What I'm Listening To -- May Edition

 
 

This is just barely going to make it into May, but better late than never.

During the trip to Ecuador, I had ample time to listen to some fresh tunes, foremost of those being anything from the new Vampire Weekend album Modern Vampires of the City (MVOTC). Once again, V-Dubbs nail it. I seriously can't get enough of this album. It's experimental yet classic, regal yet surfer, and full of moments that made me fall in love with Vampire Weekend in the first place. I also had a chance to listen to Phoenix's newest album Bankrupt!. Their abrupt turn to a more electronic sound made me oh so happy. Great album. Once night hit in Ecuador, my ears specifically yearned for Beirut's The Flying Club Cup. I just love everything about Beirut's sound(s); their musical diversity and beautiful melodies entrance me, especially (for whatever reason) when my melatonin is running high. Lastly, earlier in the month I dabbled into Starf*cker's famed album Reptilians. Electronic goodness.

"Diane Young" by Vampire Weekend on Modern Vampires of the City
"Entertainment: by Phoenix on Bankrupt!
"A Sunday Smile" by Beirut on The Flying Club Cup
"Julius" by Starf*cker on Reptilians

Playlist:

What I'm Listening To--May

Oh man...

So the transition back to normalcy has proven to be extremely difficult.

I have had much less time than anticipated to compile the events/pictures of each day on the trip to Ecuador. Plus, my impromptu return to Facebook distracts me hourly. I hope to start writing/posting by tomorrow. Sorry for the irresponsibility.

Hold out a little longer please!

Teaser pic.

Seth's back

What an amazing trip.

Over the next eight or nine days (starting tomorrow night) I plan on divulging the details of my medical mission trip to Quito/Riobamba, Ecuador, in a series of (lengthy) posts. This series will recount the events of each day I spent in the nation. It's going to be tough to put into words, much less a finite amount, so I'll try to highlight the highlights, i.e. stick to the good stuff. Also, I'll sprinkle in some visually delectable pictures to supplement the descriptions.

e.g.,

The coffee was delicious anywhere I went.

Stay tuned, everyone. If I can adequately depict a fraction of the incredible amount of stuff that happened on this trip, I will be happy, and so will you, I think.

Bittersweet to be back home.

Concerning the next 12 days...

As some of you may know, and for those of you who don't, I am leaving for Ecuador on Friday, May 17th. This trip will last until Sunday, the 26th, and I should be back in the country by that Monday morning.

The purpose of my trip is to take part in a medical clinic in the city of Riobamba, four hours SSE from Quito, Ecuador's capital. At this clinic, I and many other students from around the country will help out with routine procedures, health education classes, and construction projects in the community, among other things. We will also be taken on tours of the city (which, according to Google Images, is beautiful) to see not only the gorgeous natural attractions, but also the unfortunate communities surrounding Riobamba that live in deep poverty.

As I'm writing this post, my excitement for the trip grows at an exponential rate, although, I do not believe that I will be able access the internet from where we are staying, so expect a lot of silence come Friday. However, I plan on keeping a journal for the days I am gone, transcribing each day's events into my own summation of not only what happened and what I did, but also how it affected me. Once I'm back in the states, I will pump out each journal entry in a rapid series of posts, most likely publishing one each day. So be ready for that. 

Tomorrow night, look for May's edition of What I'm Listening To -- it's going to be excellent. I hope everyone's summer is going swimmingly (that may be more literal for some than others). I'll be in touch.

One of several mountains surrounding Riobamba.

Iron Man 3: A luxurious kiddie pool

Last Friday (May 3rd) I eagerly attended the premiere screening of the much-anticipated Iron Man 3. I thoroughly enjoyed the first Iron Man film, and hoped that this newest film would fix the mistakes made in the dismal second installment. 

Hopes = dashed. Mood Afterward = sighing in disappointment.

Warning: Some Iron Man 3 spoilers will follow (although, most of what I'll "spoil" was highly predictable).

