If you wanted to run a marathon in two months, how would you prepare for it? Would you run a few miles each day, slowly adding distance over time? Or, would run 20 miles the night before the big race?
If you wanted to squat twice your body-weight in a power-lifting meet in three months, how would you train for that? Would you try to squat 1.9 times your body-weight the night before the meet? Or, would you squat on a regular basis, slowly adding weight over time?
If you have any sense, in both scenarios above, you would choose the progressive, steady approach over making a last-ditch effort. Studying, whether it be for an exam, a class or for your own personal edification, should be carried out in much the same way that you would train for an athletic endeavor.
Studying for 15 minutes per day, 7 days a week is a far more effective way to learn than studying for 2 hours once per week. If you want to learn a new skill, make a habit of spending a little time on it every day. Doing so will enable you to learn material at a deep quickly and retain it for a long period of time.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Time-saving tip for submitting letters of recommendation
Every time an undergraduate applies for graduate school, a graduate student applies for a postdoc, or a postdoc applies for a tenure-track job, he or she must ask at least three professors for a letter of recommendation. And, every time and tenure-track professor goes up for a promotion, his or her institution must ask 5-20 professors for letters or recommendation. As a result, many professors find themselves writing 10-20 letters of recommendation per year.
Many institutions recognize that writing a letter is a time-consuming task. As such, they make submitting a letter a quick and painless process: click on a link, upload a letter, done. But, at some institutions, in order to submit a letter, a professor must additionally fill out some bullet-based rating of the person he or she is writing about. When one considers that undergraduates typically apply to 10+ graduate schools, filling out such bullet-based rating systems quickly eats into a professor's time.
My department chair suggested a method to me a few years ago that he uses to minimize the amount of time he spends on such rating systems. At the end of every letter of recommendation he writes the following:
P.S. If your application system requires that I fill out a number- or bullet-based rating form, I have either omitted this or filled out the highest rating for everything if the system did not allow me to continue otherwise. I appreciate that you use this information in your evaluations, but I recommend that you change your system to account for the over-extension that all of us in academia experience with writing of many letters of recommendation each year.
This method saves him time and does not hurt the student for whom he is writing a letter. I now use this technique when I write letters and find it to be a significant time-saver.
Many institutions recognize that writing a letter is a time-consuming task. As such, they make submitting a letter a quick and painless process: click on a link, upload a letter, done. But, at some institutions, in order to submit a letter, a professor must additionally fill out some bullet-based rating of the person he or she is writing about. When one considers that undergraduates typically apply to 10+ graduate schools, filling out such bullet-based rating systems quickly eats into a professor's time.
My department chair suggested a method to me a few years ago that he uses to minimize the amount of time he spends on such rating systems. At the end of every letter of recommendation he writes the following:
P.S. If your application system requires that I fill out a number- or bullet-based rating form, I have either omitted this or filled out the highest rating for everything if the system did not allow me to continue otherwise. I appreciate that you use this information in your evaluations, but I recommend that you change your system to account for the over-extension that all of us in academia experience with writing of many letters of recommendation each year.
This method saves him time and does not hurt the student for whom he is writing a letter. I now use this technique when I write letters and find it to be a significant time-saver.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Betting against your desired outcome
A few years ago, my favorite American football team -- the Minnesota Vikings -- made it to their conference championship game. If they won the game, they would play in the Super Bowl. This was the third time in my lifetime that the Vikings had played in the conference championship game. On the two previous occasions, they lost in overtime in heart-breaking fashion.
As the most recent championship game approached, I thought to myself, "I'd pay $100 to guarantee that the Vikings win." Unfortunately for me, $100 was not a sufficiently large amount of money to bribe the Viking's opponent -- the Philadelphia Eagles -- to lose.
So, I decided to place a $100 bet on the Eagles to win the conference championship. That is, I bet against the Vikings.
My reasoning was as follows. Had the Vikings won the game, I could view my losing bet as a $100 payment for the Vikings winning the game. Had the Vikings lost the game, the disappointment I would feel after seeing them lose the conference championship game for third time in my lifetime would be offset from the winnings from my $100 bet.
In case you are wondering, I collected on my $100 bet. I still have not seen the Vikings play in the Super Bowl.
There are many situations in life in which you may want something that you cannot buy. For example, you may want the next leader of your country to be affiliated with a particular political party. In many of these situations, there are betting exchanges in which you can bet against your desired outcome (check out PredictIt.org for political bets). In order to assuage the pain of your desired result not occurring, you might consider doing as I did and placing a bet against your desired outcome.
As the most recent championship game approached, I thought to myself, "I'd pay $100 to guarantee that the Vikings win." Unfortunately for me, $100 was not a sufficiently large amount of money to bribe the Viking's opponent -- the Philadelphia Eagles -- to lose.
So, I decided to place a $100 bet on the Eagles to win the conference championship. That is, I bet against the Vikings.
