Was blind, but now I see… May 6, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, research, papers.Tags: papers, peer review, double blind, single blind
3 comments
I was recently asked to review a paper for a fairly large conference in one of the engineering subfields I’m involved in. This particular conference is one which I’ve not attended, so I had no familiarity with the procedures. As a side note for non-engineers, I discussed before (on my old blog) that many (most?) engineering conferences take full, peer-reviewed papers.
When I received the paper and looked it over, I nearly fell out of my chair. I could see the freakin’ authors!
In most of the conferences where I’ve submitted papers, the peer-review was double blind. One conference in particular was this way because it’s such a small area of research that they wanted to make doubly sure that people are as objective as possible. (In reality, there’s a good chance that you could tell who it was just by what they were doing, but I applaud the effort.) It seems like a very straight-forward thing to do: you submit the paper without any names on it. The session chair knows who it is but picks people to review who will be none the wiser. If the paper is accepted, a revision is submitted with names on it. Easy-peasy.
I have to say that this was very disconcerting for me. I don’t WANT to know whose paper I’m reviewing. I spent the whole time writing this review terrified that knowing who they were, where they were from, how many authors were on the paper, etc. was affecting my perceptions of the paper and destroying my objectivity. I was amazed at all the stupid things I found myself questioning in terms of my reaction. Was I making a mountain out of a molehill? Was I overly impressed by something which shouldn’t have impressed me?
It really isn’t all that hard to keep reviews double-blind when using an automated submission system such as the one used for this conference (and most IEEE conferences), and as a reviewer, I would have been far more comfortable.
I’m curious about other fields, though. Is single-blind review the norm? (When I stumble across these things, I feel like I’ve been living under a rock.)
Evals, part two April 21, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, engineering, teaching.Tags: evaluations, teaching
add a comment
I got my ratings for teaching last semester, which I discuss here. I didn’t get back any comments, however. When I went down to campus this week, I found out that the secretary for the dept. has to type all of the comments in and give me a typewritten copy…and they’d been sitting in my box for two months. (I didn’t realize I still had a box since I wasn’t teaching this semester!) This is apparently to maximize the anonymity of the students.
Of the 90ish students, 11 left comments. I’m kind of surprised because it seemed like before, fully half of the students left comments. Usually I like to pull out a sample, but since there are so few, I’ll just put them all down…numbered so I can refer to them more easily.
1. Relatively easy course. Good use of Blackboard. Made communicating easy and quick.
2. She didn’t do a very good job of explaining some assignments. She was a very nice teacher, though.
3. Cherish is a good teacher. I just don’t think this course is necessary.
4. Need to learn more about the fields.
5. The course was interesting and I enjoyed covering some topics. Cherish is very good at covering topics and explaining things.
6. This course has some good content but I don’t think the majority helps out.
7. LOL
8. A very interesting course. I learned a lot about what being an engineer means.
9. Very good job with the class. The extra help in figuring out my next semester was very helpful. Thanks!
10. I very much enjoyed this class. The instructor made it fun.
11. Set up syllabus that is actually going to be used. Changing it multiple times is too confusing.
First, I was amused at #7. I wish I knew what part they were LOLing about.
That said, I have to say I’m overjoyed with the comments. I’ve really never had comments that overwhelmingly positive. (Yay for teaching engineering students!) There was actually some good feedback in there, as well.
I’m glad #1 liked the use of blackboard. I’ve decided that I’m going to use it more than I did this semester. It made it so much easier to keep track of assignments. There are probably two or three assignments that can’t be submitted on blackboard, but I’m going to require all the others be submitted that way. Also, I’m going to spend a lot more time explaining how to use it as some students were really confused once we got into things.
Number 2 said I didn’t do a good job of explaining some assignments, and I think that’s a very fair observation. When we were talking about lab notebooks and reports, it was very clear that some of the students were confused as to what I expected. Having been through it once, I have a much better way to frame out those assignments in particular for future use.
Numbers 3 and 6 are probably the same sort of thing. Realistically, I’d say that half of the students in the class really didn’t need the class. On the other hand, you can never tell which students are going to be in the half that do, so they hit everyone and hope it sticks.
Number 4 – that was another assignment that needs work. For that assignment, I had student groups give presentations on subfields of engineering. It was obvious that I need to provide more guidance about what sources to use. Some of them got very fixated on one little aspect of the subfield and didn’t give a very good overview of the subfield as a whole.