If nothing else, this is a pretty sweet poster.

3 started off fairly strong, I thought, delving into the aftermath of The Avengers and Tony's ongoing struggle to deal with his actions in relation to the massive attack on New York City. It also set up the villain (Aldrich Killian, played by Guy Pierce) nicely -- a young, enthusiastic and ambitious researcher who calls on Tony for aide and funding, wanting to be taken under the wing of Stark Industries so as to further his promising research. Tony -- in a very Stark-y fashion -- leads Killian on, eventually leaving him on top of the roof of the hotel they met in, alone and cold. Hence Killian's motive.

Another conflict established early was the ever-expanding rift between Tony and Pepper Potts -- Tony's girlfriend / uber-assistant, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. Tony's clear obsession over his Iron Man tinkering stands as the catalyst of the rift growth, and I think right then we all knew where that arc would end...

At this point, however, the film had me salivating. I thought Killian would prove to be a powerful and scientific villain that tests Tony's brain as much as his brawn. I also thought Tony's pseudo-PTSD psyche would complicate things even further, developing Tony along the way. Again, so wrong.

Later on, Killian approaches Pepper at Stark Industries headquarters, hoping (once again) to gain an alliance with Stark and "team-up" to make significant, revolutionary advancements in genetic engineering. During his pitch, Killian throws around biochem buzzwords like "DNA enhancement" and cliche notions like "human perfection." Pepper, however, sees Killian's promising work as dangerous, potentially weaponizable, which contradicts the vow made by Stark in the first Iron Man -- that he would never again fund research into weapons. Consequently, Pepper shuts the door on Killian, forcing him to resort the dastardly Plan B.

Killian (Pierce) showing Pepper (Paltrow) his cool brain hologram during his pitch.

The science is never explained further, never really even mentioned again. Instead, we, the audience, are expected to accept that the science is solid and that Killian has succeeded in creating (somewhat by accident) these genetically enhanced super soldiers, (bewilderingly) capable of producing intense heat with their bodies, akin to the Human Torch of The Fantastic Four. Killian could also induce some sort of overreaction that caused these thermal humans to explode in a heap of flame and super-heat.

This made absolutely no sense to me.

So let's say Killian does succeed in altering people's DNA, enhancing their genes, making them regenerative, practically invulnerable. Okay, that makes some sense. Feasibly DNA could be altered so that cells respond to injury / laceration / maiming, and starting dividing and differentiating -- using organic material such as Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. -- at crazy fast rates, eventually restoring the body to normal, healthy conditions. Fine, I can get behind that, solid science fiction.

But these "alterations" Killian discovered are anything but natural, leaving me baffled. If he did rewrite their genetic code, their DNA would still prompt their cells to work with those same organic, natural elements, making the superhumans' completely unnatural ability to produce intense heat / energy, seemingly out of nowhere, an utter enigma that doesn't have a lick of rationality to it -- other than the "wow, this is really cool" factor. If you're gonna do science, bros, do it right and don't get lazy. The science in Iron Man 3 is so glossed over it's practically magic. I understand this is a science-fiction film, but any good sci-fi has a good explanation for their fictional science. Iron Man 3 did not. Plus, the whole "genetic engineering"/ "scientific pursuit of human perfection" as the goal for a villain is getting old. If you plan on including this, please don't just throw it in there because it's relatable, understandable and tangible to the audience; explain the science and / or put a unique spin on it. Killian's motivation for researching eugenics / regeneration spawns from his (presumed) MS that he initially has but overcomes with his work. This was gimmicky and cheap, and not nearly sufficient to explain Killian's later antics.

That wasn't my only complaint. Another element that the director equally glossed over was Tony's anxiety disorder, accompanied by panic attacks. The reasonably justified attacks promised an added layer of complexity to Tony's already interesting character. Whenever Tony has one of these attacks, he tries to play it off as a joke -- which I enjoyed -- but the attacks would always subside without truly affecting Tony. He would make some quip, take some deep breaths, and it would be over. It also made it seem like these anxiety disorders are just "in our heads" and we have control over how much they affect us, but in truth, one does not simply stop having panic attacks. This misprotrayal of anxiety disorders, coupled with the most minuscule of conflict it actually added to Tony's character, cause the whole idea to fall flat.

