Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, recently made some comments about women in science at an academic conference. Allegedly, he said that women are discouraged from pursuing science because 1) they don't want to work 80 hour weeks and because 2) women are innately less inclined towards science and/or less able to do science. (Here I am using science as a generic term for math, physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, economics, etc.) There was supposedly a third reason, but it was not reported.
Since I am a woman scientist, I've decided to write my comments here. America is a nation of free speech and Larry Summers should have the right to voice his (unpopular) opinion especially in an academic venue that is closed from the public. If Summers had made the same speech in front of an audience that included adolescent girls, the critics would have a right to protest since these statements would have been damaging to a young girl's self-esteem. But that was not the case.
I don't completely agree with Summers' statements themselves (assuming they were accurately reported.) He seems to imply that genetics is more important a factor than social/environmental influences. In Asian culture, no one believes in talent, only in the value of hard work. Thus despite their minority status in America, Asians are very successful. I don't have any hard facts in front of me, but I think this is a fair statement. Everyone knows that talent has to be nourished for a person to realize his/her full potential. Behind every star pitcher is a legion of family, friends, and coaches. As for the 80 hour/week barrier, I agree that is a problem, but I don't know how significant it is compared to the genetic and social/environmental factors I just discussed.
It is unfortunate that no one has an actual transcript of the Summers speech. Harvard supposedly has a tape, but refuses to release it. Without knowing what Summers actually said, it's difficult to judge whether he was merely being academic or really being offensive.
24 January 2005
14 January 2005
Inspiration from young theorists
Nature (the scientific publication) has profiled four promising young theoretical physicists in honor of Einstein who published some of his most groundbreaking papers one hundred years ago. The physicists include a particle phenomenologist working on extra-large dimensions, a quantum information theorist working on error correction, a loop gravity physicist studying cosmology, and a condensed matter theorist studying exotic materials and quantum phase transitions.
09 January 2005
Another beautiful bit of writing
The great novelists of the Victorian age really know to write! For instance, take Charles Dickens' preface for David Copperfield:
"I remarked in the original Preface to this Book, that I did not find it easy to get sufficiently far away from it, in the first sensations of having finished it, to refer to it with the composure which this formal heading would seem to require. My interest in it was so recent and strong, and my mind was so divided between pleasure and regret-pleasure in the achievement of a long design, regret in the separation from many companions-that I was in danger of wearying the reader with personal confidences and private emotions.
Besides which, all that I could have said of the Story to any purpose, I had endeavoured to say in it.
It would concern the reader little, perhaps, to know how sorrowfully the pen is laid down at the close of a two-years' imaginative task; or how an Author feels as if he were dismissing some portion of himself into the shadowy world, when a crowd of the creatures of his brain are going from him for ever. Yet, I had nothing else to tell; unless, indeed, I were to confess (which might be of less moment still), that no one can ever believe this Narrative, in the reading, more than I believed it in the writing.
So true are these avowals at the present day, that I can now only take the reader into one confidence more. Of all my books, I like this the best. It will be easily believed that I am a fond parent to every child of my fancy, and that no one can ever love that family as dearly as I love them. But, like many fond parents, I have in my heart of hearts a favourite child. And his name is DAVID COPPERFIELD. 1869"
How do I learn to write like that? What happened to the English language? My guess is that as literacy became increasingly wide-spread, it became necessary to decrease the floweriness of prose to reach a wider audience -- not everyone can afford a university education. Too bad we can't bring back this style.
"I remarked in the original Preface to this Book, that I did not find it easy to get sufficiently far away from it, in the first sensations of having finished it, to refer to it with the composure which this formal heading would seem to require. My interest in it was so recent and strong, and my mind was so divided between pleasure and regret-pleasure in the achievement of a long design, regret in the separation from many companions-that I was in danger of wearying the reader with personal confidences and private emotions.
Besides which, all that I could have said of the Story to any purpose, I had endeavoured to say in it.
