Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

It is my theory that organizations should raffle off spectrometers instead of, say, iPods. For example, various boxes of kimwipes have been advertising trips to Jamaica and home theater systems. While anyone could use a vacation, maybe we’d be stuck in lab less often if not for the long line to obtain an NMR spectrum…

Speaking of which, o-chem lab is going splendidly – apart from a handful of volatile lachrymators and an overcrowded class. I’d forgotten how semi-exhilarating it is to soak for half a day in the fumes of acetone and whatever concoctions are being nuked by the students. As suggested by Sarah, I got my hands on “Organic Chemistry as a Second Language”, but fortunately haven’t needed to use the books for more than a reference. I mostly just have to memorize peaks and trends for the exams. psi*psi was quite right: "Studying doesn't help for labs – you have to be able to think on your feet, since the unexpected can and does happen."

So here’s a question. In a week’s experiment, only one student obtains the desired powder (instead of an oil), but the NMRs come out messy after the higher-ups fail to mention that the product is hygroscopic and shouldn’t be dried in air. Who did a better job?

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 08:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

Now that the small flurry of blogging on the ACS meeting has subsided, posting resumes!

Applications for schools/scholarships inevitably want you to discuss how participation in their programs would be beneficial to you, what makes you qualified, etc, etc... Sometimes I really wish they would be more specific and not ask vague, broad questions. For me, the answer can easily be summarized by one word: experience. Unfortunately, no matter how universally true the response, its length is by no means sufficient to create a proper statement.

It seems that all essays in the genre boil down to an inherently dry rehashing of past experience, present thoughts, and future plans. There seem to be few techniques to make the reading of personal statements interesting or even enjoyable*, aside from mentioning specific science, notably work you have done, to attract – hopefully – the interest of admissions staff. Another method would be to take a lighter tone and throw in some humor – however, that may well be unfavorable, considering that scientists should maintain a professional tone. (Or is that just my inexperience speaking?).

Anyone can read a [good] resume** and decipher a decent amount of a person’s abilities – why restate details in an essay and bore the readers? To those who are writing and have written a multitude of applications, what non-academic features did you include to single yourself out? To those reading the essays, what has made applicants stand out past their intellectual accomplishments?

P.S. - When a program claims to be “highly competitive”, what type of quantitative data can generally be assumed to support that statement?

*This is without considering college/undergraduate application essays, which run the gamut from horrendously employed grammar and monotone statements of extracurriculars, to whimsical stories of adventures and unique lessons learned. (Many moons ago, one of mine began with one time I caught an especially large and disgusting cockroach in a library’s restroom. But, for all I know, that one could’ve been the weakest of my essays).

**Therein lies the issue of how to write a succinct, informative resume...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 07:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

I’ll cut to the chase on this one. What are graduate schools and employers looking for the most? Where do they draw the line between the two general characteristics that lead to success – natural aptitude versus natural inclination to work hard? Some graduate programs guarantee admission for students with sufficiently high GPAs. However, a few letters on a transcript can only indicate a student’s true ability to a certain degree. It is an unfortunate truth that a mere handful of blips on the academic radar can tank a history of otherwise good marks.

It has been said that great concern over grades is useless, but it is impossible to never worry. Not all scholars are blessed with the genius chromosome that allows for effortless, perfect academic records. So where does that leave the rest of us poor mortals? Is it just luck in finding someone who wants us? As always, I wonder.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

Freshman year passed in [what is now] a blur. I mostly recall slaving over o-chem labs, studying relentlessly, and pondering a major in chemistry. Adaptation to university life was immediate and painless, apart from coping with the much heightened level of academics.

For instance, semi-brainless writing was an A+ in community college (during high school), while just scratching an A- at the university level. It went from simply using proper grammar and sounding vaguely intelligent, to really having to analyze and think things through to create new ideas. Science and math also seem to follow that route – going from primarily plug & chug on multiple-hour exams to 50 minutes of where-the-hell-did-this-come-from?!

So, returning from the tangent of academic discrepancies, I struggled during the first year of university, but never despaired for longer than a day. If anything, it was always o-chem causing stress...

Speaking of which, upper-division lab begins next quarter and I haven’t dealt with o-chem for over two years – it’s all been inorganic and physical since freshman year. My labwork has barely involved chemicals or spectroscopy, and even less of hot plates, TLC, separatory funnels*, etc... In essence, my doom is waiting around the corner and I’ll be re-studying like a madwoman. What do you consider the main tenets of o-chem book-knowledge and laboratory technique? What should I focus on?

