace of the telephone. Some other item made in USA isn't excessively costly so the iphone ought to likewise be a little lower than now. All things considered, it is a telephone in spite of the fact that it has numerous application likewise it isn't sufficiently costly to make it.6) How much extra would you say you are set up to pay for an iphone whenever collected in China however under better conditions and pay? What sor t of exchange - off would you make? I have a similar sentiment as I said for United states. Better conditions and pay privileges of laborers and it doesn't mean the cost ought to be expanded since the as of now have a decent benefit. What's more, it is the best thing to give better conditions and better compensation. We can likewise consider globalization of human cash-flow to United states.7) To what expand do you think the negative media inclusion has influenced Apple's ongoing choice to request that the FLA do an evaluation and the resulting choice by Foxconn to raise a few pay rates? What might happen now?Since everybody thinks about the case I figure they will be increasingly cautious and take a great choice in order to secure the laborers. It is certain that the negative media inclusion has influenced Apple's picture gravely thus they requested a FLA appraisal. Foxconn on other hand was crushing the laborers to accomplish more work with little compensation and the self destruc tion which happened raised made them into hell and they expanded the wages to spare their face and I think they must be exceptionally cautious in future by furnishing great condition to work with a plunge pay.

Visual Arts and Film Studies Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Visual Arts and Film Studies - Assignment Example I grinned at the appropriate responses I got and wanted to gesture on the grounds that, for sure, I see those things in myself also. I will attempt to transfer to you what they let me know up until now. Inspiration. I was informed this is certainly one of my most grounded trademark. Every one of the three of my companions concurred that they feel lighter when they are around me. I was informed that there were a few times when they felt down because of an awful thing, and I would call attention to its great side and cause them to feel better. I realize that the vast majority of the occasions, I see the more splendid side of a dull circumstance. Individualization. My companions revealed to me that I am one of the individuals who abhor generalizations. They helped me to remember the occasions when they would offer summed up remarks about an individual dependent on design taste or friend network, and I would go to bat for that individual and demand that nobody knows anything until we bec ome more acquainted with that individual well. I had been generalized a ton so most likely that is the reason I would rather not see it transpiring. Includer. I realize that I have consistently been warm to everybody. My companions revealed to me that I am consistently the one to welcome an individual to join a discussion, or an action, and so on. It causes me to feel unbalanced to see anybody being left on the sides. I realize that everybody has a potential and it causes me to feel great to be the one to really make an individual show their aptitudes in a gathering on account of my inviting mentality. Activator. My companions made me giggle on this one, since they disclosed to me they in some cases want to make some hard memories staying aware of my exercises. I don't care for dull minutes and I generally feel like there is as yet something preferable to do over simply inert away. Designer. Companions state that in the event that they ever need consolation, they will simply come se arching for me. It seems as though I know how they will best have the option to display their abilities due to the thoughts I give them. I like it a great deal when individuals find something in themselves, and I like it better when I realize I am a piece of that progress. 2. I feel that inspiration is the general reason for the various predominant topics of ability in me. I feel positive in me, for me, and for other people, that I need everyone to act and feel the equivalent. 3. I accept that being an activator grows the vast majority of the abilities. This is on the grounds that I generally look for something new to do and learn. I generally tap into the obscure, which I believe is something worth being thankful for in relaxing our creative opportunity. I would prefer not to stall out in something that is repetitive, so I will in general be valiant in investigating and learning new things. 4. The astonishing thing is the means by which my companions see these prevailing qualities so well, and how they react so emphatically to these. I never need to envision that individuals consider me to be â€Å"overwhelming,† so it is ideal to realize that they make the most of my character. 5. The ability that I need to grow more is â€Å"individualization† on the grounds that I realize that each individual has their own characteristics worth thinking about, and I might truly want to have the option to be one of the individuals who has any kind of effect, and tap into those concealed gifts that most others decide to overlook and be preference about. In any case, I realize that I have to take a shot at my verbal cooperation with individuals in light of the fact that regardless of these positive characteristics, I realize that there are still other people who consider me to be only the calm run of the mill craftsmanship understudy. II. Systems administration Event I went to a systems administration occasion, which is a screening of a short film entitled †Å"Wallenda.† It is created by RareForm pictures - an autonomous film creation organization established in 2009. The screening was held in Gnomon, last December 3, at around 7;00 p.m. The movie is coordinated by V.W. Scheich, and composed by V.W. Scheich and Uyen Le. You can discover progressively about the film at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2094183/. I got some answers concerning