It would concern the reader little, perhaps, to know how sorrowfully the pen is laid down at the close of a two-years' imaginative task; or how an Author feels as if he were dismissing some portion of himself into the shadowy world, when a crowd of the creatures of his brain are going from him for ever. Yet, I had nothing else to tell; unless, indeed, I were to confess (which might be of less moment still), that no one can ever believe this Narrative, in the reading, more than I believed it in the writing.
So true are these avowals at the present day, that I can now only take the reader into one confidence more. Of all my books, I like this the best. It will be easily believed that I am a fond parent to every child of my fancy, and that no one can ever love that family as dearly as I love them. But, like many fond parents, I have in my heart of hearts a favourite child. And his name is DAVID COPPERFIELD. 1869"
How do I learn to write like that? What happened to the English language? My guess is that as literacy became increasingly wide-spread, it became necessary to decrease the floweriness of prose to reach a wider audience -- not everyone can afford a university education. Too bad we can't bring back this style.
08 January 2005
Book review/analysis: Middlemarch
I just finished reading George Eliot's Middlemarch (1871-1872). It's considered one of the best novels of the Victorian era and was originally published in serial form. I should mention that George Eliot was actually the pseudonym of an upper-middle class woman named Mary Ann Evans.
The novel is set in English countryside near a town called Middlemarch during the 1830s. Eliot centers the plot around three couples. The first couple is Rosamond Vincy, a manufacturing factory owner's daughter, and Tertius Lydgate, a young ambitious doctor. The second couple is Mary Garth, a land surveyor's daughter, and Fred Vincy, brother of Rosamond. The third couple is Dorothea Brooke, niece of a well-to-do landed gentleman, and Mr. Causabon, a clergyman and historical scholar. Their unhappy marriage is further nettled by the appearance of Causabon's cousin, Will Ladislaw.
The main thesis of Middlemarch might be summarized as "what happens when idealism and the real world clash." Idealism is represented by the characters of Dorothea and Lydgate. Dorothea, at the age of twenty, has already decided that she wants to spend her life doing good, specifically helping a great man do his great work. She has (almost comical) fantasies about reading to and ministering to the blind John Milton. Lydgate has the ambition of making breakthrough medical discoveries and has come to Middlemarch because he believes it will be easier to do his research away from the city. I won't give away the plot but both characters marry the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Instead of marriage being supportive of their goals, they find it to be a yoke. Being such selfless and honorable people, they give up their idealism and submit to the whims of their spouses. Neither Mary nor Fred are idealistic, but their relationship does succeed because Mary acts as the sensible, practical half to guide Fred, who becomes good to win Mary's hand in marriage. Fred's true love for Mary might be considered a form of idealism. So what is Eliot's message? She is advocating idealism tempered by practicality. Under the best circumstances, idealism will enable a person to become greater than him/herself. In the worst cases, idealism is completely crushed by harsh reality. Probably most idealists fall into the middle. They make mistakes and compromise, but eventually they do accomplish some good in the world. Eliot is telling these people to be brave and endure their trials because in the end, their efforts will pay off (see the second quote below).
A secondary theme in Middlemarch is class differences and social expectations. Many examples are sprinkeld throughout the novel. Rosamond's main aim is to secure an upper class husband with high connections so she can rise above the Middlemarch crowd. Thus Dr. Lydgate's noble connections (his uncle is a baronet) immediately attract her attention. Mrs. Vincy objects to her son Fred courting Mary because Mary's family has a lower social status than the Vincys. The irony is that Fred actually ends up happier than his sister Rosamond. Dorothea wants to do saintly good but is severely restricted by her gender and lack of education. It is no coincidence that Eliot chooses to set the novel during the 1830s when reform was a weighty topic in British politics.