My reasoning was as follows. Had the Vikings won the game, I could view my losing bet as a $100 payment for the Vikings winning the game. Had the Vikings lost the game, the disappointment I would feel after seeing them lose the conference championship game for third time in my lifetime would be offset from the winnings from my $100 bet.
In case you are wondering, I collected on my $100 bet. I still have not seen the Vikings play in the Super Bowl.
There are many situations in life in which you may want something that you cannot buy. For example, you may want the next leader of your country to be affiliated with a particular political party. In many of these situations, there are betting exchanges in which you can bet against your desired outcome (check out PredictIt.org for political bets). In order to assuage the pain of your desired result not occurring, you might consider doing as I did and placing a bet against your desired outcome.
Monday, September 2, 2019
Want students to solve more practice problems? Try this.
Most textbooks in STEM disciplines include at the end of every chapter a number of practice problems. Solving these problems (or at least trying to) is, in my view, one of the best ways for students to learn the material in a given text. Because solving problems is an effective tools for learning, I assign some of these problems as homework to be turned in and graded. Unfortunately, attaching a grade to a homework problem has an unfortunate side effect. Rather than try to solve these problems on their own, some students simply copy the solutions from their friends (or from a website). These students get credit for "their" work, but miss the opportunity to learn.
Here is a simple remedy for the above-mentioned unwanted side effect. I tell students that one of the problems on an upcoming exam will be similar to one of the homework problems in the textbook. Doing this accomplishes two things. First, because I do not specify which textbook problem I am referring to, I ensure that that students will look at all of the problems (or, at least as many of them as they have time for). Second, by telling students that the exam problem will be similar to a textbook problem, I ensure that students will actually try to understand how to solve the textbook problems rather than simply copy the solutions.
Here is a simple remedy for the above-mentioned unwanted side effect. I tell students that one of the problems on an upcoming exam will be similar to one of the homework problems in the textbook. Doing this accomplishes two things. First, because I do not specify which textbook problem I am referring to, I ensure that that students will look at all of the problems (or, at least as many of them as they have time for). Second, by telling students that the exam problem will be similar to a textbook problem, I ensure that students will actually try to understand how to solve the textbook problems rather than simply copy the solutions.
Use this trick and you will never have to entertain requests for homework extensions again.
Every professor I know has to deal with requests from students to turn in homework after the specified due date. And, every professor I know of is annoyed by this. When, I first began teaching, I attempted to minimize the number of late homework requests I would get by stating in my course syllabus that every student would be allowed to turn in one (and only one) homework late without being penalized. But, as any seasoned professor could have predicted, this simply resulted in students turning in one homework set late, and then asking for an extension on a subsequent homework. Over the next few years, I attempted a number of different strategies designed to combat lat homework requests. None of them worked. But, a few years ago, I had a significant breakthrough. On my syllabus, I now write the following:
"Late homework policy: I make sure to always cover all of the material needed to complete a HW set before I assign it. And I always give students at least one full week to complete the assignments. As such, late homework will not be accepted under any circumstance."
Of course, simply writing the above phrase does not accomplish anything. Students do not read the syllabus nor do they listen to me when I go over the syllabus on the first day of class. The real breakthrough was the following: Question #1 of Homework set #1 in every course I teach is the following:
"What is my late homework policy?"
Since I began putting this question at the start of the first homework assignment, I have not needed to entertain a single request to turn in homework late. And the concept is easily to extend. Presumably, if there were other information from my course syllabus that I wanted to etch into my students' brains, I could create a analogous homework question.
If you are a current or future university professor, let me just say "you're welcome!"
"Late homework policy: I make sure to always cover all of the material needed to complete a HW set before I assign it. And I always give students at least one full week to complete the assignments. As such, late homework will not be accepted under any circumstance."
Of course, simply writing the above phrase does not accomplish anything. Students do not read the syllabus nor do they listen to me when I go over the syllabus on the first day of class. The real breakthrough was the following: Question #1 of Homework set #1 in every course I teach is the following:
"What is my late homework policy?"
Since I began putting this question at the start of the first homework assignment, I have not needed to entertain a single request to turn in homework late. And the concept is easily to extend. Presumably, if there were other information from my course syllabus that I wanted to etch into my students' brains, I could create a analogous homework question.
If you are a current or future university professor, let me just say "you're welcome!"
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Why it may be beneficial to let others make decisions for you
In general, it is important for individuals to make decisions for themselves. The process of making a decision forces people to educate themselves and consider what they find important their lives. It is only through practice that people can learn to become more skilled decision-makers. But, there are times when individuals may benefit from allowing others make decisions for them.
I, for example, delegate many of my investing decisions to a financial advisor (actually, a robo-adviser). I do this for a number or reasons. First, while I am capable to creating a diversified portfolio and regularly rebalancing it, I found when I managed my own portfolio that I would second-guess myself and change my investment strategy over time. Second, I found the process of managing my portfolio to be stressful. By allowing a robo-adviser manage my portfolio for me, I both reduce my stress and make it more likely that I stick to a long-term investing strategy.