Spatial Interaction in Supply and Demand

Spatial Interaction in Supply and Demand Spatial cooperation is the progression of items, individuals, administrations, or data among places, because of confined gracefully and request. It is a transportation flexibly and request relationship that is frequently communicated over a land space. Spatial collaborations as a rule incorporate an assortment of developments, for example, travel, movement, transmission of data, excursions to work or shopping, retailing exercises, or cargo dispersion. Edward Ullman, maybe the main transportation geographer of the twentieth century, all the more officially tended to collaboration as complementarity (a deficiency of a decent or item in one spot and a ​surplus in another), transferability (plausibility of transport of the great or item at a cost that the market will bear), and absence of interceding openings (where a comparable decent or item that isn't accessible at a closer separation). Complementarity The principal factor important for cooperation to happen is complementarity. All together for the exchange to occur, there must be an overflow of the ideal item in one territory and a lack of interest for that equivalent item in another zone. The more noteworthy the separation, between trip inception and outing goal, the less probability of an outing happening and the lower the recurrence of excursions. A case of complementarity would be that you live in San Francisco, California and need to visit Disneyland for an excursion, which is situated in Anaheim close Los Angeles, California. In this model, the item is Disneyland, a goal amusement park, where San Francisco has two local amusement parks, yet no goal amusement park. Transferability The second factor vital for cooperation to occur is transferability. Now and again, it is essentially not doable to move certain merchandise (or individuals) a huge span in light of the fact that the transportation costs are excessively high in contrast with the cost of the item. In every other situation where the transportation costs are not off the mark with value, we state that the item is transferable or that transferability exists. Utilizing our Disneyland trip model, we have to realize what number of individuals are going, and the measure of time we need to do the excursion (both travel time and time at the goal). On the off chance that just a single individual is venturing out to Disneyland and they have to go around the same time, at that point flying might be the most reasonable choice of transferability at roughly $250 full circle; be that as it may, it is the most costly alternative on a for each individual premise. On the off chance that few individuals are voyaging, and three days are accessible for the outing (two days for movement and one day at the recreation center), at that point driving down in an individual vehicle, a rental vehicle or taking the train might be a reasonable alternative. A vehicle rental would be around $100 for a three-day rental (with for to six individuals in the vehicle) excluding fuel, or roughly $120 full circle per individual taking the train (i.e., either Amtraks Coast Starlight or the San Joaquin courses). On the off chance that one is going with a huge gathering of individuals (expecting 50 individuals or something like that), at that point it might bode well to sanction a transport, which would cost roughly $2,500 or about $50 per individual. As should be obvious, transferability can be cultivated by one of a few unique methods of transportation relying upon the quantity of individuals, separation, the normal expense to ship every individual, and the time accessible for movement. Absence of Intervening Opportunities The third factor essential for connection to happen in the nonappearance or absence of mediating openings. There might be where complementarity exists between a territory with a popularity for an item and a few territories with a flexibly of that equivalent item in abundance of nearby interest. In this specific case, the primary region would be probably not going to exchange with every one of the three providers, however would rather exchange with the provider that was nearest or least expensive. In our case of the outing to Disneyland, Is there some other goal amusement park indistinguishable from Disneyland, giving an interceding opportunity between San Francisco and Los Angeles? The undeniable answer would be no. In any case, if the inquiry was, Is there some other provincial amusement park between San Francisco and Los Angeles that could be a potential mediating opportunity, at that point the appropriate response would be indeed, since Great America (Santa Clara, California), Magic Mountain (Santa Clarita, California), and Knotts Berry Farm (Buena Park, California) are for the most part territorial amusement parks situated between San Francisco and Anaheim. As should be obvious from this model, there are various elements that could influence complementarity, transferability, and absence of mediating openings. There are numerous different instances of these ideas in our day by day lives, with regards to arranging your next excursion, watching the cargo trains move through your town or neighborhood, seeing the trucks on the parkway, or when you transport a bundle abroad.