Now I'll move on to stylistic comments. Eliot adopts the omniscient narrator method like all the novelists of the Victorian period. I imagine that some people find this style annoyingly didactic, but I rather enjoy the thoughtful commentary. It's nice to see what's going through each character's head. This method is particularly powerful during Rosamond and Dr. Lydgate's marital squabbles as Eliot jumps back and forth between their contrasting perspectives. Having read quite a few modern 20th century novels, it's refreshing not to having to guess the author's intentions. One minor complaint I have is that occasionally Eliot's narrations are overbearing. It is probably emphasized at least a dozen times that Mr. Causabon does not really love his wife and that Rosamond Vincy is a selfish brat. At one point, Eliot even goes into a long segway about why she's spending so much time discussing "low characters." She tells the reader (presumably upper-class folk) to treat it as a parable! Moreover, I occasionally had trouble following the wordy 19th century language.
The story itself is so intricate and finely woven together that it feels like a tapestry of provincial life. This unique feature separates this novel from the works of other Victorian writers I've read (Dickens, Hardy). Somehow Eliot manages to tie together the lives of a French-educated doctor, a manufacturing owner's family, a vicar, a rich banker, a surveyor's family, and landed gentry. By the end of the book, you feel like you know the whole town! No wonder Eliot subitled her novel "a study of provincial life."
I especially enjoyed Eliot's witty and eloquent descriptions. My favorite passages were at the beginning and end of the book. Here's an example (which appeared on a College English Literature AP Exam):
In summary, I highly recommend Middlemarch! I have but two reservations for the interested reader: 1) the book is over 900 pages long and 2) you must like idealistic epics told by a didactic narrator.
My motivation for reading the book came from watching the BBC dramatization (1994). After finishing the book, I found that the dramatization covered 95% of the book and only left out one major plot detail. The BBC production is vivid and moving; the acting is so convincing that you feel like you have lived in Middlemarch.
I would recommend reading the book (to get the finer details) and then watching the miniseries as a treat. If you find Eliot's narration overly verbose/moralistic or are short on time, the miniseries stands extremely well on its own.
The novel is set in English countryside near a town called Middlemarch during the 1830s. Eliot centers the plot around three couples. The first couple is Rosamond Vincy, a manufacturing factory owner's daughter, and Tertius Lydgate, a young ambitious doctor. The second couple is Mary Garth, a land surveyor's daughter, and Fred Vincy, brother of Rosamond. The third couple is Dorothea Brooke, niece of a well-to-do landed gentleman, and Mr. Causabon, a clergyman and historical scholar. Their unhappy marriage is further nettled by the appearance of Causabon's cousin, Will Ladislaw.
The main thesis of Middlemarch might be summarized as "what happens when idealism and the real world clash." Idealism is represented by the characters of Dorothea and Lydgate. Dorothea, at the age of twenty, has already decided that she wants to spend her life doing good, specifically helping a great man do his great work. She has (almost comical) fantasies about reading to and ministering to the blind John Milton. Lydgate has the ambition of making breakthrough medical discoveries and has come to Middlemarch because he believes it will be easier to do his research away from the city. I won't give away the plot but both characters marry the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Instead of marriage being supportive of their goals, they find it to be a yoke. Being such selfless and honorable people, they give up their idealism and submit to the whims of their spouses. Neither Mary nor Fred are idealistic, but their relationship does succeed because Mary acts as the sensible, practical half to guide Fred, who becomes good to win Mary's hand in marriage. Fred's true love for Mary might be considered a form of idealism. So what is Eliot's message? She is advocating idealism tempered by practicality. Under the best circumstances, idealism will enable a person to become greater than him/herself. In the worst cases, idealism is completely crushed by harsh reality. Probably most idealists fall into the middle. They make mistakes and compromise, but eventually they do accomplish some good in the world. Eliot is telling these people to be brave and endure their trials because in the end, their efforts will pay off (see the second quote below).
A secondary theme in Middlemarch is class differences and social expectations. Many examples are sprinkeld throughout the novel. Rosamond's main aim is to secure an upper class husband with high connections so she can rise above the Middlemarch crowd. Thus Dr. Lydgate's noble connections (his uncle is a baronet) immediately attract her attention. Mrs. Vincy objects to her son Fred courting Mary because Mary's family has a lower social status than the Vincys. The irony is that Fred actually ends up happier than his sister Rosamond. Dorothea wants to do saintly good but is severely restricted by her gender and lack of education. It is no coincidence that Eliot chooses to set the novel during the 1830s when reform was a weighty topic in British politics.