Another area of my life in which I have found it helpful to allow others to make decisions for me is strength training. For those not familiar, in order to build physical strength, one needs to have a methodical plan to gradually increase the weight one lifts over time. Although I am capable of creating a long-term plan to build strength, I find that, without a coach, I tend to deviate from my plan and lift heavier weights than I ought to. By hiring a coach to program the weight, sets, and reps that I lift, I am more likely to lift weights that are productive to building physical strength.
In the examples above, I found that I either could not make logical decisions for myself (because I let emotion get in the way), and/or the decision-making process caused me undue stress. In such situations, I believe that allowing a person or algorithm to make decisions for me is beneficial. If you can recognize areas of your life in which you cannot make logical decisions or making decisions causes you undue stress, you may want to consider allowing others to make for you in those areas.
I, for example, delegate many of my investing decisions to a financial advisor (actually, a robo-adviser). I do this for a number or reasons. First, while I am capable to creating a diversified portfolio and regularly rebalancing it, I found when I managed my own portfolio that I would second-guess myself and change my investment strategy over time. Second, I found the process of managing my portfolio to be stressful. By allowing a robo-adviser manage my portfolio for me, I both reduce my stress and make it more likely that I stick to a long-term investing strategy.
Another area of my life in which I have found it helpful to allow others to make decisions for me is strength training. For those not familiar, in order to build physical strength, one needs to have a methodical plan to gradually increase the weight one lifts over time. Although I am capable of creating a long-term plan to build strength, I find that, without a coach, I tend to deviate from my plan and lift heavier weights than I ought to. By hiring a coach to program the weight, sets, and reps that I lift, I am more likely to lift weights that are productive to building physical strength.
In the examples above, I found that I either could not make logical decisions for myself (because I let emotion get in the way), and/or the decision-making process caused me undue stress. In such situations, I believe that allowing a person or algorithm to make decisions for me is beneficial. If you can recognize areas of your life in which you cannot make logical decisions or making decisions causes you undue stress, you may want to consider allowing others to make for you in those areas.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Somebody invent this please
I love eggs and hot sauce. I also love coffee. Unfortunately it is impossible to enjoy these two things in the same meal because the hot sauce negatively affects the taste of coffee.
If somebody would invent a palette cleanser that would allow me to enjoy coffee and hot sauce in the same meal, I would be immensely grateful.
If somebody would invent a palette cleanser that would allow me to enjoy coffee and hot sauce in the same meal, I would be immensely grateful.
On customer service in the United States
Every time I go to my local CVS pharmacy, as soon as pass through the entrance doors, an employee will scream "hey, welcome in" from wherever they are in the store. Most of the time, I can't even see the employee. And, the way the employee says the above phrase is startling and obviously forced.
Every time I visit the Starbucks nearest my apartment, after I order my coffee, the barista will ask, "so, how's your day going?" Typically, the barista says this with a smile. But, based on the fact that every Starbucks barista says the exact same thing to every customer, and based on the fact that it is not natural to ask how one's day is going in any part of conversation other than when one first meets somebody, it is apparent that the baristas are asking about my day, not out of genuine interest, but because they have been told to do so.
I have no idea why, but corporate America has clearly concluded that telling employees exactly what to say to customers is good customer service. I could not disagree with this conclusion more.
First, when an employee is forced to say a particular phrase to every customer, the phrase never seems genuine. And, because the phrase doesn't seem genuine, it is annoying to customers to have to participate in the charade.
Second, the facade of friendliness actually impedes employees from making genuine connections with regular customers. Let's return to the coffee shop example. In addition to my local Starbucks, I also frequently visit a locally-owned coffee shop near my apartment called Cafe Allegro. The baristas at Cafe Allegro know me by name and the conversations I have with them are real an natural. There is no question that, when they ask how I am doing, they are doing so because they have made a personal choice to do so. By contrast, even though the baristas at Starbucks also know me by name, when the say "so, how's your day going?" even it they are being genuine, it feels fake because I know there is a corporate directive to every employee mandating that they ask this to every customer.
I realize that "mechanizing" good customer service is corporate America's reaction to bad customer service (e.g., a barista dryly asking "hey, whadya want?"). But, I do not think forcing employees to repeat the same phrase over and over again is the solution.
Every time I visit the Starbucks nearest my apartment, after I order my coffee, the barista will ask, "so, how's your day going?" Typically, the barista says this with a smile. But, based on the fact that every Starbucks barista says the exact same thing to every customer, and based on the fact that it is not natural to ask how one's day is going in any part of conversation other than when one first meets somebody, it is apparent that the baristas are asking about my day, not out of genuine interest, but because they have been told to do so.
I have no idea why, but corporate America has clearly concluded that telling employees exactly what to say to customers is good customer service. I could not disagree with this conclusion more.
First, when an employee is forced to say a particular phrase to every customer, the phrase never seems genuine. And, because the phrase doesn't seem genuine, it is annoying to customers to have to participate in the charade.
Second, the facade of friendliness actually impedes employees from making genuine connections with regular customers. Let's return to the coffee shop example. In addition to my local Starbucks, I also frequently visit a locally-owned coffee shop near my apartment called Cafe Allegro. The baristas at Cafe Allegro know me by name and the conversations I have with them are real an natural. There is no question that, when they ask how I am doing, they are doing so because they have made a personal choice to do so. By contrast, even though the baristas at Starbucks also know me by name, when the say "so, how's your day going?" even it they are being genuine, it feels fake because I know there is a corporate directive to every employee mandating that they ask this to every customer.
I realize that "mechanizing" good customer service is corporate America's reaction to bad customer service (e.g., a barista dryly asking "hey, whadya want?"). But, I do not think forcing employees to repeat the same phrase over and over again is the solution.
Friday, August 30, 2019
Choosing an undergraduate major
Choosing an undergraduate major is one of the more stressful and important decisions a university student must make. Below, I have written a few thoughts, which I hope will enable undergraduates to make informed decisions about their majors.
Remember that you are choosing a major -- not a career. One of the reasons that choosing a major can be stressful is the idea that, once you choose a major, you're locked in for life. Nothing could be further from reality. Let's take a look at my family as an example. My undergraduate degree is in physics and now I work at the interface of mathematics and finance. My brother has a BA in graphic design and now works as an accountant. And my sister has a BS in biochemistry and is now studying to be a physicians assistant. My brother, sister and I are all working in areas that one would not traditionally associate with our undergraduate majors.
With the above in mind, think of choosing a major as pointing you in a general direction -- not a straight line from where you are now to where you will end up. If at some point in your career you are not happy with the direction you are moving, you can (and should) change course.
The skills obtained from certain degrees are more transferable than others. Physics is an example of a major the helps one develop transferable skills. In physics, one learns how to model the physical world, make predictions based on those models, and test the validity of those predictions. To do this, one must become proficient in mathematics, statistics and computer programming. Can you think of any other field where mathematics, statistics and programming can be used to model the world, make predictions and test those predictions? How about, biology, chemistry, neuroscience, engineering, economics and finance?
Music is an example of a major that does not help one develop transferable skills. With a degree in Music, one would learn a great deal about music theory, composition, history, and perhaps become a skilled performer. Try to name some fields, other than music, in which these skills are highly valuable.
As a general rule, the skills one obtains in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) will be more transferable than the skills one obtains in non-STEM fields. As such, if you have the talent and work ethic to obtain a STEM degree, it is probably a good idea to do so -- even if your long-term goal is to work in a non-STEM field.
Within STEM, the degrees that, in my view, are most transferable are physics and mathematics. For example, with an undergraduate in physics, one could go a graduate school in physics, chemistry, electrical, civil and mechanical engineering, and, with some additional course-work, finance, economics and biology. With a degree in mathematics, one could go to graduate school in mathematics, statistics and, with some additional coursework, economics, finance and computer science. By comparison, an undergraduate degree in, say, biology, would not likely be able to go to graduate school in physics, mathematics or mechanical, civil or electrical engineering.
Choose a major you would enjoy. As mentioned above, if you have the talent and interest to pursue a STEM degree, I think it would be a good idea to do so. But, there is no sense in getting a STEM degree if you would be miserable throughout the entire process. Long-term, your success in a given field will largely depend on how hard and long you are willing to work at it. You will only be able to work long and hard at something if you enjoy it.
The only way to find out if you like something is to try it. If you really have no idea what major is right for you, just try something. Taking myself as an example, I arrived at my undergraduate major through a process of elimination. I majored in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mathematics before I finally settled on Physics. Obviously, I would have progressed faster had I chosen Physics right from the get-go. But, given the lack of direction I felt as an undergraduate, I see no method other than process of elimination by which I would have arrived at my final choice. And, many of the courses I took in mathematics and engineering served me well in physics.
Remember that you are choosing a major -- not a career. One of the reasons that choosing a major can be stressful is the idea that, once you choose a major, you're locked in for life. Nothing could be further from reality. Let's take a look at my family as an example. My undergraduate degree is in physics and now I work at the interface of mathematics and finance. My brother has a BA in graphic design and now works as an accountant. And my sister has a BS in biochemistry and is now studying to be a physicians assistant. My brother, sister and I are all working in areas that one would not traditionally associate with our undergraduate majors.
With the above in mind, think of choosing a major as pointing you in a general direction -- not a straight line from where you are now to where you will end up. If at some point in your career you are not happy with the direction you are moving, you can (and should) change course.
The skills obtained from certain degrees are more transferable than others. Physics is an example of a major the helps one develop transferable skills. In physics, one learns how to model the physical world, make predictions based on those models, and test the validity of those predictions. To do this, one must become proficient in mathematics, statistics and computer programming. Can you think of any other field where mathematics, statistics and programming can be used to model the world, make predictions and test those predictions? How about, biology, chemistry, neuroscience, engineering, economics and finance?
