GRE Present Your Perspective Practice #2

"Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use."

In this era of rapid technological change where scholars have to deal with masses of information everyday, it is rather inevitable that academic specialization has become increasingly essential. Simply put, without specialization, scholars would find themselves bogged down in the Sargasso Sea of information overload. This specialization does not necessarily restrict the dissemination or use of scholarly ideas to just a select few that possess the academic background to understand the material, as an examination of the organization of modern academia will show.

To ensure survival of their ideas, scholars are trained from the very beginning to simplify and generalize. Whether explaining the significance of their research to lab visitors or presenting their research results to the public, scholars have to assume little or no academic background on the part of the audience. Effective communication is considered so important in academia that before being allowed into the vaunted ranks of scholars, one must first submit a written dissertation that is the culmination of original research conducted over several years.

Although the PhD degree arms a scholar with the tools to conduct original research, it does not supply one with the financial backing to do so. One of the fundamental requirements for conducting academic research – the research grant – requires that scholars possess the capability for effective communication. Because not all grant review committees possess sufficient knowledge to understand the details of the research, it is the responsibility of the scholar to communicate ideas in a comprehensible and succinct manner without losing track of their significance. In addition, in order to ensure industrial use of their research, scholars have to ensure that they are able to communicate their ideas to industry people.

Specialization in academia can be inherently dangerous if it overly narrows the foci through which scholars conduct their research. Publishers of scholarly journals understand this especially well. Hence, they periodically commission noted experts to write review articles – works that summarize and explain several years’ worth of research in their respective fields. Writers typically take pains to ensure that these review articles can be understood by a wider audience. Given the rather esoteric nature of certain research fields (e.g. quantum mechanics or pure mathematics), however, it is sometimes difficult to expect that even review articles in the field can be understood by an educated but uninformed audience. Enter the popular science journals. Journals such as Scientific American or Popular Science take the newest scientific discoveries and explain their significance without the scientific details. Even the most prestigious general academic journals – Science and Nature – routinely publish easily understood scientific journalism, only reserving the latter half of each journal issue for specialized research articles.

In conclusion, it is clear from the above examples that scholars are able to communicate their ideas to a wide audience, despite the specialized nature of their work. By allowing the public to appreciate the significance of their research, scholars ensure that their ideas are of use to society at large.

GRE Present Your Perspective Practice #1

"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways."

It has been lamented before (no less by beginning graduate students who then go on to make seminal advances in their fields of research) that all the great discoveries have been made already, leaving us with nothing but to synthesize those discoveries in new ways that have not been explored. In the past, originality might have been synonymous with novelty. In this era of rapid social and technological change, however, original innovation calls for both approaches that are articulated in the essay prompt: novel ideas must be fused together with the results of previous research to give the best results.

Given the masses of knowledge and ideas that have originated throughout the millennia of mankind’s existence, coming up with something that was never thought about before appears to be near-impossible today. As one considers the type of cutting-edge research performed in laboratories around the world, however, the problem resolves itself at once. Our ancestors thought of things they could conceive of. While the ancient Greek philosophers speculated on the nature of the fundamental particle of matter (that we now know as an atom), it was unlikely that they would have predicted that an atom could be further subdivided into particles such as quarks. Although the results of his pea pod mating experiments led Mendel to believe that some fundamental unit of inheritance must be involved, given the seventeenth century technology of his time, it was unlikely that he thought about DNA, let alone the central dogma of molecular biology that explains the relationship between DNA and protein production. These two examples illustrate that coming up with something that has never been thought about before in our modern era is still possible.

Originality can also mean putting old ideas together in new ways. While Leonardo da Vinci designed the first helicopter, it took nearly five centuries before his concept could be physically realized. Although mankind has dreamed of controlled flight since antiquity, it was not until the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903 that that dream could be fulfilled.

On the other hand, no single approach alone can guarantee originality. While Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins saw a double helix in their x-ray crystallography data on DNA, it took the additional chemistry input of Francis Crick and James Watson to confirm the anti-parallel double-stranded helical form of DNA in a landmark paper published in Nature in the year 1953. Originality is not always born in a vacuum. As the saying attributed to Thomas Edison goes: “Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration,” those “bolts from the blue” that we often term as originality actually come from the many hours of passive absorbing, retaining and synthesizing of connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information.