Now I'll move on to stylistic comments. Eliot adopts the omniscient narrator method like all the novelists of the Victorian period. I imagine that some people find this style annoyingly didactic, but I rather enjoy the thoughtful commentary. It's nice to see what's going through each character's head. This method is particularly powerful during Rosamond and Dr. Lydgate's marital squabbles as Eliot jumps back and forth between their contrasting perspectives. Having read quite a few modern 20th century novels, it's refreshing not to having to guess the author's intentions. One minor complaint I have is that occasionally Eliot's narrations are overbearing. It is probably emphasized at least a dozen times that Mr. Causabon does not really love his wife and that Rosamond Vincy is a selfish brat. At one point, Eliot even goes into a long segway about why she's spending so much time discussing "low characters." She tells the reader (presumably upper-class folk) to treat it as a parable! Moreover, I occasionally had trouble following the wordy 19th century language.
The story itself is so intricate and finely woven together that it feels like a tapestry of provincial life. This unique feature separates this novel from the works of other Victorian writers I've read (Dickens, Hardy). Somehow Eliot manages to tie together the lives of a French-educated doctor, a manufacturing owner's family, a vicar, a rich banker, a surveyor's family, and landed gentry. By the end of the book, you feel like you know the whole town! No wonder Eliot subitled her novel "a study of provincial life."
I especially enjoyed Eliot's witty and eloquent descriptions. My favorite passages were at the beginning and end of the book. Here's an example (which appeared on a College English Literature AP Exam):
Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress. Her hand and wrist were so finely formed that she could wear sleeves not less bare of style than those in which the Blessed Virgin appeared to Italian painters...A few years ago, I included this beautiful passage in our family Christmas newsletter following the September 11th tragedy:
For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.Supposedly one of our friends cried after reading it.
In summary, I highly recommend Middlemarch! I have but two reservations for the interested reader: 1) the book is over 900 pages long and 2) you must like idealistic epics told by a didactic narrator.
My motivation for reading the book came from watching the BBC dramatization (1994). After finishing the book, I found that the dramatization covered 95% of the book and only left out one major plot detail. The BBC production is vivid and moving; the acting is so convincing that you feel like you have lived in Middlemarch.
I would recommend reading the book (to get the finer details) and then watching the miniseries as a treat. If you find Eliot's narration overly verbose/moralistic or are short on time, the miniseries stands extremely well on its own.
06 January 2005
Politzer's Nobel Prize lecture and physics as a career
I've been away on vacation, but it's time to start blogging again.
This evening I found two intriguing links in the recent entries of Sean Carroll's blog.
First, there is a link to the text of H. David Politzer's Nobel Prize lecture (posted by Politzer himself on his webpage and not on the Nobel Prize site).
The lecture is essentially the story behind how Politzer made his discovery (jointly with David Gross and Frank Wilczek) and the later work that established the veracity of the result. Politzer makes an interesting comment about theoretical physics being a "parasitic profession" and emphasizes the fiscal limitations on further exploration of physics beyond the standard model; he claims that we would need $10^22 to study grand unification. The lecture itself is concise and well-written; my only complaint is the frequent appearance of jargon that I myself confess to not understanding.
Second, Sean Carroll links to an essay called "Don't Become a Scientist!" written by Jonathan Katz at Washington University. He writes of how there is a scarcity of jobs, no grants, poor pay, etc -- creating a situation so dismal that young people should not pursue a career in scientific academia. This is an issue that I believe most young scientists like myself are aware of, but so painful that we try to move it to the back of our minds. (Feigned) ignorance, after all, is bliss. Clearly many people don't listen to the advice of people like Katz, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem.