Music is an example of a major that does not help one develop transferable skills. With a degree in Music, one would learn a great deal about music theory, composition, history, and perhaps become a skilled performer. Try to name some fields, other than music, in which these skills are highly valuable.
As a general rule, the skills one obtains in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) will be more transferable than the skills one obtains in non-STEM fields. As such, if you have the talent and work ethic to obtain a STEM degree, it is probably a good idea to do so -- even if your long-term goal is to work in a non-STEM field.
Within STEM, the degrees that, in my view, are most transferable are physics and mathematics. For example, with an undergraduate in physics, one could go a graduate school in physics, chemistry, electrical, civil and mechanical engineering, and, with some additional course-work, finance, economics and biology. With a degree in mathematics, one could go to graduate school in mathematics, statistics and, with some additional coursework, economics, finance and computer science. By comparison, an undergraduate degree in, say, biology, would not likely be able to go to graduate school in physics, mathematics or mechanical, civil or electrical engineering.
Choose a major you would enjoy. As mentioned above, if you have the talent and interest to pursue a STEM degree, I think it would be a good idea to do so. But, there is no sense in getting a STEM degree if you would be miserable throughout the entire process. Long-term, your success in a given field will largely depend on how hard and long you are willing to work at it. You will only be able to work long and hard at something if you enjoy it.
The only way to find out if you like something is to try it. If you really have no idea what major is right for you, just try something. Taking myself as an example, I arrived at my undergraduate major through a process of elimination. I majored in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mathematics before I finally settled on Physics. Obviously, I would have progressed faster had I chosen Physics right from the get-go. But, given the lack of direction I felt as an undergraduate, I see no method other than process of elimination by which I would have arrived at my final choice. And, many of the courses I took in mathematics and engineering served me well in physics.
Any easy way to improve bracket-style playoff systems.
In the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB and MLS playoffs, teams are given seeds (i.e., ranks) based on their regular-season performances, and brackets are formed by matching the top seeds versus the lowest seeds. For example, in each of the two conferences of the NBA, the first round match-ups are 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5. The reason for implementing this system is that it rewards the teams that perform best in the regular season with an easier path to the finals.
Here is a simple proposal to improve this system. Before the every round, allow the top remaining seed to pick its opponent. Then, let the next highest remaining seed pick its opponent, and so on. The proposal would accomplish two things
(i) It would increase interest in (usually boring) first-round match-ups. Teams that have been selected to play the top-seeds would feel disrespected, possibly increasing their motivation to win. And a first-round upset would be even more exciting then at present, because the higher seed would have picked the opponent to which they lost.
(ii) The picking of opponents could be turned into television events, which leagues could use to generate additional profits.
The more I think about it, I have no idea why this system has yet to be implemented.
Here is a simple proposal to improve this system. Before the every round, allow the top remaining seed to pick its opponent. Then, let the next highest remaining seed pick its opponent, and so on. The proposal would accomplish two things
(i) It would increase interest in (usually boring) first-round match-ups. Teams that have been selected to play the top-seeds would feel disrespected, possibly increasing their motivation to win. And a first-round upset would be even more exciting then at present, because the higher seed would have picked the opponent to which they lost.
(ii) The picking of opponents could be turned into television events, which leagues could use to generate additional profits.
The more I think about it, I have no idea why this system has yet to be implemented.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Things that are designed for right-handed people
Everybody knows that can-openers and scissors are made for right-handed people. But, there are a number of other object, processes, etc., that are designed for right-handed people. Here's a brief list of things you may not know are designed for right-handed people.
Subway entrance turn-styles. The ticket/card reader is on the right.
Phone swipes and gestures. These are designed for people holding a phone in their right hand.
Left-to-right writing systems. Left-handed people smear ink/graphic as their hand passes over the page. Calligraphy can only be done properly with a right hand in order to print the serifs correctly.
Writing utensils. Ball-point pens glide smoothly across the page when pulled by and right hand but stick into the page when pushed by a left hand.
Floor lamp switches. The nob is almost always positioned by a right-handed person so that the nob is the right side of the pole; a left handed person must either reach all the way around the pole or contort there arm in an uncomfortable way in order to turn the nob.
Computer mice. The more frequently used left click is intended to be pressed by the right index finger rather than a left middle finger.
Salutes and Handshakes. These are always done with the right hand.
Bicycle breaks. The rear brake is controlled by the right hand. If one squeezes only the left (i.e., front) break, one runs the risk of flipping over the handle bars.
To be continued as I become annoyed by more processes designed for right-handed people.
Subway entrance turn-styles. The ticket/card reader is on the right.
Phone swipes and gestures. These are designed for people holding a phone in their right hand.
Left-to-right writing systems. Left-handed people smear ink/graphic as their hand passes over the page. Calligraphy can only be done properly with a right hand in order to print the serifs correctly.
Writing utensils. Ball-point pens glide smoothly across the page when pulled by and right hand but stick into the page when pushed by a left hand.