In the end, using an also-interesting secondary character -- a young, inventive, fatherless boy named Harley -- the director essentially says, "Hey look, everyone, Tony's over it now! So we'll just stop talking about that." Tony's shallow panic attacks did little else than slightly complicate the plot and did (in my opinion) nothing to further Tony's character. Instead, he all of a sudden gets over his disorder and returns to the normal, witty, sardonic Stark he is. Sad.

Harley, played by Ty Simpkins, sits on the left, looking up at Tony. These two were responsible for some of the funniest exchanges of the film.  I wish the film had had more scenes of them together.

And don't get me wrong, the frame-by-frame, scene-by-scene writing was exceptional. Banter between Tony and Pepper, Tony and Harley, Tony and anyone really, was clever, funny, and natural-sounding. Top-notch stuff.

But the plot...

The plot tried so hard to be dramatic and involving that it came off as heavy-handed, riddled with cliches. The actions sequences pounded my pulse, the visuals entranced my eyes, but the actual story itself was so shallow and commercialized that by the end I couldn't help but roll my eyes. One could tell the film was aimed for the mass audiences that indeed flocked to see it (last I knew it had grossed over $800 million worldwide), and that left us with an overall empty experience.

It actually had a nice plot twist in the middle (that I won't spoil) but ultimately, the villain's motivation for his drastic, dramatic, bombastic actions (i.e., kidnapping and threatening to kill the president of the U.S.) is inadequately explained and left me scratching my head, saying "Why the heck is this guy doing all this?" The accompanying final turn of the film, in which Tony commits his love to Pepper by activating the self-destruct sequences of each of the 42 different Iron Man suits he had built over the years, thus ridding himself of his obsession and allowing him to focus on what's really important: love.

That would be like my girlfriend telling me to burn my Xbox, PS3, Wii, laptop, and all my games with them so I couldn't play games anymore and instead I'd focus all my attention on her. It just wouldn't happen.

This ending was so anti-heroic, so anti-Tony, that it left me walking out of the theater shaking my head in disbelief and disappointment. I've seen romantic comedies with less sappy endings. Plus, Pepper's temperament towards Tony and his hobby is completely unreasonable. If she really knows and loves Tony, she must understand how involved in his work he is, how much he enjoys tinkering. For her to ask so much of him and not try and work things out as a couple should made little sense to me and seemed to be inconsistent with Pepper's character. The writer / director missed an opportunity -- didn't really even create one -- for Pepper to grow and develop alongside Tony.

In summation Iron Man 3 illuminates a big problem I see with films nowadays: everything's striving to be bigger, badder, more visually striking than the last film, but they usually end up being these shallow experiences that do little to develop characters, challenge the audience mentally, and / or deliver a lasting impact on the moviegoers. Instead, we wade through these luxury kiddie pools, remarking on how crystal clean the water is, how perfect the temperature feels, how exquisite the fountain in the middle of the pool shines, how much your kids are enjoying themselves, but we do nothing but get our feet wet. It's pleasurable, it's definitely entertaining, but is it impactful? Not in the least.

If you want great examples of blockbuster superhero movies that do the exact opposite and offer experiences that both entertain and enlighten, check out Spider-man 2, The Dark Knight, and even The Matrix. All great films that do superheroes right. 

Here's to hoping Man of Steel (the new Superman film) and Thor: The Dark World (sequel to Thor) exceed where Iron Man 3 failed. 

"Should have had Sam Raimi direct this," he thinks.

Online "Education"

Smell that? It smells like spring. What does spring imply? The promise of summer and with it, the end of the school year.