Advocating for Science on Capitol Hill, Part 1

Advocating for Science on Capitol Hill, Part 1 My name is Anna Ho, and I am a student at â€" No, no. That’s not the point. My name is Anna Ho, and I am a constituent living in Cambridge. I am a student at MIT majoring in physics. Ugh, I sound like a robot. Sound cheerful! BE cheerful! IT’S SO EXCITING TO BE HERE! Hi! Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us. My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. …and I’m very nervous, because I’m an idealistic 21-year-old who would really like to think that it’s better to Engage than it is to Criticise From Afar, and somehow I find myself here in DC to meet with my representatives. I’ve heard that people charge into policy work feeling like they’re going to change the world, and soon become disenchanted and frustrated. And I’m afraid that on Wednesday, I will find out that all of these “meetings” with my representatives are just formalities to win my vote. * * * Our training begins on Monday March 24. Around ten of us have arrived in DC already, and we start by going around the room and introducing ourselves. The guy to my left works at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Maryland, building cameras for telescopes. The woman to my right does research on the sun at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. There’s a professor from Northwestern somewhere behind me. There are a handful of graduate students, and I’m the token undergraduate. The first speaker is Josh Shiode. Josh has a PhD in astronomy from UC Berkeley and is now a John Bahcall Public Policy Fellow at the American Astronomical Society (AAS). Translation: he brought his scientific training and communication talents with him to the policy world of Washington D.C. He communicates in two directions: he advocates on behalf of the astronomy community to policymakers, and keeps the astronomy community informed about important changes in policy. This week, his job is to prepare a delegation of 15 AAS members to lobby on Capitol Hill. This Monday afternoon, his talk is called “Congress in Context.” I frantically take notes, trying to go from Zero Knowledge to Enough Knowledge. Congress in Context: Josh walks us through how a bill becomes a law (the takeaway: very few do) and introduces us to important vocabulary. The deficit, for example. Non-defense discretionary spending (“our stuff!”) and the nature of its shrinking. The Budget Control Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act, high spending on mandatory programs, the difference between authorizations and appropriations (the theory and the reality), examples of authorizing committees, examples of appropriating committees. Current status: the President’s Budget Request â€" which proposes spending levels for each agency â€" is out. Now, Congress is working on actually allocating funding (“appropriations”), in theory within the authorized bounds. There are many organizations lobbying on Capitol Hill for a piece of nondefense discretionary pie, and we are one of them. No pressure. After a short coffee break (astronomers have caffeine running through their veins) we reconvene for a talk by Anna Quider, who works at the US State Department. Anna is another PhD astronomer who decided to dedicate her life to policy, and her job this afternoon is to introduce us to our audience. Our audience is: Congressional Staff. Before you walk into the House or the Senate, she says, you need to understand who these people are. Each Member of Congress has a group of Congressional Staff (“staffers”) who distill and relay information to the congressman about particular issues, to help him or her cast an informed vote. This sounds like an enormous responsibility, so I am astonished to learn that some staffers are not a whole lot older than I am. “For many staffers,” Anna tells us, “this is their FIRST JOB EVER.” They’re smart 20- or 30-something year olds, expected to become experts in a wide variety of areas often outside their educational background. When Anna was a staffer, her portfolio included education, small business and entrepreneurship, national security, innovation, and all of science and technology. When the staffer in charge of healthcare issues left, Anna was given that job, and told: “well, science is the next closest thing.” To help staffers, there is a non-partisan knowledge tank on Capitol Hill called the Congressional Research Service. But even with this resource, consider what the job entails: teaching yourself about a vast range of complicated and important issues that you have limited (or no) academic experience with, picking out the salient points, then relaying information up the chain to a