Floor lamp switches. The nob is almost always positioned by a right-handed person so that the nob is the right side of the pole; a left handed person must either reach all the way around the pole or contort there arm in an uncomfortable way in order to turn the nob.
Computer mice. The more frequently used left click is intended to be pressed by the right index finger rather than a left middle finger.
Salutes and Handshakes. These are always done with the right hand.
Bicycle breaks. The rear brake is controlled by the right hand. If one squeezes only the left (i.e., front) break, one runs the risk of flipping over the handle bars.
To be continued as I become annoyed by more processes designed for right-handed people.
The problem with video assistant referee
One of the most unfortunate developments in professional association football (soccer) over the past few years has been the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). For those not familiar, VAR is a system that allows on-field refereeing decisions to be overturned if there is video evidence to warrant it. With a seemingly endless array of camera angles and super slow-motion, using VAR will, in principle, allow referees to get every call right.
And this is precisely the problem with VAR. Those who support its use are under the impression that all refereeing decisions are either right or wrong. The fact is, however, that refereeing calls are subjective.
Take, for example, the Offside Rule. According to the Football Association (FA), football's governing body in England, a player is in an offside position if:
--any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent,
--the hands and arms of all players...are not considered.
Here, a first grey area arises. Where do the arms of a player end? Are the shoulders part of the arm? In order for one to precisely define an offside position, one would need to precisely define where the the human arm ends. Clearly, this is not possible.
Even if were were to be able to precisely define what an offside position is, in order for one to apply the offside rule, one needs to determine if an offside offense has occured. According to the FA, an offside offense occurs if
--a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...
and then there is a list of 13 ways a player could be involved in active play. Here again, we encounter a grey area; there is no precise way to define what it means to be "involved in active play."
Offside offences are not the only offences that require referees to make subjective decisions. Fouls and hand-balls, for example, require the referee to determine what a players intent was during play. The fact is, nearly every refereeing decision will require some level of subjectivity. And VAR cannot "correct" this.
VAR has not solved the problem for which it was introduced. Furthermore, it is costly to implement and results in stoppages in play that, in my view, detract from the enjoyment and excitement of football. We should abolish VAR from football.
And this is precisely the problem with VAR. Those who support its use are under the impression that all refereeing decisions are either right or wrong. The fact is, however, that refereeing calls are subjective.
Take, for example, the Offside Rule. According to the Football Association (FA), football's governing body in England, a player is in an offside position if:
--any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent,
--the hands and arms of all players...are not considered.
Here, a first grey area arises. Where do the arms of a player end? Are the shoulders part of the arm? In order for one to precisely define an offside position, one would need to precisely define where the the human arm ends. Clearly, this is not possible.
Even if were were to be able to precisely define what an offside position is, in order for one to apply the offside rule, one needs to determine if an offside offense has occured. According to the FA, an offside offense occurs if
--a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...
and then there is a list of 13 ways a player could be involved in active play. Here again, we encounter a grey area; there is no precise way to define what it means to be "involved in active play."
Offside offences are not the only offences that require referees to make subjective decisions. Fouls and hand-balls, for example, require the referee to determine what a players intent was during play. The fact is, nearly every refereeing decision will require some level of subjectivity. And VAR cannot "correct" this.
VAR has not solved the problem for which it was introduced. Furthermore, it is costly to implement and results in stoppages in play that, in my view, detract from the enjoyment and excitement of football. We should abolish VAR from football.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Replacing academic journals with a better alternative
I have participated in the academic publishing process as an author, referee and associate editor (AE). It is apparent to me that the system is broken and should be -- not just modified -- but completely replaced.
How the current system "works". For those not familiar, when one wishes to publish a paper (at least in mathematics), one submits that paper to a journal. At that point, the editor of the journal assigns an AE to handle the paper. The AE finds (typically) two referees to review the paper. The referees are supposed to read the paper, and write a report to the AE in which they point out potential problems with the paper, make suggestions on how the paper could be improved, and make a recommendation as to whether or not the paper should be accepted as is, revised, or rejected. The AE reads the reports and the paper, and makes his own decision. If the AE decides that a revision is appropriate, he/she provides the authors of the paper with the two referee reports and an AE report. The authors then have a chance to revise and resubmit the paper, at which point the AE and referees review the paper again. The process repeats until the paper is either accepted or rejected by the AE. Throughout the process, the author is kept in the dark as to whom the AE and referees are.
Problems with the current system. Ugh! Where to begin? First, the system is slow. It can two a month or longer for an AE to find two appropriate referees. Referees usually take between 2 - 4 months to write their reports. And the AE may take another month to read the referee reports and make a decision. In all, authors typically wait between 3-6 months before they receive a decision on their paper (though, it is not unheard of to wait over a year). If a paper goes through multiple rounds of revision, it can take up to 3 years to publish a paper.