*Granted, after hearing a good number of professors recount horror stories on the misuse of sep funnels, it’s hard to forget, say, shaking one without holding it closed. Still, it sounds terribly amusing to see someone else’s reaction propel a stopper across the room…

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

I don't know how it is for graduate students, but cheat sheets to me are an ironically great way to study. Over the course of several days, I review every inch of my notes and textbooks, then cover a sheet of paper with two or three columns of formulas and shorthand notes - all written with 0.5 mm lead in miniscule, typewriter-esque handwriting. However, after all that work and cramping of wrist, I essentially remember everything and hardly need the compacted notes.

Inevitably, 97% percent of whatever is on the page never shows up on the exam, and the 3% of material omitted or missed does. (In case it weren't apparent by the cynical undertone, I've lately had back-to-back midterms and have more in the next two weeks. Nothing gets the blood rushing like finishing an exam at 12:57 pm, then sprinting across campus to the next at 1 pm...) On the bright side, nothing beats really knowing that you have a strong grasp of material, even without the chance to prove it on exams. A few years down the road, an undergraduate GPA won’t be worth as much as knowledge. Ideally.

As for previous topics, I've decided to go for an internship, given the chance. From what I’ve gathered, extra time on a degree wouldn’t make a great difference, while experience would. Also, a few years in the workforce should take care of the extra debt relatively painlessly... It’d be a nice change from the previous summers of all classes and work, as well as an exciting opportunity to learn – especially because lately my assigned “labwork” has consisted of researching and editing proposals. (As much as more funding for our lab would be nice, I’d prefer to save that aspect of the “real world” for later.) So, I'm crossing my fingers and hoping someone wants me

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

You'd think that being on winter break for three weeks would provide not only holiday spirit, but also an ideal medium for productivity — catching up on blog entries, preemptively studying for physics, etc, etc. However, it seems that the mind automatically (and far too easily) switches from textbook chemistry to everyday chemistry. Notably, I spent countless hours creating “reactions” in the kitchen, as opposed to researching for my aerogel project or finding out how to use our dusty ellipsometer that everyone in lab seems to have forgotten how to operate...

In any case, I did manage — in the last three days of break — to start and finish the majority of my summer applications for undergraduate research. This suggests a recently evolved thought: Is it better to spend summers taking classes, thereby lowering the risk of becoming a fifth-year undergrad, or to continue with research, in order to gain experience and resume boosters? Concentrating solely on research, without the pressure of the regular school year, provides a superior medium for learning and productivity in lab. Nevertheless, graduating on time is ideal, and paying extra undergraduate tuition is hardly in my budget. It all depends on how those pesky once-a-year, required courses are scheduled, but who knows that far enough in advance?

On a similar note, is it more beneficial to spend extra time as an undergrad taking non-required but theoretically practical courses, or to finish the bare minimum quickly and learn what is missing as it comes in grad school and industry? What to do, what to do…

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

The fall quarter of my junior year is, at last, over! The last exam has been taken, and the last paper has been written last-minute and emailed in before the deadline. So far, so good, at least in terms of the final scores currently available online... Apart from the generic fact that they are exams, one major aspect of finals is particularly distressing: they generally count from 20 to 60% of overall class grades. We can slave away and perform magnificently for over ten weeks, then have everything come tumbling down in one fell swoop – all due to poor performance on a final. Granted, if we’ve done well before, we should be able to continue the trend into the last stretch of the term, but life’s anomalies can come around anytime.

However, what choice is there? Deep, individual conversations and telepathy aside, there is no fair way for professors to probe the minds of their students, and from there assign those fatal, permanent marks known as grades. So, everything comes full circle. It’s not always fair to those involved, but the system has been set and would be different – ideally – were there a better method.

The ultimate goal should be for us to learn the material presented and to prepare for the world outside our relatively safe and secure classrooms, regardless of grades. Perhaps more focus should be put on ensuring that professors have both the ability and drive to teach properly, before being let loose in the classroom. Selecting students worthy of good institutions is a whole other issue...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

...is a bad destination (but I'm headed there anyway)!