The more disturbing side of the issue (mentioned by Katz in the essay) I find is that the effort-payoff ratio may be so great that talented people are turned away. One of my undergraduate professors claimed that the talent pool he encounters in faculty job searches is much thinner than in the past. As an example, he pointed to Russia, the birthplace of many famous theoretical physicists (most notably Landau). He claimed that there are hardly any more talented theoretical physicists coming out of Russia because with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, bright young people have many other possibilities. I think there is general agreement among scientists that interest in physics has dropped off considerably in the last few decades due to the decrease in funding and the rise of life sciences (biology, neuroscience, etc.). In a recent American Physical Society newsletter, a physicist rightly pointed out that it is grossly misleading to tell women and minorities that they should do physics because there won't be enough people to fill job slots in the future. Yet this is a common argument advanced by many women science interest groups. Rather it should be the aim of all physicists to inspire the bright students to join the field. Somehow we need to both convince them that physics is worth doing and fix the system to improve the average physicist's quality of life. The former has a clear solution in K-12 science outreach programs and inspiring classroom teaching. I won't comment on the latter as I know very little of the burearcracy behind academia and grants.
This evening I found two intriguing links in the recent entries of Sean Carroll's blog.
First, there is a link to the text of H. David Politzer's Nobel Prize lecture (posted by Politzer himself on his webpage and not on the Nobel Prize site).
The lecture is essentially the story behind how Politzer made his discovery (jointly with David Gross and Frank Wilczek) and the later work that established the veracity of the result. Politzer makes an interesting comment about theoretical physics being a "parasitic profession" and emphasizes the fiscal limitations on further exploration of physics beyond the standard model; he claims that we would need $10^22 to study grand unification. The lecture itself is concise and well-written; my only complaint is the frequent appearance of jargon that I myself confess to not understanding.
Second, Sean Carroll links to an essay called "Don't Become a Scientist!" written by Jonathan Katz at Washington University. He writes of how there is a scarcity of jobs, no grants, poor pay, etc -- creating a situation so dismal that young people should not pursue a career in scientific academia. This is an issue that I believe most young scientists like myself are aware of, but so painful that we try to move it to the back of our minds. (Feigned) ignorance, after all, is bliss. Clearly many people don't listen to the advice of people like Katz, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem.
The more disturbing side of the issue (mentioned by Katz in the essay) I find is that the effort-payoff ratio may be so great that talented people are turned away. One of my undergraduate professors claimed that the talent pool he encounters in faculty job searches is much thinner than in the past. As an example, he pointed to Russia, the birthplace of many famous theoretical physicists (most notably Landau). He claimed that there are hardly any more talented theoretical physicists coming out of Russia because with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, bright young people have many other possibilities. I think there is general agreement among scientists that interest in physics has dropped off considerably in the last few decades due to the decrease in funding and the rise of life sciences (biology, neuroscience, etc.). In a recent American Physical Society newsletter, a physicist rightly pointed out that it is grossly misleading to tell women and minorities that they should do physics because there won't be enough people to fill job slots in the future. Yet this is a common argument advanced by many women science interest groups. Rather it should be the aim of all physicists to inspire the bright students to join the field. Somehow we need to both convince them that physics is worth doing and fix the system to improve the average physicist's quality of life. The former has a clear solution in K-12 science outreach programs and inspiring classroom teaching. I won't comment on the latter as I know very little of the burearcracy behind academia and grants.
19 December 2004
I have a dream...
One of my favorite pastimes is ice skating. This evening, I was thinking that I should skate in as many cities as possible. So far the list is:
- Boston, MA
- Cupertino, CA
- New Haven, CT
- San Jose, CA
I was thinking of trying Rockefeller Center in New York City next. Judging by the crowds I saw today, I should go early in the morning on a weekday for maximum enjoyment.
My ultimate dream is to skate on the frozen-over Netherland canals. Unfortunately, the last freezing over was in 1997. But when it does happen, you can skate for kilometers on end. For more information about ice skating in the Netherlands, check out these links from Travel Intelligence Co. and the Holland Ring.
10 December 2004
News flash!
David Gross, David Politzer, and Frank Wilczek were formally awarded their Nobel Prizes in physics this week.