Second, the quality of the referee (and AE) reports is often very poor. Referees are not paid for their work. So, other than some good will from the AE, there is very little incentive to write a high-quality report. In fact, writing a high-quality report is likely to result in further requests to referee from the same AE. So there is a strong dis-incentive to write a high-quality report. Also, when referees and AEs are anonymous, they do not think carefully enough about what they are writing in their reports because there is no consequence for writing factually incorrect statements. For an analogy, think of your favorite anonymous on-line forum. How well-thought-out are the comments on that forum?
Third, the system is fraught with bias and conflicts of interest. Most academic communities are so small that friends and colleagues often review each other's work. I will not go into specifics, but speaking from anecdotal experience, I can assure you that friends do favors for their friends.
Fourth, articles in academic journals are not free to access. Many academics receive public funding in the form of government grants. Why should the results from these academics' research be limited to those who pay for access to journals?
Fifth, the review process is a huge time-suck on academics' time. There are thousands of articles that are published each year and a huge fraction of them are iterations on a well-known theme. It is not a good use of the Editors, AE's, and referees' time to review these papers.
Is there a better alternative? Rather than try to "fix" the current system, I am in favor of a complete overhaul. There are at least two websites -- arXiv.org and ssrn.com -- where academics (and non-academics) can publish original research without having to go through the refereeing process mentioned above. These websites are a good starting point for an alternative publication system. But, they do not provide a means for authors to receive feedback from others on their work. As such, I would propose augmenting arXiv.org with a reddit-like forum. Below each article, people could point out errors and offer suggestions on how a paper could be improved using their real verified names. Such a system would address many of the problems outlined above.
First, the proposed system would be much faster than current system. Academics could comment on articles as soon as they are posted. And authors could respond to comments as soon as they read them.
Second, if academics are forced to use their real names when they comment on an article, they will be much more likely to think carefully about what they are saying.
Third, papers would be reviewed by a community of people rather than just a few referees, AEs and Editors. This would reduce (though, not eliminate) much of the bias in the current system.
Fourth, articles would be free to access.
Fifth, the system would save time. Articles that offer only incremental contributions would not be reviewed.
Of course, the proposed alternative publication system will certainly have its own problems. But, given the state of the current academic publication process, some experimentation with an alternative is warranted.
How the current system "works". For those not familiar, when one wishes to publish a paper (at least in mathematics), one submits that paper to a journal. At that point, the editor of the journal assigns an AE to handle the paper. The AE finds (typically) two referees to review the paper. The referees are supposed to read the paper, and write a report to the AE in which they point out potential problems with the paper, make suggestions on how the paper could be improved, and make a recommendation as to whether or not the paper should be accepted as is, revised, or rejected. The AE reads the reports and the paper, and makes his own decision. If the AE decides that a revision is appropriate, he/she provides the authors of the paper with the two referee reports and an AE report. The authors then have a chance to revise and resubmit the paper, at which point the AE and referees review the paper again. The process repeats until the paper is either accepted or rejected by the AE. Throughout the process, the author is kept in the dark as to whom the AE and referees are.
Problems with the current system. Ugh! Where to begin? First, the system is slow. It can two a month or longer for an AE to find two appropriate referees. Referees usually take between 2 - 4 months to write their reports. And the AE may take another month to read the referee reports and make a decision. In all, authors typically wait between 3-6 months before they receive a decision on their paper (though, it is not unheard of to wait over a year). If a paper goes through multiple rounds of revision, it can take up to 3 years to publish a paper.
Second, the quality of the referee (and AE) reports is often very poor. Referees are not paid for their work. So, other than some good will from the AE, there is very little incentive to write a high-quality report. In fact, writing a high-quality report is likely to result in further requests to referee from the same AE. So there is a strong dis-incentive to write a high-quality report. Also, when referees and AEs are anonymous, they do not think carefully enough about what they are writing in their reports because there is no consequence for writing factually incorrect statements. For an analogy, think of your favorite anonymous on-line forum. How well-thought-out are the comments on that forum?
Third, the system is fraught with bias and conflicts of interest. Most academic communities are so small that friends and colleagues often review each other's work. I will not go into specifics, but speaking from anecdotal experience, I can assure you that friends do favors for their friends.
Fourth, articles in academic journals are not free to access. Many academics receive public funding in the form of government grants. Why should the results from these academics' research be limited to those who pay for access to journals?
Fifth, the review process is a huge time-suck on academics' time. There are thousands of articles that are published each year and a huge fraction of them are iterations on a well-known theme. It is not a good use of the Editors, AE's, and referees' time to review these papers.
Is there a better alternative? Rather than try to "fix" the current system, I am in favor of a complete overhaul. There are at least two websites -- arXiv.org and ssrn.com -- where academics (and non-academics) can publish original research without having to go through the refereeing process mentioned above. These websites are a good starting point for an alternative publication system. But, they do not provide a means for authors to receive feedback from others on their work. As such, I would propose augmenting arXiv.org with a reddit-like forum. Below each article, people could point out errors and offer suggestions on how a paper could be improved using their real verified names. Such a system would address many of the problems outlined above.
