To be straight, I'm beating myself up about getting 80 on a genetics midterm, when my current GPA is about 3.96.
But in reality, it COUNTS. NSERC looks at your grades (I've failed to get NSERC for the summer 2 years in a row because the cutoff is 3.98). Grad schools look at your grades. Unfortunately, a very small percentage of your final mark is based on assignments, (which I typically rock at). My physics lab partner and I were trying to explain this to another student in our class who was teasing us about striving for A+ on our reports. My TA loves me because I actually RESEARCHED why our spectral lines for helium were systematically off in the latest report. (I determined that our diffraction grating was probably not perpendicular to the incoming light from the collimator by approximately 0.3 degrees, WITH REFERENCES and DIAGRAMS to show how the change in angle could effectively reduce the collimator "d" value.. she says NOBODY does that kind of work in "Physics for Dummies" - the version of physics for non-physics majors.).
Right now, I am pulling a steady "80" in genetics exams, even though I'm pulling 95-96 on assignments and explaining to my classmates how to calculate recombination frequencies and ensure that they've got the genes in the right order. I'm DOWN with tetrad analysis. And I feel like I really GET it. But multiple-choice take me out. All it takes is 3 or 4 wrong answers, and I'm out of the A+ range, but I typically score highly in the short and long-answer questions. Ironically, it doesn't seem to matter if there are 50 M/C or 30 M/C, I seem to always get 2-4 wrong. (I wish they'd either make them worth less, or put more in)
The grand irony, is that I'm rocking physics. I got 100% on my last lab, and I have nothing less than a 94% in labs. I'm hovering around an 89% in the lecture portion.
Until recently, any course involving a lot of math killed me because my skills were so rusty. But now I really feel like my math skills have improved significantly. Today, in the final physics lab, a student came up to me and said, "The TA told us to come talk to you, if you are willing, to explain what we might put in our discussion about why the thermocouple results for temperature based on our calibration are inconsistent with the standard calibration curve." I smiled. We were done well ahead of everyone else. I had time. I tried not to give him everything, so I asked questions.... "How many measurements did you take during the calibration? What was the range of temperature? Can a linear curve approximate a quadratic curve? (He said, "No") I said, "Yes, it can, but only for small ranges of the curve. Think about it. Right? What was the temperature of the CO2 slurry? Was it within the range of your calibration? What substance temperatures could you have measured that would have given you CONSISTENT results?". I could tell when the light bulb came on....
He finally GOT it. I GET it - when it comes to doing real experiments and real work.
In fact, on the pre-lab quiz for Ray Optics, I solved a question that none of my classmate friends could. (Of COURSE I shared the solution, with Brian chiding me... "You are RAISING the class average. You shouldn't DO that." But I can't help it. It's the "hippie" in me (as Kyle calls it) that makes me think that karmically it's better for all to SHARE knowledge than to horde it.)
What bugs me about physics and chem, is that it's the math that took me down initially, and yet, in highschool, mathematics was my BEST subject. Even 10 years later when I went back and took calculus, I still got the best mark in the class, beating out 18-yr-olds who HAD calculus in high school the year before (I only took honour's Algebra in HS). But when you count on computers to do it for you for 30 years, you lose the mental skill and agility for mathematics and especially algebra. It's taken me 2 years of work to get it back to something reasonable. I can now look at an equation, know how to invert it and move the unknown to one side to solve, without actually writing anything down. I know, it's really basic, but I see that as a major accomplishment. I can even solve for an unknown in a fractional exponential of "e". Even my TRIG is coming back now.
Of course the big thing in biology labs (and neuroscience) is dilutions. You have a 10% solution. You need 30 mL of a solution containing 0.2% of the substance. How much do you put in of the dilutant vs the original solution? Or, you have an antibody solution that is pure (1g/ul). You need 100ul of an 800,000:1 dilution. The smallest pipette only goes to 1ul. What serial dilutions are required to produce the correct 100ul solution minimizing the use of the (very expensive) antibody?
Ironically, I have ALWAYS understood the theory in all my science classes very well. Just before the chemistry final last year, I was explaining crystal field splitting theory and electron orbitals to people who DIDN'T GET IT until that very moment that I explained it in terms they could understand (RIGHT BEFORE THE FINAL). I'm SURE they did better on the exam than I did. Why? Because I SUCK at memorizing equations. That''s why I do SO much better at physics - they give us an EQ sheet. And let's face it - that's SO much more "real world'. On WHAT planet would you do IMPORTANT complex calculations, pulling equations FROM MEMORY for real world applications and have NO TIME to check your answers? None. Unless some kind of EMP bomb has gone off and all the computers are dead (or SKYNET has taken over the world networks), OR, you are up in a space shuttle and all 7 backup computer systems died. (Given that the shuttle program is dead, I have no risk of becoming a shuttle astronaut, so I think it's safe to assume that if I need an algorithm, I can find it on a computer or network at some point).
Like chemistry, before the genetics midterm, I was explaining simple techniques to ensure that you had the gene order right in a series of 3 linked genes (I have a simple technique that ensures you have placed the genes in the right order before you start calculating recombination frequencies.), and how to do Tetrad analyisis. Yet people I know who have LESS real understanding than I do, did better on the exam. (even someone who had the genes OUT OF ORDER did better) *sigh*.
Like I said, I SUCK at traditional exams. (I don't always get over 90, and only ONCE have gotten 100%)) But am not humble in admitting I rock at researching, solving problems and proposing interesting alternatives for potential solutions. I hope that's what counts when it comes to getting into graduate school. Because where I excel is at solving problems where there ISN'T a pat answer or known solution, or a memorized "right answer". I rock at problem solving because I am tenacious at researching everything that I can find about the problem, and even branching out to things that may not SEEM to be immediately related, but ultimately may be. I also have this huge body of experience that sometimes results in seemingly intuitive leaps of logic. (It's not intuition - it's my subconscious putting all the disparate pieces together). In the software world, when presented with a particularly tough problem, I would often say, "I need to go and cogitate on that for a while." I had one really good boss, who GOT it, and said, "I know. It means that you will go away, NOT really directly think about it, but let it percolate, and you will come back with a solution in a few days, regardless." Yep. That's about it.
I also hold strongly to the tenet that if you absolutely, and completely believe that you are RIGHT, your mind is NOT OPEN to the possibilities that there might be other answers, and that can lead to missing really important insights.
Sadly, no courses I have taken thus far, test those kinds of skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment