Given the big push towards e-books where I work, I was interested to read some stories linked in a post at Stephen's Lighthouse suggesting that students (at least undergraduates--the posts don't specifically address medical, dental or public health students) don't actually like them very much.
It seems that they're too hard to take notes in (I can see that--I never wrote in my textbooks, but I know a lot of people like to annotate and find it helpful for learning), bookmark, and just generally refer to as one likes to refer to textbooks in the course of a class.
But they're so very space-save-y! And time-save-y since you don't have to physically come in and find them or check them out! Come on, students, you know you love them.
Love them! Love them as much as we do!
Actually, we ourselves feel a range of complex emotions regarding e-books. But this isn't about us.
It's about you, students, and whether or not you're actually going to use these things, so that we'll know whether or not we should keep on buying them for you.
So, in fact, it is about us, and our ever-tightening budgets.
Speaking from my workplace, we're hoping to get some better usage statistics in future, as the collection skews more electronic, to help us decide whether or not it's really the way to go. From talking to students, I get the impression that they sort of like the idea of having lots of textbooks available online, but I'm not sure they actually use them all that often.
One major hold-up, obviously, is that we need to get the right books online. Our students seem to tend (as most students, I expect) to read what they need to read for class, or what they're looking at for a specific project, and if something's not assigned, odds are it's not going to get a whole lot of use.
And if the text that's assigned in a class isn't available online, or is available only for individual rather than institutional use, then that's one class whose members are not going to enjoy the convenience of e-books, however much we enthuse about them.
We're sort of assuming that eventually everything will be available as an e-book, but that's some years down the line. If it develops that students genuinely dislike e-books, it may be even more years down the line than anticipated. (Although at some point if schools start saying "look, this is the only format we have, so like it or lump it, you fresh-faced dinosaurs," what are students really going to do? Not that I'm advocating this, given the range of complex emotions I myself feel with regard to e-books.)
.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Gettin' Around
It has gotten quite warm here in Massachusetts in the past few weeks, and I've had enough.
Next week, I'm going to Texas.
I'm not going to the Gulf, so I won't see the oil washing up, but I'll be using lots of fossil fuel along the way, doing my part to demonstrate why we need that oil so desperately badly. Just another person on another day, guzzling down precious oil in the form of travel, power, clever plastic gadgets, tasty and entertaining things shipped from thousands of miles away.
We can't give that up! Seriously, there's no way.
We are so doomed.
But in the meantime, I'm going to Texas to see my sister and my nieces and get out of the humidity for a few days.
.
Next week, I'm going to Texas.
I'm not going to the Gulf, so I won't see the oil washing up, but I'll be using lots of fossil fuel along the way, doing my part to demonstrate why we need that oil so desperately badly. Just another person on another day, guzzling down precious oil in the form of travel, power, clever plastic gadgets, tasty and entertaining things shipped from thousands of miles away.
We can't give that up! Seriously, there's no way.
We are so doomed.
But in the meantime, I'm going to Texas to see my sister and my nieces and get out of the humidity for a few days.
.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Events of the Day
Had to get up early to teach a class this morning. Evidence-Based Medicine resources for family medicine! It's awesome.
Then I came home a little early, and we went shopping and bought some cherries. They're expensive here, but I am fortunate to be able to afford to splurge on cherries, so I did.
It makes me remember roadside stands selling cherries for ridiculously low prices in the Flathead Valley in Montana. Fat yellow cherries, round red cherries, climbing up trees to collect handfuls of cherries.
Sitting in the grass under trees, eating cherries and throwing the pits into the grass.
Mmm...
Edited to add that we should not forget the small sour pie cherries that turned out to be full of tiny worms. This grossed us kids out, but the grown-ups blithely ate the resulting pie anyway, noting that grubs are full of protein.
I sometimes still think of this when I eat cherry pie, wondering if the cherries in the filling may have had tiny worms in them (the grubs were indistinguishable from the rest of the filling once the pie was baked, so one never knows).
I blithely eat the pie anyway.
What I don't know won't hurt me, and anyway, grubs are full of protein.
.
Then I came home a little early, and we went shopping and bought some cherries. They're expensive here, but I am fortunate to be able to afford to splurge on cherries, so I did.
It makes me remember roadside stands selling cherries for ridiculously low prices in the Flathead Valley in Montana. Fat yellow cherries, round red cherries, climbing up trees to collect handfuls of cherries.
Sitting in the grass under trees, eating cherries and throwing the pits into the grass.
Mmm...
Edited to add that we should not forget the small sour pie cherries that turned out to be full of tiny worms. This grossed us kids out, but the grown-ups blithely ate the resulting pie anyway, noting that grubs are full of protein.
I sometimes still think of this when I eat cherry pie, wondering if the cherries in the filling may have had tiny worms in them (the grubs were indistinguishable from the rest of the filling once the pie was baked, so one never knows).
I blithely eat the pie anyway.
What I don't know won't hurt me, and anyway, grubs are full of protein.
.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Keep it Un-Secret. Keep it Safe.
I was talking about the archives at work the other day, so history has been a bit on my mind, and I really like this post by s.e. smith at this ain't livin' called "I Believe in History."
Here's a lovely bit that speaks specifically to archives (as well as anyone who preserves records):
I like the point about how things that aren't particularly interesting now may be fascinating later--we really have no way of knowing what someone will want to see someday. Which is of course part of the eternal pressure of archives and libraries. You never know what someone will want, but you can't keep everything, so you have to make your best guess.
And, often, what people will eventually find fascinating, and what people will know, will be determined by what's been preserved and what is available to be known.
Let's say we don't know much about Ancient People X, because all we have of their culture is some pottery shards. We're really interested in those pottery shards because that's all we've got, and we've learned a lot based on those shards, but there's so much that we can't get from pottery and therefore will never know.
The past, out of record and memory, is unknowable, so in a sense it doesn't exist. At the same time, the past lives with us. Traces are everywhere from millions of people before us going about their lives. It's almost eerie, being able to get closer to them by looking at the traces first hand.
Respect the archives!
.
Here's a lovely bit that speaks specifically to archives (as well as anyone who preserves records):
And it made me realise the value of keeping and preserving records. Things that might not seem so important or interesting now could be fascinating later, as I’ve realised looking through subsequent original source documents relating to other historical events. You really do never know when or what might be relevant, how material might be used. And people who preserved things ensured that even if stories weren’t told at the time or official publications were incomplete, that the information was out there. It was available. For people who were willing to look for it and sift through it, it might provide an entirely new perspective that had not been considered before.
I like the point about how things that aren't particularly interesting now may be fascinating later--we really have no way of knowing what someone will want to see someday. Which is of course part of the eternal pressure of archives and libraries. You never know what someone will want, but you can't keep everything, so you have to make your best guess.
And, often, what people will eventually find fascinating, and what people will know, will be determined by what's been preserved and what is available to be known.
Let's say we don't know much about Ancient People X, because all we have of their culture is some pottery shards. We're really interested in those pottery shards because that's all we've got, and we've learned a lot based on those shards, but there's so much that we can't get from pottery and therefore will never know.
The past, out of record and memory, is unknowable, so in a sense it doesn't exist. At the same time, the past lives with us. Traces are everywhere from millions of people before us going about their lives. It's almost eerie, being able to get closer to them by looking at the traces first hand.
Respect the archives!
.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Meeting Up With Old Friends
I've decided to try to renew my old and longstanding, but lately lapsed, friendship with the public library.
One of the things about working in a medical library is that the collection contains very few items that I myself want to take home and read. And I miss reading.
A colleague pointed out that the Boston Public Library has a branch not far from work (duh--they have branches all over. Why did I never think of this? Laziness). So I'm going to try going there on lunch or on the way back to the train after work.
If I know in advance what I want to pick up, and go prepared with a call number (or have them hold it for me!), it shouldn't add more than, say 20 minutes.
I can surely devote 20 minutes once a week or so to nurture this important relationship. I would think.
We shall see.
.
One of the things about working in a medical library is that the collection contains very few items that I myself want to take home and read. And I miss reading.
A colleague pointed out that the Boston Public Library has a branch not far from work (duh--they have branches all over. Why did I never think of this? Laziness). So I'm going to try going there on lunch or on the way back to the train after work.
If I know in advance what I want to pick up, and go prepared with a call number (or have them hold it for me!), it shouldn't add more than, say 20 minutes.
I can surely devote 20 minutes once a week or so to nurture this important relationship. I would think.
We shall see.
.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Point Buy System: A Communist Plot?
One of the many things around which emotions tend to run high is character generation in role playing games. Say, Dungeons and Dragons.
One of the primary features here is that you have some stats, which are a series of attributes (for example, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), each with a number attached, where a high number is better.
And one of the primary things you do to start building a character is assign the numbers to those attributes. The attributes themselves are generally fixed--it's getting the numbers that makes things interesting. If you have a high number in Intelligence, and a low number in Strength, then your character will be better at think-y challenges than at punch-y challenges, so obviously the stats have a lot to say about what your character is like.
There are various ways to get numbers. The most old-fashioned and stern that I know of is to roll dice a number of times equal to the number of attributes and put the first number you get into the first attribute, the second into the second, etc.
You take what you get, and like it! Or, if you don't like it, you deal with it. (Whining is allowed.) Because it was good enough for your grandpappy, by gum. If your grandpappy played role playing games, and liked gum.
In this case, you pretty much have to make a character based on how the numbers come up. If you wanted to be a dashing sword fighter but have low strength and dexterity, you're basically out of luck. You'd better be a wizard instead, if you have a high intelligence. (Or you could always be an ineffective sword fighter. No one's ordering you to play to your strengths.)
This is, as noted, the sternest method I've used, and is also very random. You could get a lot of high numbers, or a lot of low ones, so you could easily have some characters in a game who are gifted in every attribute, and some who really don't excel at anything.
Another common method is to roll dice a number of times equal to the number of attributes, but to choose where you want to place each score. So if you wanted to be a dashing sword fighter, you could put your highest numbers in strength and dexterity to make sure you had a good chance at it.
This lets you customize your character, but it's still quite random, since you are just rolling dice. Being able to put your high number where you want it doesn't help much if your high number isn't very high.
And again you have the possibility that some characters will, simply through the roll of the dice, have much better stats than others. But hey, you take what you get and you work to make it playable and you like it! Because it was good enough for your pappy. Probably. If your pappy played role playing games, which I'm pretty sure mine didn't. Also, he doesn't like gum.
The point is, it's all about working with your luck: taking what fortune gives you and making something of it. The character is born from the whim of the dice and your own creativity! It's like magic!
If magic was made of shiny plastic dice, pencils, rule books, and imagination. Which it totally is.
And then there's the third common method: the point buy system. This method gives every player a certain number of "points" to spend on "buying" attribute scores (see where the name comes from?). Since everyone has the same number of points to start with, everyone has equally good (or bad) stats at the end.
This means that, unlike with dice, you won't have one character who excels at everything, and one who's no good at anything. Everyone will be able to be good at something, and no one will be good at everything. It's very equitable.
Hence, it must be a Communist plot. This whole "level playing field," "we must ensure that everyone has an equal chance to succeed," "accidents of birth (or dice rolling) should not determine fate"...very suspicious, right?
I do see the advantages of point buy, but there's something about rolling dice and waiting to see how the numbers come up that's just more exciting to me.
And sure, sometimes they all come up lousy, but those characters die quickly. It's natural selection at work!
.
One of the primary features here is that you have some stats, which are a series of attributes (for example, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), each with a number attached, where a high number is better.
And one of the primary things you do to start building a character is assign the numbers to those attributes. The attributes themselves are generally fixed--it's getting the numbers that makes things interesting. If you have a high number in Intelligence, and a low number in Strength, then your character will be better at think-y challenges than at punch-y challenges, so obviously the stats have a lot to say about what your character is like.
There are various ways to get numbers. The most old-fashioned and stern that I know of is to roll dice a number of times equal to the number of attributes and put the first number you get into the first attribute, the second into the second, etc.
You take what you get, and like it! Or, if you don't like it, you deal with it. (Whining is allowed.) Because it was good enough for your grandpappy, by gum. If your grandpappy played role playing games, and liked gum.
In this case, you pretty much have to make a character based on how the numbers come up. If you wanted to be a dashing sword fighter but have low strength and dexterity, you're basically out of luck. You'd better be a wizard instead, if you have a high intelligence. (Or you could always be an ineffective sword fighter. No one's ordering you to play to your strengths.)
This is, as noted, the sternest method I've used, and is also very random. You could get a lot of high numbers, or a lot of low ones, so you could easily have some characters in a game who are gifted in every attribute, and some who really don't excel at anything.
Another common method is to roll dice a number of times equal to the number of attributes, but to choose where you want to place each score. So if you wanted to be a dashing sword fighter, you could put your highest numbers in strength and dexterity to make sure you had a good chance at it.
This lets you customize your character, but it's still quite random, since you are just rolling dice. Being able to put your high number where you want it doesn't help much if your high number isn't very high.
And again you have the possibility that some characters will, simply through the roll of the dice, have much better stats than others. But hey, you take what you get and you work to make it playable and you like it! Because it was good enough for your pappy. Probably. If your pappy played role playing games, which I'm pretty sure mine didn't. Also, he doesn't like gum.
The point is, it's all about working with your luck: taking what fortune gives you and making something of it. The character is born from the whim of the dice and your own creativity! It's like magic!
If magic was made of shiny plastic dice, pencils, rule books, and imagination. Which it totally is.
And then there's the third common method: the point buy system. This method gives every player a certain number of "points" to spend on "buying" attribute scores (see where the name comes from?). Since everyone has the same number of points to start with, everyone has equally good (or bad) stats at the end.
This means that, unlike with dice, you won't have one character who excels at everything, and one who's no good at anything. Everyone will be able to be good at something, and no one will be good at everything. It's very equitable.
Hence, it must be a Communist plot. This whole "level playing field," "we must ensure that everyone has an equal chance to succeed," "accidents of birth (or dice rolling) should not determine fate"...very suspicious, right?
I do see the advantages of point buy, but there's something about rolling dice and waiting to see how the numbers come up that's just more exciting to me.
And sure, sometimes they all come up lousy, but those characters die quickly. It's natural selection at work!
.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Bring on the Towers!
MedlinePlus, via Twitter, reports that "Experts say living near a cell phone tower while pregnant doesn’t appear to raise your child’s cancer risk."
This is reassuring news if we were worried about radio frequency fields.
Strictly speaking, it's reassuring if we were worried about our children's exposure to radio frequency fields. It doesn't say anything about adults, other than that "health effects can take time to appear, and studies of cancers in adults might be more revealing."
However, based on this information I am going to continue not devoting significant portions of my attention to concerns about cell phone towers, which leaves plenty of mental energy available for more important things like Medical Subject Headings and killer robots.
.
This is reassuring news if we were worried about radio frequency fields.
Strictly speaking, it's reassuring if we were worried about our children's exposure to radio frequency fields. It doesn't say anything about adults, other than that "health effects can take time to appear, and studies of cancers in adults might be more revealing."
However, based on this information I am going to continue not devoting significant portions of my attention to concerns about cell phone towers, which leaves plenty of mental energy available for more important things like Medical Subject Headings and killer robots.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)