Member of Congress. With this in mind, Anna shows us a typical staffer schedule: it is packed from 8am until 9pm, with no obvious breaks. “The fact that [the staffer you contacted] took your meeting request is a small miracle,” Anna said. “You have a foot in the door. These are a PRECIOUS TWENTY MINUTES.” She mentions that our 30-minute scheduled meeting might end up lasting two minutes and be held standing in a hallway, or even turn out to include a bunch of other scientists from other organizations. Thanks to Anna, I have a mental image of the very hard-working but very busy person I will be meeting with on Wednesday. Obviously, I can’t waste this person’s time. What is special about me? What information can I uniquely deliver? * * * The last session on Monday is led by Jen Greenamoyer, a Senior Government Relations Liaison at the American Institute of Physics. With her, we will finally begin to hammer out what exactly to say during our meetings. The talk is titled: “Delivering Your Message on Capitol Hill” and I take away five key points: Believe it or not, scientists are held in high esteem by policymakers because we have the reputation of being credible. That’s part of why you were able to get this precious meeting time. So: BE CREDIBLE. Talk about what you know, and admit if you don’t know something. Know as much as you can about the Member of Congress and the staffer. Research the individuals in advance, learn about their priorities and interests, look around the office while you wait for the meeting, and ask the staffer about him or herself. Tailor your message accordingly. Be clear and specific about what you are asking for, and ground your conversation and requests in geography and local impact. Remember: Congress is pegged to DISTRICTS. And don’t suggest that science funding should be an entitlement. Politicians speak in anecdote. Be a memorable anecdote and convey your dedication to your research. Back-and-forth exchanges are much more memorable than one-way spiels. Offer to serve as a resource in the future. Heads swimming, we break into groups for a roleplay activity. I become Jason Ellis, lobbyist for an organization called Save Our Coastal Resources. The Space Telescope Science Institute astronomer to my left becomes congresswoman Katherine Greer, a Republican from Oregon who is currently undecided about how to vote on a bill. The Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer to my right becomes Allison Lowder, a lobbyist for the U.S. Shrimpers Association. We each have something like 5 minutes to skim a briefing on the bill, then hold a “meeting” with the congresswoman trying to persuade her to vote one way or the other. Allison Lowder holds her meeting while I run out to the bathroom, and I come back pumped to argue on behalf of SOCR. “The Sawfish will become extinct if no steps are taken to protect it,” I say. “All life on our planet is connected and dependent on each other, and there is serious threat to this species…” At the end, I feel pretty good about my spiel. But Congresswoman Lowder votes “no,” and Allison Lowder cheers. What did I do wrong?! As we switch groups, Congresswoman Katherine Greer turns to me and says: “you know why I voted no?” Grumpily, I ask why. “Because sheâ€"“ he points to Lowder â€" “went first.” That night, in front of the mirror: My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. In the fall, I’m going to start a PhD program in astronomy. Here is my contact information. If I can be a resource for you, please don’t hesitate to contact me. * * * On Monday, the talks were about science advocacy in general; today, the focus is on astronomy. It’s Tuesday, all fifteen of us are finally here, and we’re sitting in a conference room at American Astronomical Society headquarters. At 9am, the Executive Officer gives us a warm welcome before leaving to “go sign checks or something” (he makes us laugh at 9am, which is no mean feat). For the next three hours, the AAS Director of Public Policy joins forces with Josh to bring us up to speed. They review terminology from yesterday, this time highlighting particular authorization bills that directly affect our field. They fill us in on current astronomy policy issues, most of which involve the National Science Foundation. Themes from yesterday resurface: your primary currency is your credibility, if you prove to be a useful resource people will come back to you, your face and your personal story alone are worth the visit. I take notes as usual but am a little distracted by the thought that woah, the AAS Director of Public Policy is sitting next to me. I snap out of my reverie when someone down the table asks what to do if we’re asked about the NSF Portfolio Review. Asked about the what?! The response is that if we get asked about the NSF Portfolio Review, we are to go out and have a beer to celebrate that someone up on Capitol Hill actually knows what the NSF is. If we get tough but informed questions, that’s a reason to celebrate. At this point, the Associate Vice President for Research at the University of Alabama in Huntsville chimes in to remind us that our job is to promote our field, not to bash other fields or other organizations. “I don’t think it ever benefits anybody,” he says, “to speak from the perspective of negativity.” Much more effective to present a united front, instead of bickering amongst ourselves while the politicians go deal with other issues. After lunch, we travel to the headquarters of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). We sit through a series of talks. The highlight is a QA with staffers: Sean Gallagher from Congressman Rush Holt’s office is particularly enthusiastic and articulate. “We’re a filter for our boss,” he tells us, “but we tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep. You are our educators.” Takeaways include: People are on a one-year cycle. The really long-term arguments are not the way to go. Legislative staff often consider themselves researchers. Be a resource. If you would like to be called on, establish a relationship with your Member of Congress. Don’t get into the weeds about your research unless the staffer specifically asks you. Prepare for 2, 5, 15, and 30-minute versions of your meeting. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. Tie the importance of your work to your local district. Make it a two-way conversation. Suddenly, I realize what information I can uniquely provide during my meetings. I pull out my notebook to scribble down the first draft of my message. * * * It’s Tuesday night and I’m lying on my stomach in my hotel room bed. Tomorrow morning, I will lead meetings with staffers from two Massachusetts offices: Representative Michael Capuano’s office and Senator Ed Markey’s office. I’m frantically reviewing. Michael Capuano. Very passionate about higher education. Makes sense, considering that the 7th congressional district has over a dozen research institutes, universities (including MIT and Harvard) and teaching hospitals. 1/5 of Nobel Prize winners have lived, studied, or worked in this district. Capuano has a lot to be proud of. Capuano’s staffer: Andrew Eaton. BA in Political Science from U. Conn. Portfolio includes: budget, tax, social security, education, science, welfare, US Postal Service. Ed Markey. Already supportive of expanding investment in science research programs. This meeting can probably be short. Markey’s staffer: Dan Pomeroy. PhD in High Energy Experimental Physics, has worked at the Large Hadron Collider. This meeting can definitely be short. My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. In the fall, I’m going to start a PhD program in astronomy, but when I started college I didn’t think that I was cut out to be a research scientist. The summer after my sophomore year, I did an internship funded by the National Science Foundation. I loved it so much that I went back the next summer and did it again. I learned that I wanted to do research because I had the opportunity to try doing research. And I had that opportunity because of this program. I became a scientist because of this program. I set my alarm for 6am and dream about sleeping through meetings. Part 2 to follow

Advocating for Science on Capitol Hill, Part 1

Advocating for Science on Capitol Hill, Part 1 My name is Anna Ho, and I am a student at â€" No, no. That’s not the point. My name is Anna Ho, and I am a constituent living in Cambridge. I am a student at MIT majoring in physics. Ugh, I sound like a robot. Sound cheerful! BE cheerful! IT’S SO EXCITING TO BE HERE! Hi! Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us. My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. …and I’m very nervous, because I’m an idealistic 21-year-old who would really like to think that it’s better to Engage than it is to Criticise From Afar, and somehow I find myself here in DC to meet with my representatives. I’ve heard that people charge into policy work feeling like they’re going to change the world, and soon become disenchanted and frustrated. And I’m afraid that on Wednesday, I will find out that all of these “meetings” with my representatives are just formalities to win my vote. * * * Our training begins on Monday March 24. Around ten of us have arrived in DC already, and we start by going around the room and introducing ourselves. The guy to my left works at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Maryland, building