Perhaps the nature of originality can best be studied by looking at the way in which beginning graduate students search for their dissertation topic. One PhD guidebook summarized this process (and I paraphrase): “Take a block of research that has already been done and chisel another angle to it.” In our era, it is still possible to come up with novel ideas. However, it is certainly much easier to put together old ideas in a novel way for the sake of originality. This surely counts as thinking something that has never been thought before: after all, who ever thought of putting those old ideas together in the first place?

Cycling with Him/Her

Reproduced with permission from Perry Bessas, dated 20 Apr 2003:

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve run across a man and a woman who happily coexist and intertwine their lives, raise a family together, and yet, can’t seem to share a common interest—such as cycling. Maybe I can say this because I’m a man but, it’s always the man’s fault. Well, it’s always the fault of the “experienced” cyclist and that is usually the man.

The script is always the same: A young man becomes involved in cycling and enjoys a sense of achievement from riding fast and far. Riding gives him ample opportunities to meet like-minded people and to explore his limits in the sport. He later meets a woman—a life partner—and, being an expert, asserts his authority over her in this area. He “mentors” her on the proper equipment, riding techniques, conditioning, etc. until she just can’t stand it any more and abandons cycling altogether—fully convinced it’s a dumb, male chauvinistic sport. Many years later, her practically unused bike is sold on ebay for a fraction of the original cost.

It doesn’t have to be this way. By following some basic guidelines, you can avoid this disastrous scenario. A missed opportunity to join together in a positive, healthy endeavor such as cycling, is an attainable dream unfulfilled. This is the advice I have for you:

Expectations

If you expect your partner to reach goals you have set for him/her, the battle is more than half lost. Human beings don’t take to being coerced. They may seem to be on board but, all along, they are sabotaging your effort—even at the expense of their own benefit. If it is your desire to ride across the country but your mate happy riding across town, better to find a way to combine some of your riding that still allows for you to fulfill your separate goals.

Pureness of Heart

Ask yourself some honest questions. Do you want your mate to ride with you because:

• You want to be seen as a loving chap?
• By virtue of her charm and beauty she elevates your status in the group?
• You don’t like riding alone and have no other likely cohorts?
• You feel guilty riding while she takes care of the kids?

These, and similar motives, are not pure of heart. It’s one thing to want something for yourself, it’s completely another to say you are doing something for someone else when you are only serving your own interests. Humans of all cultures and of all intelligence levels have an uncanny ability to sense their own self-interest in any situation so, trying to get over on them will eventually fail. Examine your own interests honestly and you will be more likely do the right thing for your partner.

Don’t Focus on Results

The outcome of any endeavor can never be determined beforehand with complete certitude. For this reason, the best that we can do is to focus on effort rather than results. If your heart is pure, your effort will be pure and the results will take care of themselves.

Practical Points

If your better half is a novice, don’t try to get her from zero to 60 instantly. Why not encourage her to get a cheap, comfortable bike and take some short rides with her every week? If all you have is a go fast bike, maybe you should invest in a slow, comfortable bike for yourself. You don’t have any objections to buying another bike, do you? I didn’t think so. You can increase the length of the trips as warranted but, keep in mind that you are doing this for fun and enjoy your time with her rather worrying about how “the plan” is progressing.

Don’t forget, bikes can be sold or traded up should the situation demand it. By starting with something cheap and comfortable, expectations are automatically lowered and the pressure is off. Also, it’s hard to pick your perfect bike on the first shot. A cheap bike is a great way to find out what’s what and to help develop input on future models.

The Fitness Thing

Lastly, never underestimate the motivation provided by losing weight, toning up, and looking good. My theory about diet and exercise is the same as the rest of life. Negative motivation ultimately fails. If you exercise not to be fat, or to keep your cholesterol from rising, you will eventually fail at it. If you focus on pursuing activities such as cycling because they are fun, your health and physical fitness will be the byproducts of a pursuit that is pure of heart (there’s that phrase again)—for it’s own sake. If we understood this as a society, we would stop imploring people to exercise in order to “score a good mark” on the next medical exam and encourage them to undertake fun, healthy activities. Everyone would seek their own level but, our society would be better off as a whole. Maybe then, we wouldn’t have a nation of people sweating in dark exercise rooms and gaining weight in the process. That, however, is a topic for another article.
__________________________________________________________

Jo Ellen Adds...

First, I would like to say that becoming a born-again cyclist in my mature years has been a transformative experience. When I was able to travel 40 miles, 2 towns away, with only moderate effort, it turned my thinking on its head and new ideas about what is possible started opening up to me.