What is it about human nature that makes a majority of us do whatever we're not supposed to be doing, at a given point in time? For example, it's past 2 am and I'm supposed to be studying for finals - not writing this blog entry, checking email, pondering my class schedule for next quarter, cleaning the room, and writing Christmas cards, while only glancing at the lecture notes stacked on my desk.

Granted, I would have to do errands eventually, and many of us work best under pressure. However, there comes a time to choose which path is more reasonable. I have yet to decide. Or, it's just the devil on my shoulder telling me that I can study tomorrow, and to go to bed instead...

(posted on behalf of Materials Girl)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

I never had chemistry, biology, or magic sets growing up, but still ended up aspiring to work in the field of science. Before the specific concept of "maxillofacial surgeon" was coherent to a 7-year-old, my calling in life was to perform surgery of some sort. Dissecting a myriad of formaldehyde-infused specimens in high school reinforced this idea (horrible fun, literally).

Then, the realities of med school – or horrors, if you will – became apparent, along with the recognition that mild squeamishness and fear of causing damage are characteristics that hardly behoove a surgeon. I realized that extreme mental strain is only justified for a passion (or a necessity, such as certain GE classes) – a category that medical school did not fall into, despite a potentially lucrative career on the far-off horizon.

So, I suppose this suggests the question that many of us have mused over: Why am I a chemist (or a materials engineer)? It’s generally safe to say that the motivation is not money, hours of writing proposals, the “thrill” of sitting around lab waiting for a reaction to complete, needing to redo that 57-step process, or whatever else plagues the followers of chemistry. A genuine thrill does exist, however. Why else would we subject ourselves to something that the general public may react poorly to? (“I abhorred high school chemistry and never took it again!”, “Is ‘mat sci’ mathematical sciences?”, “I could never work in a smelly lab all day!”, etc...)

Currently, as a lowly chemist in the making, my thrills primarily lie with the daily influx/deluge of information. In the future, I hope to turn that knowledge into innovative discoveries, or to pass it along to other generations to do the same. More recently, since becoming more aware of the publishing world, I’ve also pondered whether being an editor for a scientific journal would be a satisfying career choice. There are many options, but I’m not sure yet where my current path will take me.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

These are 'stolen' from a good friend of mine who proves that chemists can be witty, too! My Facebook page - yes, that infernal, horrendous, time-wasting network - is well-stocked with his quotes. The second limerick is probably the best I've ever read.

--

There once was a fellow from Stowles
Who bred cockroaches, rabbits, and voles
Asked how he could keep track
Of this prolific pack
He replied "I just count them in moles."

--

A Chemist, gone mad with distraction
Hurled into the sea his reaction.
To atone for this loss
He was made by his boss
To recover it via extraction.

--

Can anyone out there do any better?

[Editor's note: first it was haiku... now limericks, what next?!!]

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

***This is the final part of a three-post series

Being a chemist is not the only thing that evokes an "Oh!” or “Wow..." response – so does being an upperclassman still living in the dorms. We are swamped with freshmen and sophomores, and it has become an internal game for me to single out the new students. They tend to be more talkative and wide-eyed, not to mention garbed in trendy, clique-d, or "fashionable" attire from high school. Perhaps it is imagination, but they also seem to have an aura of being lost.

Still, it is not my place to consider myself much better those younger students, even if I never had problems with drastic change and separation anxiety. In a fleeting two years, my graduating class has progressed from being in their place, and in another two some of us will be there again. Like the current undergrad "noobs"*, I will have to find my place in a new, graduate circle and attempt to find out what to do with myself in the academic world. Ultimately, we all leave the stressful, but relatively safe, bubble of academia and plunge headlong into a new career.

How did you start, through what have you progressed, and to where are you heading?

*Internet lingo for a newcomer. From "newbie" to "newb" to "noob". :)

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl

***This is part two of a three-post series

The first day of classes also provides a form of benevolent entertainment. Specifically, spotting students anxiously studying maps and shiny new class planners, as they scurry across the campus' many acres. (After one quarter, I gave up on remembering to use a planner; instead, scheduling is primarily accomplished via phone and numerous Post-It notes. I've also discovered that getting lost on foot is easier than it seems).