cameras for telescopes. The woman to my right does research on the sun at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. There’s a professor from Northwestern somewhere behind me. There are a handful of graduate students, and I’m the token undergraduate. The first speaker is Josh Shiode. Josh has a PhD in astronomy from UC Berkeley and is now a John Bahcall Public Policy Fellow at the American Astronomical Society (AAS). Translation: he brought his scientific training and communication talents with him to the policy world of Washington D.C. He communicates in two directions: he advocates on behalf of the astronomy community to policymakers, and keeps the astronomy community informed about important changes in policy. This week, his job is to prepare a delegation of 15 AAS members to lobby on Capitol Hill. This Monday afternoon, his talk is called “Congress in Context.” I frantically take notes, trying to go from Zero Knowledge to Enough Knowledge. Congress in Context: Josh walks us through how a bill becomes a law (the takeaway: very few do) and introduces us to important vocabulary. The deficit, for example. Non-defense discretionary spending (“our stuff!”) and the nature of its shrinking. The Budget Control Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act, high spending on mandatory programs, the difference between authorizations and appropriations (the theory and the reality), examples of authorizing committees, examples of appropriating committees. Current status: the President’s Budget Request â€" which proposes spending levels for each agency â€" is out. Now, Congress is working on actually allocating funding (“appropriations”), in theory within the authorized bounds. There are many organizations lobbying on Capitol Hill for a piece of nondefense discretionary pie, and we are one of them. No pressure. After a short coffee break (astronomers have caffeine running through their veins) we reconvene for a talk by Anna Quider, who works at the US State Department. Anna is another PhD astronomer who decided to dedicate her life to policy, and her job this afternoon is to introduce us to our audience. Our audience is: Congressional Staff. Before you walk into the House or the Senate, she says, you need to understand who these people are. Each Member of Congress has a group of Congressional Staff (“staffers”) who distill and relay information to the congressman about particular issues, to help him or her cast an informed vote. This sounds like an enormous responsibility, so I am astonished to learn that some staffers are not a whole lot older than I am. “For many staffers,” Anna tells us, “this is their FIRST JOB EVER.” They’re smart 20- or 30-something year olds, expected to become experts in a wide variety of areas often outside their educational background. When Anna was a staffer, her portfolio included education, small business and entrepreneurship, national security, innovation, and all of science and technology. When the staffer in charge of healthcare issues left, Anna was given that job, and told: “well, science is the next closest thing.” To help staffers, there is a non-partisan knowledge tank on Capitol Hill called the Congressional Research Service. But even with this resource, consider what the job entails: teaching yourself about a vast range of complicated and important issues that you have limited (or no) academic experience with, picking out the salient points, then relaying information up the chain to a Member of Congress. With this in mind, Anna shows us a typical staffer schedule: it is packed from 8am until 9pm, with no obvious breaks. “The fact that [the staffer you contacted] took your meeting request is a small miracle,” Anna said. “You have a foot in the door. These are a PRECIOUS TWENTY MINUTES.” She mentions that our 30-minute scheduled meeting might end up lasting two minutes and be held standing in a hallway, or even turn out to include a bunch of other scientists from other organizations. Thanks to Anna, I have a mental image of the very hard-working but very busy person I will be meeting with on Wednesday. Obviously, I can’t waste this person’s time. What is special about me? What information can I uniquely deliver? * * * The last session on Monday is led by Jen Greenamoyer, a Senior Government Relations Liaison at the American Institute of Physics. With her, we will finally begin to hammer out what exactly to say during our meetings. The talk is titled: “Delivering Your Message on Capitol Hill” and I take away five key points: Believe it or not, scientists are held in high esteem by policymakers because we have the reputation of being credible. That’s part of why you were able to get this precious