The last comment is probably the only one that annoyed me. I told students at the beginning that the syllabus was subject to change, and being the first time I’d taught the course, I pretty much guaranteed it would change. So how many times did I change it? Once, and I made a mistake on the homework list that needed to be fixed near the end of the semester. Honestly, I’ve had teachers who give a syllabus and then don’t even bother to use it…so I guess this will be a learning experience for that student. (BTW, my ‘syllabus’ included a full list of lecture topics, assignment requirements and due dates, etc. so that they pretty much had everything laid out for them. It wasn’t the typical, “Here’s your books, grading scheme, and office hours.” You know that’s going to require a revision when you’ve never done it before.)
I have been asked to teach this class again in the fall…along with one or two others. I have some choices to make, but given how well this one went, I really think I’d like to do it again.
Grad student advice: Picking a topic April 17, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in education, engineering, grad school, physics, research.Tags: advice, advising, advisor, dissertation, grad school, research
add a comment
It happened again yesterday: one of the email updates I received had a post from someone asking someone to give him a good topic for a dissertation.
It’s not an absurd question: some of us don’t have much if any guidance from advisors, though I get worried that this is indicative of a problematic advising relationship. I’m also not saying an advisor should give a student a topic (at least not for a PhD), but they apparently aren’t even addressing the topic with the student. However, I figured it’s a question worth addressing on the blog. If nothing else, I can post a link whenever I see the question pop up, which it seems to do with regularity.
The real simple answer, in my experience, is to start reading. Read journals in your field. Look at what interests you. Try to think of gaps or problems that aren’t addressed in the research you’re reading. And don’t forget to go back and read the references for the most interesting articles. Other ideas are to get involved in projects or try to choose something from a class project (I discuss this here). Generally, you’re going to be spending several years on something, so let your curiosity guide you. If it’s not interesting now, it certainly won’t be in four years. (In fact, even if it is interesting now, you might be sick of it in four years, but it’s best to make that four years as tolerable as physically possible.)
The question in my mind is whether you should talk to your advisor before or after you start doing this. Some advisors do give their students projects, but my experience in physics and electrical engineering is that most don’t. (My friends in the biological sciences, particularly medicine, have indicated that, in their fields, getting a topic handed to you is the norm.) However, even if your advisor doesn’t give you a project, s/he is likely to have an area of interest where they’d prefer you work. My MS advisor was very much the exception in that he expected his students to pick topics outside of his primary research area as a way for him to learn more about other areas. I think his rule of thumb was that it had to require electromagnetics…beyond that, you were pretty much on your own. On the other hand, if you had no particular interest, he did have suggestions, so he didn’t leave you hanging, either.
Therefore, as you’re looking at topics, be sure to check in with your advisor on a fairly regular basis to make sure that you’re not going too far astray (been there, done that) as well as making sure they still ‘buy in’ to your project (done that, and it’s not fun when they aren’t terribly interested). You also need to take into consideration whether or not you have the facilities and equipment and, probably, funding for your project. If you want to go into a certain area and need funding, you’ll likely need help from your advisor. It’s also a good idea to do this early because it gives you an idea of how invested your advisor is in your project and how well you communicate. Figure it out early before you get four years into a thesis project only to have your advisor tell you you’re an idiot and won’t be graduating. (Yes, it does happen.)
The take away message should be that you should try to use your curiosity and creativity to find a project, and that you need to make sure your advisor buys into it. Don’t ask total strangers as they’re so far removed from the situation, you’ll never get anything useful.
Some of my readers are wise in the way of advising, so I’m curious what they have to add.
Bureaucracy in industry March 26, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, research.Tags: academia, business, research
1 comment so far
A little while back, GEARS wrote an interesting post about how slow academia can be. His argument is that industry is not really that faster, and is, in fact, rather short-sighted.
This post came to mind because I’ve noticed something in my experience with industry as of late. If you don’t have something ready for production or there’s any question that the product may not pull in significant bucks, industry is actually slower than academia.
I’m sure there are exceptions. For instance, I was recently talking with a person whose company really likes to be on the cutting edge and is willing to fund a lot of crazy ideas. This company, however, is really a technological leader. Most companies are, at best, fast adapters. They want someone else to try out the cutting edge stuff and work out all the bugs. Then everyone else will quickly jump on the band wagon and see if they can play catch up.
This is what happens when bean counters become responsible for all of your technical direction.
The other thing that bugs me is the characterization of academia as being bogged down by bureaucratic routines and paperwork. I actually have to shake my head at that. I realize that I may be at the university that is an exception, but my observation is that large companies are far worse in this regard. In academia, if you have someone who wants to work on the project, they pretty much let you know, and once the money is in place, they’re ready to go. In some ways, working with big government funding agencies is actually less painful than working with companies: they will give you a yes or no. A lot of companies will hem and haw, say to get back to them once things are farther along (because they don’t want to invest in something that may not pan out), and then have to get the approval of the bean counters once they hesitantly decide that they might be interested in working with you.