Each term of each year in university has had its own challenges, as well as its unappreciated perks – mostly in the form of good professors. Unappreciated is the word, because undergrads typically just recognize that "those guys" are good teachers – or complain about the difficulty of their classes and the resulting loss of sleep. Rarely do they know that some of these individuals not only teach, but also run extensive research groups, publish groundbreaking scientific papers, and write for journals such as Science and Nature.

We take the knowledge and brilliance of many people for granted. (Those eccentric, strange-smelling professors roaming campus with disheveled clothing and starry expressions may not be quite as batty as they seem...). How often do others misjudge us? All that matters is that we strive to meet and rise above any high expectations that are set for our lowly, human selves...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

***This is the first part of a three-post series

Less than two weeks ago, organized chaos descended on campus as 9,000 undergraduates relocated from their homes to the dormitories. Those of us who volunteered as Move-In Assistants (MIAs) came early in exchange for “slave labor”, providing a smooth transition for the incoming hordes by decorating, hauling, directing, etc.

An MIA's duties include giving shuttle tours for incoming families. This includes an inquiry of the incoming students' majors, which inevitably results in a nervous, energetic chorus of "Undeclared!", "Psychology!" or "English!" The mood is occasionally lifted by a dour proclamation of the intent to enter engineering, or even pre-med. Alas, it seems that the breed of chemists here is dying out in the wake of humanities, engineering, and – horrors – biochemistry!*

Stating my own major tends to draw blank expressions – we may as well be aliens from the planet Tetraphenylcyclopentadienone.** Freshmen, especially, seem to hold in awe anyone who studies any branch of chemistry, and others haven't a clue what materials science engineering even is.

Having not attended school in the traditional fashion, I am at a loss to guess why there exists a relatively small number of chemistry applicants arriving from high school. What are they teaching before university? Have the ranks of chemists always seemed few? Hopefully, that is just the case at this one California school, and the land of chemists thrives elsewhere...

*Seriously, they are all wonderful, but the ratio of biochemists and chemists is approximately 3:1 and feels like 100:1 – even less with materials chemists. The all-knowing *cough* Facebook search at my school lists a mere 13 Chem/Mat-Sci majors, two-thirds of which are grad students.

**C₂₉H₂₀O, because that was the first interesting compound I synthesized during freshmen year. (Nothing soothed my nerves more than seeing fine, beautiful, dark purple crystals appear out of an unfathomably dark solution). Plus, the name is just cool. Say "tetraphenylcyclopentadienone" ten times fast.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

Murphy’s Law, although highly applicable to the realm of chemistry, is demonstrated in all areas of life. Consider the [anticipated] tardiness of this post, attributed to my being away camping...

I had printed a stack of articles to study in relation to an upcoming post, much to the chagrin of my brother who protested his laser printer being in use for half an hour. However, being out in nature generally distracts one from reading about nature – “The Absorption of Water by Gelatin” would more accurately have been “The Absorption of Swamp by [my] Shoes”. That, however, is hardly an example of Murphy’s Law. The real irony was when people packed for the 110 degree Fahrenheit temperature at home, only to be met on the mountain with alternating heat and cold torrential rain. Fortunately, nature, Nature, and flash flood warnings are all exciting in their own way, so it wasn’t all that bad. Also, anything can remind me of chemistry, even something as trivial as pondering the dirt to water ratio in the various slurries of mud and grime covering the campsite. Once back in lab, I am likely to again start seeing things in terms of polarity, precipitates, and solvents...

The rain has begun in earnest again, and my pen is smudging over the notebook I am scribbling in. I shall type this up after getting home… Tell me your chemical stories involving Murphy’s Law, and perhaps how to avoid such occurrences – comments are wonderful.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

1. Ah, physicists. Ampere! Faraday! Biot and Savant! All undoubtedly brilliant, but to what extent are chemists required to know the laws so named after those individuals? I jokingly asked a physics-inclined friend to take a midterm on my behalf, and was answered with a resounding, “I don’t remember that magnetic crap” (Eloquent, that boy...)

Physics is indisputably my worst subject. Words such as “torque”, “flux”, and “vector field” fill me with dread, while classes in other fields have caused no major crises. Although the concepts in physics are simple enough, I rarely seem to derive solutions without help. (Interestingly, my Science of Engineering Materials course was very physics tuned, but caused few difficulties). I have yet to take physical chemistry, and am deeply alarmed by my inability to conquer physics-based problem-solving – an impediment that has not been rectified with extra tutelage and homework...