meeting time. So: BE CREDIBLE. Talk about what you know, and admit if you don’t know something. Know as much as you can about the Member of Congress and the staffer. Research the individuals in advance, learn about their priorities and interests, look around the office while you wait for the meeting, and ask the staffer about him or herself. Tailor your message accordingly. Be clear and specific about what you are asking for, and ground your conversation and requests in geography and local impact. Remember: Congress is pegged to DISTRICTS. And don’t suggest that science funding should be an entitlement. Politicians speak in anecdote. Be a memorable anecdote and convey your dedication to your research. Back-and-forth exchanges are much more memorable than one-way spiels. Offer to serve as a resource in the future. Heads swimming, we break into groups for a roleplay activity. I become Jason Ellis, lobbyist for an organization called Save Our Coastal Resources. The Space Telescope Science Institute astronomer to my left becomes congresswoman Katherine Greer, a Republican from Oregon who is currently undecided about how to vote on a bill. The Harvard-Smithsonian astronomer to my right becomes Allison Lowder, a lobbyist for the U.S. Shrimpers Association. We each have something like 5 minutes to skim a briefing on the bill, then hold a “meeting” with the congresswoman trying to persuade her to vote one way or the other. Allison Lowder holds her meeting while I run out to the bathroom, and I come back pumped to argue on behalf of SOCR. “The Sawfish will become extinct if no steps are taken to protect it,” I say. “All life on our planet is connected and dependent on each other, and there is serious threat to this species…” At the end, I feel pretty good about my spiel. But Congresswoman Lowder votes “no,” and Allison Lowder cheers. What did I do wrong?! As we switch groups, Congresswoman Katherine Greer turns to me and says: “you know why I voted no?” Grumpily, I ask why. “Because sheâ€"“ he points to Lowder â€" “went first.” That night, in front of the mirror: My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. In the fall, I’m going to start a PhD program in astronomy. Here is my contact information. If I can be a resource for you, please don’t hesitate to contact me. * * * On Monday, the talks were about science advocacy in general; today, the focus is on astronomy. It’s Tuesday, all fifteen of us are finally here, and we’re sitting in a conference room at American Astronomical Society headquarters. At 9am, the Executive Officer gives us a warm welcome before leaving to “go sign checks or something” (he makes us laugh at 9am, which is no mean feat). For the next three hours, the AAS Director of Public Policy joins forces with Josh to bring us up to speed. They review terminology from yesterday, this time highlighting particular authorization bills that directly affect our field. They fill us in on current astronomy policy issues, most of which involve the National Science Foundation. Themes from yesterday resurface: your primary currency is your credibility, if you prove to be a useful resource people will come back to you, your face and your personal story alone are worth the visit. I take notes as usual but am a little distracted by the thought that woah, the AAS Director of Public Policy is sitting next to me. I snap out of my reverie when someone down the table asks what to do if we’re asked about the NSF Portfolio Review. Asked about the what?! The response is that if we get asked about the NSF Portfolio Review, we are to go out and have a beer to celebrate that someone up on Capitol Hill actually knows what the NSF is. If we get tough but informed questions, that’s a reason to celebrate. At this point, the Associate Vice President for Research at the University of Alabama in Huntsville chimes in to remind us that our job is to promote our field, not to bash other fields or other organizations. “I don’t think it ever benefits anybody,” he says, “to speak from the perspective of negativity.” Much more effective to present a united front, instead of bickering amongst ourselves while the politicians go deal with other issues. After lunch, we travel to the headquarters of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). We sit through a series of talks. The highlight is a QA with staffers: Sean Gallagher from Congressman Rush Holt’s office is particularly enthusiastic and articulate. “We’re a filter for our boss,” he tells us, “but we tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep. You are our educators.” Takeaways include: People are on a one-year cycle. The really long-term arguments are not the way to go. Legislative staff often consider themselves researchers. Be a resource. If you would like to be called on, establish a relationship with your Member of Congress. Don’t get into the weeds about your research unless the staffer specifically asks you. Prepare for 2, 5, 15, and 30-minute versions of your meeting. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL. Tie the importance of your work to your local district. Make it a two-way conversation. Suddenly, I realize what information I can uniquely provide during my meetings. I pull out my notebook to scribble down the first draft of my message. * * * It’s Tuesday night and I’m lying on my stomach in my hotel room bed. Tomorrow morning, I will lead meetings with staffers from two Massachusetts offices: Representative Michael Capuano’s office and Senator Ed Markey’s office. I’m frantically reviewing. Michael Capuano. Very passionate about higher education. Makes sense, considering that the 7th congressional district has over a dozen research institutes, universities (including MIT and Harvard) and teaching hospitals. 1/5 of Nobel Prize winners have lived, studied, or worked in this district. Capuano has a lot to be proud of. Capuano’s staffer: Andrew Eaton. BA in Political Science from U. Conn. Portfolio includes: budget, tax, social security, education, science, welfare, US Postal Service. Ed Markey. Already supportive of expanding investment in science research programs. This meeting can probably be short. Markey’s staffer: Dan Pomeroy. PhD in High Energy Experimental Physics, has worked at the Large Hadron Collider. This meeting can definitely be short. My name is Anna Ho, and I’m a constituent living in Cambridge. I’m a senior at MIT majoring in physics, but today I’m here representing the American Astronomical Society. In the fall, I’m going to start a PhD program in astronomy, but when I started college I didn’t think that I was cut out to be a research scientist. The summer after my sophomore year, I did an internship funded by the National Science Foundation. I loved it so much that I went back the next summer and did it again. I learned that I wanted to do research because I had the opportunity to try doing research. And I had that opportunity because of this program. I became a scientist because of this program. I set my alarm for 6am and dream about sleeping through meetings. Part 2 to follow

Researching Ivy League Admissions

Researching Ivy League Admissions December 26 Theres a bit of an inaccuracy in an article of the Cornell Chronicle. A funny one. Theres an article in Cornell Chronicle by Kathy Hovis entitled In Arts and Sciences, reading every admission application that we figured wed bring to the attention of our loyal readers. Our loyal readers, after all, know that we have a penchant for pointing out inaccuracies about the highly selective college admissions process and correcting popular misconceptions. Well, this particular article didnt get off on the right foot with us! It begins like this: Google Ivy League admissions and up will pop thousands of sites that list the GPA requirements, SAT scores and activities a high school student needs to make her or his application stand out to admissions counselors.  Typical text reads: A winning Ivy League application needs to present a strong academic record, meaningful extracurricular activities, glowing letters of recommendation and a compelling application essay.  What these sites don’t reveal are a host of other factors that Cornell’s admissions deans consider when they are deciding on the new freshman class. Things like curiosity, sincerity, leadership and a general sense that they will fit at Cornell – the idea that students understand and are excited to take advantage of all that Cornell has to offer. Not so, Ms. Hovis. In fact, if you Google Ivy League admissions, youll find Ivy Coachs website at the very top or right near the top of your search results. And, if you choose to peruse our extensive site, youll find page after page after page devoted to the host of other factors that Cornell admissions deans consider when they are deciding on the new freshman class. We write about intellectual curiosity. We write about sincerity in essays, in letters of recommendation. We write about leadership and fit. And so much more! Do your homework, Ms. Hovis. If youre going to lead off your article by stating that a certain search result doesnt return what youre hoping to find, click on the very first link on the very first Google search result page. But our guess is you didnt actually bother Googling it. You just thought it would make a fun intro for your article! We take no offense. Rather, we find it amusing. But maybe next time youll do as you suggest to your readers