First, the proposed system would be much faster than current system. Academics could comment on articles as soon as they are posted. And authors could respond to comments as soon as they read them.
Second, if academics are forced to use their real names when they comment on an article, they will be much more likely to think carefully about what they are saying.
Third, papers would be reviewed by a community of people rather than just a few referees, AEs and Editors. This would reduce (though, not eliminate) much of the bias in the current system.
Fourth, articles would be free to access.
Fifth, the system would save time. Articles that offer only incremental contributions would not be reviewed.
Of course, the proposed alternative publication system will certainly have its own problems. But, given the state of the current academic publication process, some experimentation with an alternative is warranted.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
A few ways to improve association football
Association football (soccer) is by far my favorite sport. While the rules of the beautiful game have remained (mostly) unchanged since its invention, there are a few rule changes that, if made, in my view, would make the game faster paced, higher scoring, and generally more entertaining.
Replace throw-ins with kick-ins. Players are not physically able to throw the ball with anywhere near the velocity that they can kick the ball. If throw-ins were replaced by kick-ins, there would be many more goal-scoring opportunities in each match.
Allow hockey-like substitutions. In hockey, there is no limit to the number of substitutions a team can make, and teams do not need to wait for a stoppage in play in order to make substitutions. Whenever a player is tired, he can just skate to his team's bench and a teammate can sub on in his place. As a result, when players are on the ice, they can give 100% of their effort without worrying about conserving energy (unless they are killing a power play, in which case the players on defense may not have an opportunity to skate to the bench). By contrast, in football, only 3 substitutions are allowed per team per match. As a result, players must conserve their energy. If football allowed hockey-like, the game would be more action-packed and fast-paced.
For shoot-outs, have kickers kick from anywhere outside of the 18 yard box (or possibly further). A shoot-out often referred to as "the lottery." The reason is that, with kicks taken from 12 yards out, goalkeepers must guess which direction the shooter is going to kick in order to have any chance of saving the ball. As a result, winning a shoot-out largely depends on luck. If players were to shoot from outside the 18 yard box, goalkeepers would have some chance of saving the kick without guessing. As a result, winning a shootout would depend more on skill than on luck.
Make the goals slightly bigger. Compared to other team sports, football is a rather low-scoring game. Typically, matches end with 3 goals or fewer. And, it is not at all rare for a match to end in a 0-0 tie. I think it would make sense to experiment with making goals bigger so that the number of goals scored per match roughly doubled relative to its current level. This increase would create more lead-changes without reducing the importance of a goal.
Suspend players that dive. If an attacking player is fouled in an opponent's 18 yard box, his team is awarded a penalty kick. Because it is much easier to score a penalty kick than it is to score from open play, attacking players often go to the ground without being contacted by a defender (i.e., dive), in order to give the impression that they have been fouled. One way to reduce diving would be to have a committee of referees review videos of matches after they have completed. If a player is deemed to have dived in this review, they could be suspended for a certain number of games.
Replace throw-ins with kick-ins. Players are not physically able to throw the ball with anywhere near the velocity that they can kick the ball. If throw-ins were replaced by kick-ins, there would be many more goal-scoring opportunities in each match.
Allow hockey-like substitutions. In hockey, there is no limit to the number of substitutions a team can make, and teams do not need to wait for a stoppage in play in order to make substitutions. Whenever a player is tired, he can just skate to his team's bench and a teammate can sub on in his place. As a result, when players are on the ice, they can give 100% of their effort without worrying about conserving energy (unless they are killing a power play, in which case the players on defense may not have an opportunity to skate to the bench). By contrast, in football, only 3 substitutions are allowed per team per match. As a result, players must conserve their energy. If football allowed hockey-like, the game would be more action-packed and fast-paced.
For shoot-outs, have kickers kick from anywhere outside of the 18 yard box (or possibly further). A shoot-out often referred to as "the lottery." The reason is that, with kicks taken from 12 yards out, goalkeepers must guess which direction the shooter is going to kick in order to have any chance of saving the ball. As a result, winning a shoot-out largely depends on luck. If players were to shoot from outside the 18 yard box, goalkeepers would have some chance of saving the kick without guessing. As a result, winning a shootout would depend more on skill than on luck.
Make the goals slightly bigger. Compared to other team sports, football is a rather low-scoring game. Typically, matches end with 3 goals or fewer. And, it is not at all rare for a match to end in a 0-0 tie. I think it would make sense to experiment with making goals bigger so that the number of goals scored per match roughly doubled relative to its current level. This increase would create more lead-changes without reducing the importance of a goal.
Suspend players that dive. If an attacking player is fouled in an opponent's 18 yard box, his team is awarded a penalty kick. Because it is much easier to score a penalty kick than it is to score from open play, attacking players often go to the ground without being contacted by a defender (i.e., dive), in order to give the impression that they have been fouled. One way to reduce diving would be to have a committee of referees review videos of matches after they have completed. If a player is deemed to have dived in this review, they could be suspended for a certain number of games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)