To the more experienced, have you had notable problems with physics, or any other prerequisite classes to chemistry? What did you do?

2. People have labeled me insane for taking summer classes, but it is a necessity if I am to graduate in four years. On the other side, what occupies a typical graduate student during the summer? Taking classes? Researching new projects? Procrastinating on writing theses? Sleeping and relaxing? Same old, same old?

3. As far as mathematics goes, I recently finished my last final in that field: differential equations! Great class – nothing beats interesting material taught by an articulate teacher with a sense of humor.

Quoting my professor, while he was demonstrating a problem: “Oooh, I forgot t’s.” After observing multiple blackboards covered with matrices in power series expansion: “Let’s just erase it in 'e to the At' here [near the beginning]. That’s better. It still works!” If only chemistry problems could be so easily rectified! “Oh, there’s a methyl missing in my product and all the previous steps – let’s just change the initial reactants and erase a bond over here...” Or, as my favorite o-chem prof always reiterated during exams, “You may NOT put five bonds on carbon!!”

Another question. How often do differential equations present themselves in higher level chemistry? According to the chemistry catalogue, only quantum mechanics includes DEs as a prerequisite. Hmm...

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 05:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

Inspired by Mushy's recent post, as well as classes with presentations that put students to sleep... PowerPoint does not (necessarily) equal lecture!

Well, at least from the perspective of a professor communicating to students. Staring at slides, no matter how well-made, has never allowed material to absorb into my brain as well as the traditional ‘chalk-talk’. Technology allows for the creation of wonderful things, but even the effectiveness of the best, most beautiful slide pales in comparison to a blackboard under the spell of an eloquent, but chalky, professor.

For scientific presentations in general, audiences are not likely expected to explicitly learn the material and to be tested in the horrifyingly near future. Hence, I presume that slides are (typically) superior in those situations - especially if made following Mushy’s guidelines.

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 04:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's note: another guest blogger has joined our team...]

-------------

Posted on behalf of Materials Girl:

Writing here makes me feel like a freshman all over again. Only, this time, I’m rather giddy with excitement. (My actual first-year experience involved enjoying the change in scenery, staying cool, and “just chillin” – despite getting lost at 7 am in the maze of dusky hallways that constitute the math building, all on my first day of class). However, I digress - a frequent occurrence in my case. The downfall of an active mind is a proclivity for becoming distracted, notably with what I’m not actually supposed to be doing... At the moment, the word “homework” seems to be flashing in the back of my mind in blinding red font.

So, why am I writing on a chemistry-related blog? The title should explain enough... References to Madonna notwithstanding, “Materials Girl” describes who I am in the academic community: a 3rd-year undergraduate female majoring in chemistry/materials science, with an organic concentration.* Any ramblings here will chronicle my random thoughts in relation to chemistry, “however tenuous”, in my passage through all things chemistry, the education system, and beyond.

Where does the journey begin? More precisely, which parts matter? In high school/community college, I learned to play with Bunsen burners, mix pretty-colored chemical solutions, and overall skate my way through chem with A’s. “Real university” o-chem began the wakeup call (and the descent of my precious GPA). However, I stayed afloat and gradually learned to balance a love/hate relationship with the subject I’d begun studying by default: chemistry! Second year, fall quarter, I unsuspectingly enrolled in an adjunct seminar to my inorganic chemistry course.* From that, I become entranced in “It’s a Materials World”, and discovered that learning about the practical application of materials intrigued me more than other branches of chemistry. On the basis of a particularly good lecture, I impulsively petitioned to shift majors from pure chemistry to chemistry/materials science.

I have yet to regret that choice (notably since I no longer am required to take ANY biochem – some of the most dreaded courses ever taken by those outside the major*)... Granted, I haven’t reached the heaviest classes of my new major yet, but any difficulties in material should be overruled by the joy of learning, right? We shall see how everything fares, especially with the upcoming fall quarter.*

So many thoughts, so little space and time! It’s long past midnight and my summer classes’ homework calls.* Before stopping myself from babbling off again, I would like to thank the editors of the Sceptical Chymist for offering me what my older brother calls “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, especially for a mere undergrad.” (As if he isn’t “merely” an undergraduate at Caltech). It is with greatest anticipation and honor that I make my first post.

*more on that in a later post

Posted by Stuart Cantrill at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)