There were only a few things about my childhood that were typical and my relationship with a bicycle was one of the them. Growing up in the 60’s—riding on the flat, wide-open boulevards of my rural suburban town—was my version of independence. My kid-riding ended years later in an ill-conceived trip down the only hilly road in town on my 12-speed Fuji (all the rage then) that I had purchased with my first paycheck out of college. Landing me in intensive care, the Fuji was hung up and my childhood was over. Five or so years go by and I find myself entangled with a man who is becoming increasingly serious about cycling (70 mile rides, breaking down bikes, building up wheels etc.) The Fuji is dusted off and away we go through the congested semi-urban streets that are so different from the roads of my youth. He, flying ahead on his slick road bike, me, lagging behind and terrorized the whole way, I refuse to make the return trip. The great experiment ends with vows never to ride again.

Fast-forward many years. By now my bike-man, fed up with the hoops he must jump through to ride his bike, has stored his away. (Now we come to the fun part of the story—our latest move to a quiet Connecticut town with any number of wonderful places to ride.) Bike-man’s eyes gleam. He polishes his bikes up. I think, gee, maybe even I can ride here. I get a cheap, mountain bike to tool around with by myself. This time I want to start fresh—put some bad memories behind me. I know enough from being around someone who rides, that I really need to learn a thing or two, to be confident on the road. I need to learn how to shift smoothly (its much hillier here, and I never used the shifters before anyway) and I need to learn how to ride on the street, with cars. I also need to learn about spinning more, so that I can improve my speed and get more exercise from my excursions. This will also allow me to go more miles and give me a sense of mastery in the sport. So I patiently listen to the advise I get and, with a few practical road lessons, I’m off. I never go too far because I’m afraid of breaking down, but I add up the miles in loops and gain muscle strength and speed.

So, of course, it’s not too long before we think of riding together again. He had an old mountain bike—one of those original heavy relics, just enough to slow him down a bit so we can reasonably stay together. Unfortunately, its not much fun for him riding that thing on the road and my cheap bike eventually falls apart. So we go back to square one. I needed to buy a decent bike that could keep pace with the miles I was starting to rack up. Here came another crucial juncture in my new riding experiment. I knew he was not enjoying riding his heavy clunker and would love to ride his road bike, so I thought, if I get one too, we’ll be perfectly matched. At the bike shop, my choices came down to a very comfortable hybrid, or a very skittish road bike. Thankfully he saw how uncomfortable I was on the road bike and declared the hybrid as the winner.


I was secretly relieved, but dejected by the thought that we could never ride together. I won’t bore you with all the match-ups we’ve tried along the way but, ultimately, it took him getting something more closely aligned with my hybrid.


In any case, what follows are things I’ve learned the hard way from this whole thing. In most cases, I’m assuming that the man is the stronger rider. There are certainly many women who are very serious about riding (their non-riding spouses have there own story to tell):

• The stronger rider can never ride a faster bike than the other person. This exaggerates the disparity between them. It’s best if the stronger rider can be handicapped without destroying his enjoyment.
• Men don’t fully understand how much stronger they are than women. Perhaps for me it was enhanced by the fact that I am a large woman, not so much smaller than him, so he always assumes I’m not that much weaker than he is. Intellectually men know they are stronger, but I don’t think they truly internalize it at these types of moments, so they always think you’re dogging it.
• Men generally have a different physical style then women. Particularly those who are into biking (the sport definitely has a tinge of machismo to it). They are much more explosive. They start out the ride that way, blowing out of the driveway, powering up every hill, careening down the hill. Women generally go at a steadier pace. So that means that even if you have arrived at a fairly companionable riding pace, he will most likely have to wait for you at the bottom of the hill.
• Cycling together is like any other thing between men and women. Détente must be reached, but in this case, the man is generally the one who has to yield a bit—not the natural course. Its a commitment, and a compromise, but the resulting closeness is something very special.
• It is the woman’s responsibility to learn a little about cycling and to understand that she has a role in the compromise that riding together entails. It pays tremendous dividends. You get in great shape and riding becomes fun and easy.
• Don’t ride together all the time. He can tear up the pavement in his road bike, you can take your slow jaunts into town (or take a walk even). When you do get together you will enjoy your rides more. I think Perry covered many of these topics in his part article.

The jewel hidden in all of this, is that you are exercising and you don’t even realize it because you’re having fun. Riding also happens to target many of those particularly female problem areas. All I have to do now is learn how to change a flat so I can keep the cell phone at home.