The Nobel prize website has links to their lectures. I haven't had time to watch them yet, but I'll report back when I do. There are videos of David Gross's and Frank Wilczek's talks. David Politzer (apparently a recluse) has chosen not to have the video of his lecture available to the public, but the title of his talk is provocative: "The Dilemma of Attribution." Earlier this year, in a bizarre turn of events, Politzer chose not to attend his own press conference for the Nobel Prize. I learned from a former collaborater of Politzer that the man has only published two papers in the last decade. Strange.
On a humorous note, check out R. Shankar's physics standup comedy. Some highlights:
- "At that rate, Bill Gates could buy 450 pounds of Evander Holyfield's ear."
- "Yo mama's so massive I could use her as an ultraviolet cutoff."
- The origin of Puff Daddy's rap moves
- The Shankar duality between W theory and M theory
The Nobel prize website has links to their lectures. I haven't had time to watch them yet, but I'll report back when I do. There are videos of David Gross's and Frank Wilczek's talks. David Politzer (apparently a recluse) has chosen not to have the video of his lecture available to the public, but the title of his talk is provocative: "The Dilemma of Attribution." Earlier this year, in a bizarre turn of events, Politzer chose not to attend his own press conference for the Nobel Prize. I learned from a former collaborater of Politzer that the man has only published two papers in the last decade. Strange.
On a humorous note, check out R. Shankar's physics standup comedy. Some highlights:
- "At that rate, Bill Gates could buy 450 pounds of Evander Holyfield's ear."
- "Yo mama's so massive I could use her as an ultraviolet cutoff."
- The origin of Puff Daddy's rap moves
- The Shankar duality between W theory and M theory
Movie review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
First, the Netflix summary:
----
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Jim Carrey stars as Joel in this offbeat romantic comedy about a guy who opts for a procedure in which memories of his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), are erased after he discovers she's opted for the surgery, too. But as his doctor (Tom Wilkinson) begins to wipe out traces of Clementine, Joel decides he doesn't want to lose what's left of their relationship, so he squirrels away the memories he wants to keep somewhere else in his brain.
----
The film's title is taken from a quote by Alexander Pope:
Stylistically, the movie has many flashbacks and stream-of-consciousness moments, from Joel's point of view. The nonlinearity of time makes for an entertaining mind trip (though not as crazy as Memento). Also, there is some weirdness -- technicians running around in their underwear while erasing a man's memory.
Overall, a very unique and fun movie. Thumbs up.
----
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Jim Carrey stars as Joel in this offbeat romantic comedy about a guy who opts for a procedure in which memories of his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), are erased after he discovers she's opted for the surgery, too. But as his doctor (Tom Wilkinson) begins to wipe out traces of Clementine, Joel decides he doesn't want to lose what's left of their relationship, so he squirrels away the memories he wants to keep somewhere else in his brain.
----
The film's title is taken from a quote by Alexander Pope:
How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd.This movie is founded on an intriguing premise -- what if you could erase your most disturbing, painful memories? [Ironically, I was once in a research group meeting where a professor said he wished he could erase the memories he had of his mother. I responded that you can't selectively delete memories. As a counterpoint, I pointed out that he wouldn't want to lose the memories of his two-year old daughter.] Returning to the subject at hand, the movie seems to say that even if one could selectively erase memories, one could not really escape life's problems. Joel and Clementine are an unhappy couple. Their relationship is hanging by shreds. They have their memories of each other blanked. Yet the next day, they end up meeting and hooking up -- purely by chance. Or is it really chance? We're attracted to certain people for certain reasons and cleaning the slate does not change our predispositions. I'm certainly not an advocate of this extreme form of therapy. Painful memories teach good lessons (most of the time). As some famous philospher said, you can't know happiness without sadness.
Stylistically, the movie has many flashbacks and stream-of-consciousness moments, from Joel's point of view. The nonlinearity of time makes for an entertaining mind trip (though not as crazy as Memento). Also, there is some weirdness -- technicians running around in their underwear while erasing a man's memory.
Overall, a very unique and fun movie. Thumbs up.
08 December 2004
Wordsmithing
According to the New York Times, corporate America doesn't know how to write.