Indeed, class ends next week for my university, which means I will have completed my first ever (and hopefully last ever) online class.

"But Seth, if you're so averse to the online education experience, whatever compelled you to take an online course?" --Average Concerned Blog Reader

A just question, Average Blog Reader. I needed four credits to round out my Psychology minor, and the only class available this spring that could fill said requirement was PSYC 439 -- Cognitive Psychology. This class came recommended by my psych-major roommate, who also took it online. He assured me the subject matter would pique my interest. Going into the semester, I was actually excited to experience what online courses were like, see how they compared.

It started out fairly well. As my roommate had promised, I found the material very interesting and insightful (in fact, the chapter on Attention inspired my blog Cell De-Vision). But, as often happens a few weeks into the semester, the excitement of a new year and new slate of classes wore off and as I sobered, I came to realize how...ineffective online education at UND was -- at least, for my particular class.

You'll see why, I think.

Essentially, the weekly regimen went as follows. One chapter was assigned per week. The students read the chapter and looked over the notes the professor offered, usually accompanied by a video lecture of her going through a PowerPoint. Then, she assigned Journal entries for us to complete. For these, we answered several questions that asked to reflect on our lives, then apply one major topic or concept from the reading to that life experience.

The most interesting thing we had to do -- and the reason why this class was worth four credits and not three -- were these online labs, in which we students would actually conduct variations of influential/groundbreaking studies that illustrated a certain cognitive phenomenon. After taking the lab, we'd answer questions that tested our understanding of the phenomenon, as well as discussion questions that had us articulate how that phenomena applied to real world situations. The journals and labs were always to be completed and submitted by Sunday at 5 pm.

Every fourth week we would take a test on the three chapters preceding -- a 25-30 question multiple choice/True or False exam we took through Blackboard (UND's online gateway) with a proctor. 

"Well, Seth, I must say that that seems a fair routine presented by the instructor. What qualms might you have had with such a course?" --Average Concerned Blog Reader

Indeed, Average Blog Reader, this was a fair structure which allowed us to work through the assignments in our own time. However, the execution of the course failed in several regards.

First off, the class was incredibly easy. Yes, Psychology classes tend to follow the stereotype of being easy in nature, since the material is intuitive and easily referenced to our own lives. However, entering this 400-level Psychology course, I expected to be challenged, my brain to be wracked.

Neither happened. In fact, this turned out to be the easiest course I have ever taken in college. I reiterate, a 400-level course was the easiest course I've ever taken. The difficulty had little to do with the subject matter; often times in the reading I would gloss over explanations of concepts and would have to read and reread definitions in order to understand what the text said. I think the (lack of) difficulty stemmed from the online medium. It was almost as if the professor figured that an online class would be harder to learn from, since it's less personal and more centered on the student's ability to teach his/herself, so she adjusted the class accordingly, resulting in journal and lab questions that were, for the most part, on par with a high school psych class in terms of how much thought they required. 

And the tests...

I recite these statistics in the least boastful way possible: I finished the first test in eight minutes, getting one wrong, and the second test in seven minutes with a perfect score, the easiest tests I've taken at UND. The third and fourth tests make for a nice segue into my next beef: the professor's effort.

Being an online class, the professor gave each "lecture" through the course website on Blackboard. As I said earlier, these lectures started out as videos of her talking through each slide of her notes on the chapter. I actually enjoyed this format for the first few weeks, for I feel I learn best by taking my own notes, transcribing the material into my own words. 

One week, however, the professor had a "complication" that resulted in her giving us 19 audio files, each a little over a minute. So I had to download 19 different files and listen to one little snippet lecture at a time. An inconvenience that I quickly forgave and shrugged off.

One file per slide...arduous.

Midway through the semester, sometime near spring break, the professor really had some "problems", preventing her from even creating video lectures for us to watch. So for that section of three weeks, we literally weren't taught anything. The test was open book, in order to make up for her "troubles". Consequently, I put forth the least amount of effort in that section and got two wrong on the test, which I took without a proctor and completed in about 30 minutes. On top of that, she did something similar for the fourth test, failing to record one of the lectures for the chapters, thus the fourth and final exam will also be open book...

Normally, I'm very understanding when someone faces adversity. Things happen that prevent the plan from running smoothly, so we adapt, often at the expense of adequate execution. In this instance, though, I have no sympathy or empathy. We students are paying you, professor, to teach us, to give us a quality education. We rely on you to be prepared each week, to conduct yourself in a professional manner, and anything less is unacceptable. 

Hopefully most online professors are like Good Guy Greg.

I guess I don't understand how she didn't prepare her lectures this fall or winter. Certainly she had ample time before the class started to record her lectures, make them ready to be viewed by the students? Her neglect to do so put us at a disadvantage and inhibited my learning. Again, normally I wouldn't be that upset by this, but the extent of my discontent spawns from my next point. 

Online classes cost way too much money. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think I paid something like $1,000 extra dollars to  I just looked up the exact number and I had to pay $989 for "Tuition Online" and $200 for "Psyc Ugrd Online Course Fee". So it cost me $1189 more (that's over one-fourth of my normal tuition) to take Cognitive Psychology. And what did I receive in return? A mediocre, no, too lenient, a sub-par education on a topic I was genuinely interested in. I might as well have bought the book for $50, read the chapters, took my own notes, and had my roommate quiz me once a month.

My roommate put it nicely. "Taking an online course is a paradox in that you pay more for less effective education." --Ken, Freelance Psych Theorizer.

As always, Insanity Wolf hits the nail on the head.

The poor quality of the education was not due to just the professor's deficiencies. I think the whole online medium is inherently less effective.

The 5 pm Sunday deadline for instance -- most online classes have similar deadlines for assignments -- encourages students (like myself, I will admit) to put off their work for the class until the weekend, resulting in a cram session, a scramble to complete everything and submit it just in time. It's a pretty well known psychological fact (a fact that I ironically learned from Coginitive Psychology!) that learning is best done in small increments over a long period of time, called The Spacing Effect. Students have much better recall of material if they study for say one hour each day for eight days than studying eight hours in two days. This type of incremental studying is called Distributed Practice. Maybe the Cognitive Psychology class should have had different assignments due, or parts of the lecture opened three times a week (like Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, mimicking the three-lectures-a-week format of a typical three credit class) instead of having everything due by one day. This would facilitate incremental learning and require the student to learn about the material several times per week.

Another reason I think the education suffers is because of the distant nature of the online medium, what Freelance Psych Theorizer Ken calls "digital disconnect." The online lecture is one-way communication; the professor's recording gives you information that you listen to and take notes on, but you have no way of asking questions about concepts you don't understand. The student loses his/her ability for instantaneous feedback from the professor. If they have a question, they are forced to write an email in which words can be misinterpreted, thoughts and questions not adequately articulated. An email-answer to a question is much less effective than a face-to-face conversation with a professor.

I'd also argue -- for this was how I felt -- that communication with the professor is discouraged altogether with an online class. The physical distance from the professor results in a state of mind that makes me less likely to contact the professor because they feel so far away (i.e. "digital disconnect", as Ken put it). This eliminates one of the most effective ways of learning -- one-on-one Q and A's with the professor. Human interaction is all but gone, giving the student a less intimate experience that ultimately leads to them having less accountability in the class. As math major, I could not even fathom what an online math class would be like...

Thus, my take home message is that online classes are just not nearly as effective as classroom lectures. I do appreciate the convenience that online courses offer, and I understand that sometimes this is the only viable option for someone to get an education, and for those purposes it's passable, enough to suit that person's needs. But given the option between an online class and a face-to-face lecture, I would choose the latter 10 times out of 10.

Thanks for reading. If you agree or disagree with what I've said or would like to share your own online class experience, feel free to add a comment or two below and I'll be sure to check them out.

One of my biggest fears...