Let me drop everything and work on YOUR problem March 23, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in career, engineering, family, grad school, work.Tags: dissertation, schedule, schedules, work, work habits, workplace
add a comment
I appreciate the fact that I have very respectful and polite colleagues. I particularly appreciate it when it comes to my schedule. I only work half-time, and most of them have been very good about making sure to schedule things for when I am there. On those occasions where things had to be scheduled when I was supposed to be gone, my supervisor has usually asked me first to make sure there’s no conflict. My hours are pretty flexible, as well, so if I have to stay late one day, I can take time off the following day or something similar.
Still, I hate having things change around too much. Changes in schedule seriously seem to affect my concentration, and changes in routine just don’t sit well with me. I can certainly deal, but it always seems to throw me off.
In the past month and a half, things have gotten much worse, schedule-wise. I’ve had to do a lot of changing schedules because of some PR that the university has been doing both on my research at work as well as my dissertation project. I have gotten to the point that I now am dressing up half the time when I go to work because, more than once, I’ve gotten a call in the morning that they’d like me to talk to a reporter or in the afternoon. Half the time, I wasn’t even dressed like a nerdy engineer – t-shirt and jeans was it. It’s a good thing I live close to campus because I’ve had to make emergency wardrobe trips. However, despite all of the rearrangements, if I’ve said I had a conflict, no one has ever asked me to change anything. People have been willing to work around my schedule, which has been awesome.
The only real problem I hit is when deadlines show up. If the deadline is looming but not close enough that I can adjust a schedule for the week, that sometimes sucks time out of dissertation work (although I am getting more and more protective of that as time goes on, simply because it’s so easy to let it slide). What’s worse is when there are deadlines at work and the kids suddenly have a million and one extra activities as well. And I really hate it when someone gives me ‘vague’ deadlines, like “as soon as humanly possible”. I usually tell them what is humanly possible for me, but I suspect that on a couple of occasions, they felt as though they could do the same thing faster. It’s possible they could…but it’s also possible that, if they had the same schedule constraints I do, they might not. As cliche as it is, I go back to Stephen Covey’s 7 habits book. In it, he says he schedules everything out, and if someone drops something in your lap, you ask them what other thing you should get rid of to fit in this deadline. (Maybe it’s surprising, but my supervisor is very open to shifting priorities when it’s necessary. Other people…not so much.)
How do you deal with shifts in schedule and sudden deadlines?
When I was at the conference… March 13, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in electromagnetics, engineering, physics, research.Tags: conference, engineering, physics, research
add a comment
When I was at the conference last week, I had one fellow come up and look at my poster. He is working on a similar problem but in a different application, and he made some comment about how he definitely thought what I was doing had merit. (After seeing his talk, it made sense because he was trying something similar.)
However, we spent about 20 minutes arguing as to what we thought was going on in one of my plots. He kept suggesting something that I had ruled out with experiment.
Tonight I’m looking at papers on some theory related to this project, and I think I have managed to find the answer to that mysterious plot. Sadly, I was way off in my explanation, but I have to admit that apparently I wasn’t the only one. The fellow I was arguing with had it wrong as well.
The real answer appears to be way cooler than either of us thought. I love physics.
When I finally get organized… March 5, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, research, writing.Tags: conference, hotel, posters, presentations, travel
3 comments
I spent the day at the conference with a nasty headache. I couldn’t wait to get back to the hotel so that I could take some (OTC) drugs, get a hot shower, and pass out.
Unfortunately, it was not meant to be.
I got back to find out that the toilet, which I had told them about this morning before I left, was still inoperable. Also, the dishwasher apparently had a leak. Their maintenance people were gone for the day, however, so my only choice was to move rooms.
Efficiency always bites me in the butt. The one time I actually decided to unpack all my clothes and belongings in the drawers and closet, I end up having to pack everything up and haul it into another room. Also, I have a kitchenette so I can do my own cooking, and this meant I also had to haul a couple bags of groceries and a couple bowls of refrigerated food up and down the hallway. So that sucked up another hour of my already short evening.
The conference itself was very enjoyable. I’ve been to conferences where people jump on you for the slightest error. I was very impressed at how positive the dialogue was. I also like the fact that it’s a smaller group of people. There were about 100 people or so, and about six women. I was thinking that was pretty awful until I remembered my signals class – 3 women out of 60, so I guess it’s about on par or even better than some of my engineering classes.
The down side is that everyone assumed that I was a grad student. And no, I wasn’t dressed like a typical grad student. When I corrected them and said I am a research engineer, half of them said I looked young enough to be a grad student and the other half wanted to know what a research engineer is. (Best answer I could come up with is that it’s like a post-doc…but with a choice between benefits or flexibility. I chose flexibility – working half-time so that I can work on a dissertation and haul my kids around after school is a pretty sweet deal in my book.)
I also had a lot of people, particularly industry folks, come and talk to me about my poster. However, I was chagrined to discover that I put a lot more text on my poster than pretty much everyone else. Most of the posters had a paragraph or two and were otherwise covered in pictures, plots, and equations. I was surprised at this because my experience at other conferences is that mine was on par or even low on text. Mike said that it was less wordy than a lot of them he’s seen. I can’t figure if this is a shift that’s happened since I last went to a conference (it’s been about 4 years) or if it’s unique to this conference. Admittedly, most other conferences only require you to spend a half hour or so at your poster, so they are unattended most of the time and that extra explanation is helpful. This poster session was about 2 1/2 hours long and it was strongly recommended to be there the entire time as there are no talks going on during that time. Anyone have any thoughts on this one?
Charles Steinmetz – the first consultant February 25, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering.Tags: chalk, Charles Steinmetz, consultant, electrical generators, Ford, history
add a comment
I’ve heard so many variations on this story without giving credit to the correct person that I decided to drag out my favorite math book and retell the story. This is from the book Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes, 2nd ed by George Simmons, McGraw Hill, 1991, pg. 114 – footnote.
The use of complex numbers in the mathematics of electrical circuit problems was pioneered by the mathematician, inventor and electrical engineer Charles Proteus Steinmetz (1865-1923). As a young man in Germany, his student socialist activities got him into trouble with Bismarck’s police, and he hastily emigrated to America in 1889. He was employed by the General Electric Company and probably the greatest of all electrical engineers. When he came to GE there was no way to mass-produce electric motors or generators, and no economically viable way to transmit electric power more than 3 miles. Steinmetz solved these problems by using mathematics and the power of his own mind, and thereby improved human life forever in ways too numerous to count.
He was a dwarf who was crippled by a congenital deformity and lived with pain, but he was universally admired for his scientific genius and loved for his warm humanity and puckish sense of humor. The following little-known but unforgettable anecdote about him was published in the Letters section of Life magazine (May 14, 1965):
Sirs: In your article on Steinmetz (April 23) you mentioned a consultation with Henry Ford. My father, Burt Scott, who was an employee of Henry Ford for many years, related to me the story behind that meeting. Technical troubles developed developed with a huge new generator at Ford’s River Rouge plant. His electrical engineers were unable to locate the difficulty so Ford solicited the aid of Steinmetz. When “the little giant” arrived at the plant, he rejected all assistance, asking only for a notebook, pencil and cot. For two straight days and nights, he listened to the generator and made countless computations. Then he asked for a ladder, a measuring tape and a piece of chalk. He laboriously ascended the ladder, made careful measurements, and put a chalk mark on the side of the generator. He descended and told his skeptical audience to remove a plate from the side of the generator and take out 16 windings from the field coil at that location. The corrections were made and the generator functioned perfectly. Subsequently Ford received a bill for $10,000 signed by Steinmetz for G.E. Ford returned the bill acknowledging the good job done by Steinmetz but respectfully requesting an itemized statement. Steinmetz replied as follows: Making chalk mark on generator $1. Knowing where to make mark $9,999. Total due $10,000.
Wordless Wednesday: Things in my office February 22, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, photography, work.Tags: art, artologica, office space, pictures, work, workplace
add a comment
I also blog at Engineer Blogs, home away from home to some of the best engineering blogs.
Review season May 7, 2012
Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, papers, research, younger son.Tags: engineering, engineering research, papers, peer review, research, reviewer comments
4 comments
Both Mike and I have been getting requests to review papers, and this has led to a lot of foul language around the house…along with frequent reminders from the younger son that our language is inappropriate.
It’s really hard to restrain yourself, however. As we’re sitting at the dining room table, occasionally one of us will turn our laptop toward the other and ask something like, “What does this look like to you?” or, “What do you think this means?” or, “What the hell were they thinking?”
I have to admit that I appreciate having a second pair of eyes to catch the things that I miss. I’m sure the authors of the papers we’re reviewing probably will not appreciate it. Not only do they have the third reviewer going over their papers, they have two of them. I hope this will result in double the hair pulling and teeth gnashing on their end…because it sure has for us.