I'm not sure how much poor writing skills plague science, but my master's thesis advisor used to repeatedly praise my writing. I don't believe my words are particularly incisive or eloquent, so if my writing is truly the gold standard, I don't really want to see bad scientific prose. Fortunately, I've been lucky to work with students and researchers who are good writers, so I haven't had to face the music yet.
What does it take to be a good writer? From my experience, the first thing is to "omit needless words!" as Strunk exclaims in his famous manual on style. Another piece of advice is not to be sloppy. Don't drop punctuation or capitalize words that are not supposed to be capitalized. Third, use your common sense. Once you know the basic rules of grammar and sentence structure, you will come across situations where the punctuation may be ambiguous. For example, a common problem is whether to put a comma after/before a clause. The best way to decide is to read the sentence out loud and only insert a comma if there is a pause in the speech. Finally, make sure there is a logical flow to the prose. There's nothing worse than a paper that reads like bullet points.
After that, writing is very audience dependent. I avoid using "big words" in scientific writing because the reader is likely to be a foreigner. Also, prose that is quite passable among scientists often looks sophomoric to sophisticated humanities professionals (at least in my experience.) Of course that doesn't mean that people in the humanities always write better, but on the average, humanities graduate students are much better writers. Scientists only do technical writing for the most part which is formulaic and restrictive. For instance, I can't use "big words" in scientific writing because it would be difficult for a non-native reader to understand.
The majority of my recent writing has been scientific with the benefit that my writing has become more clear and logical. Unfortunately, I feel that I'm losing my vocabulary and literary eloquence compared to my high school days. I suppose I should try my hand at writing some short stories or beautific descriptions in my blog entries. And take some time out of my day to read classy literature. It's like watching British movies and shortly afterwards realizing that your brain is thinking in a British accent.
I'm not sure how much poor writing skills plague science, but my master's thesis advisor used to repeatedly praise my writing. I don't believe my words are particularly incisive or eloquent, so if my writing is truly the gold standard, I don't really want to see bad scientific prose. Fortunately, I've been lucky to work with students and researchers who are good writers, so I haven't had to face the music yet.
What does it take to be a good writer? From my experience, the first thing is to "omit needless words!" as Strunk exclaims in his famous manual on style. Another piece of advice is not to be sloppy. Don't drop punctuation or capitalize words that are not supposed to be capitalized. Third, use your common sense. Once you know the basic rules of grammar and sentence structure, you will come across situations where the punctuation may be ambiguous. For example, a common problem is whether to put a comma after/before a clause. The best way to decide is to read the sentence out loud and only insert a comma if there is a pause in the speech. Finally, make sure there is a logical flow to the prose. There's nothing worse than a paper that reads like bullet points.
After that, writing is very audience dependent. I avoid using "big words" in scientific writing because the reader is likely to be a foreigner. Also, prose that is quite passable among scientists often looks sophomoric to sophisticated humanities professionals (at least in my experience.) Of course that doesn't mean that people in the humanities always write better, but on the average, humanities graduate students are much better writers. Scientists only do technical writing for the most part which is formulaic and restrictive. For instance, I can't use "big words" in scientific writing because it would be difficult for a non-native reader to understand.
The majority of my recent writing has been scientific with the benefit that my writing has become more clear and logical. Unfortunately, I feel that I'm losing my vocabulary and literary eloquence compared to my high school days. I suppose I should try my hand at writing some short stories or beautific descriptions in my blog entries. And take some time out of my day to read classy literature. It's like watching British movies and shortly afterwards realizing that your brain is thinking in a British accent.
07 December 2004
What number are you?
I found a survey from Ms. Allyism's blog. Here's my result. I don't see what the number has to do with anything. I suppose it's just a label for a category.
You Are the Reformer |
1 You're a responsible person - with a clear sense of right and wrong. High standards are important to you, and you do everything to meet them. You are your own worst critic, feeling ashamed if you're not perfect. You have the highest integrity, and people expect you to be fair. |
Gee, the description makes me sound like this guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)