Here we go with five more things worth looking at this week:

• Moo Cab (web game):  Instead of being an alien who abducts cows, you're an alien who gives them taxi rides.
• 1-800-4-MY-HOME:  They fixed my dishwasher and my garbage disposal in less than an hour.  Thanks Alfonso!
• "Let's Kill All The Belgians:  A Child's Guide to Genocide" by Danny Wind (book):  A vicious satire of our militaristic society.  Definitely not a children's book, despite the artwork.
• "Slap Happy" by L7 (album):  A great grungy sounding punk album from a ways back. Standout tracks:  "On My Rockin' Machine" and "Crackpot Baby."
• "English Wipeout - Live" by 999 (album):  Classic punk rock from a band everybody should know.  Great tracks include "Homicide" and "Nasty Nasty."

That's it for this week.  Next week, I bring you a guest column from our president, Barack Obama.

More than most people I know, I usually overdose on things I like.  One time I ate tapioca pudding until I threw up (I was 34 at the time), another time I drank 10 energy drinks (leading to heart palpatations), and I continue to buy wristwatches despite the fact that I can wear only one at a time.  I just can't get enough of a good thing.

The same is true in education when referring to technology.  The reasoning among many education reformers is that if a little bit of technology is good (widespread computer/Wifi access), then a whole lot of technology will be even better.  As with my tapioca pudding the result may not be exactly what they want.

Let's take a look at some of the technologies that are becoming widespread:

• LCD projectors to show PowerPoint presentations to a class.
• Smart boards to electronically save and modify one's in-class notes.
• Probeware for hooking laboratory equipment into a computer.
• Increased use of mobile computing devices in the classroom (including iPads, mobile phones, and other tablet PCs)
• Online learning aids (Blackboard being the most famous)

There are others, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Now, what's wrong with these technologies?  Nothing.  All of them are great, and if used properly can help make a good teacher into a great teacher.  I know people who use each of these and are far more effective teachers for it.

The problem:  Not all teachers need or want all of these.  There's nothing wrong with making all of these available to each teacher, but there's something very wrong when you force an effective teacher to change what they do simply to accommodate the technology.  Despite what the reformers may say, there's nothing inherently useful about any of the technologies I listed - it's when they complement one's teaching style that they really make a big difference.

Reformers, please do me a big favor:  Before forcing teachers to use high tech stuff, please use some common sense and determine whether they really need or want it.  After all, some people can eat a quart of tapioca pudding - but a little goes a long way for others.

Our topic today comes from the mailbag, where a writer asked me how one goes about becoming a scientist.  Because I'd like everybody to become a scientist, this question deserves a good and complete answer.

The answer is this:  It depends on what type of scientist you want to be, and what kind of responsibilities you'd like to have.  Let's examine this in greater detail by field:

• Chemistry:  Get a 4-year degree in chemistry or some related field such as biochemistry.  If you'd like to do more complex work in the field or plan your own research, a Ph.D. is needed, and if you'd like to go into academic a postdoctoral fellowship will be required.  If you'd like to be a simple lab tech, you may not need any education at all - just somebody who can get your name to the hiring director as a reliable person.
• Physics:  There aren't that many jobs in pure physics - this includes people who do basic research on things like fusion power, lasers, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics.  Most of the folks I've known who have gone into a physics-related field started off by getting their degree (at least a bachelor's) in physics, but have moved into a weird hybrid of physics and engineering so that their knowledge could actually be used to help people or solve problems.  Since I know my dad reads this blog, and because he is a physicist, I'm hoping that he'll leave a comment here in which he either confirms what I've said or corrects my misunderstandings.
• Biology:  Most of the biology that's being done these days is actually in the field of biochemistry.  Though there are still some people out there doing taxonomy and botany and marine biology and such, a lot of the exciting jobs involve the study of genetics and biological processes.  Because I don't know that much about getting a job in the biological sciences, you're probably best off talking to an AP biology teacher or a biochemist for more details.
• Engineering:  This is simple.  Get a 4-year engineering degree and then go engineer something.  The bachelor's is a real bear to get, but once you get it you really have your pick of exciting stuff to research.  As with the other sciences, advanced degrees will result in more responsibility - however, engineering seems to favor experience and prior success over formal education.
• Math:  I have absolutely no idea how to go into a math-related field, nor can I think of a purely mathematical related field at the moment.  Talk to a math person for more info.

Well, I hope I've answered this question.  If anybody would like to call me an idiot and correct anything I've said above, I would appreciate the correction.  

Here we go:  Five things that you should really check out this week:

• "Shout" by Devo (album):  It's a little dated, but the songs still hold up pretty well. 
• Those dancing hula girls that go on the dashboard of your car:  They always crack me up.  That's why I have three of them.
• That old guy at the gym:  He's like 174 years old, but he's still out there lifting weights and sweating it up with the best of them.  I hope I live to be as old as he is, though I hope I'm not that sweaty.
• Nasal spray:  I can always breathe after a big snort of that stuff.  It's magic.
• The goat store:  A couple of months ago I got the hankering to make curry in my house, and for some reason I decided that I wanted it to be a goat curry.  To make a long story short, I got a couple of cut up goat legs (which were cut up before my eyes in a very bloody/goaty way) and cooked up the curry.  It was awful, but the goat store (which sells all sorts of weird foreign stuff) remains a place I love.  I think they love me too, but since nobody there speaks any English it's hard to tell.  They sound friendly, anyway.

That's it for this week.  Next week, I'll tell you five ways to kill a man with a slice of lemon.

As is my occasional habit, I've decided to forgo hitting you with my incredible wisdom for a day while I share with you some of the interesting stories from the world of education.  At least, I find them interesting.

• Teacher Bans Saying "Bless You" In Class (Ramblingbeachcat.com):  Here's the story:  A teacher has been dealing with students loudly shouting "bless you" whenever somebody sneezes.  He decides, in his infinite wisdom, to ban the saying of "bless you", which results in an equally stupid protest on the part of the kids that their religious freedom is being violated.  This is a case study in how not to run a classroom.  The proper thing for the teacher to have done would have been for him to say "Quit acting like morons whenever somebody sneezes" and if somebody shouts "bless you" to kick them out of class.  If, on the other hand, they wish to be polite in saying "bless you", there's no problem.
• Teachers Decide to Work For Free After Budget Cuts Leave Pennsylvania School District Without Funds for Salaries (Think Progress):  When the money runs out, what do these brave teachers do?  They decide to work for free.  Wait... did I say "brave"?  I meant "stupid." Though a heartwarming story, working for free isn't exactly the best way to teach people that teachers are a valuable commodity and should be taken seriously.  Instead, it's a good way to teach people that teachers are doormats and that you don't even have to pay them to get them to work long hours.  While I am sympathetic to these teachers, and certainly admire their devotion to their students, I can't help but think that the only thing they're doing is encouraging future abuse by the school board.
• Let's Give Up The Crutch "It Looks Good For Colleges" (Quantum Progress):  Here's a crazy idea, kids:  Take part in extracurricular activities because you enjoy them, and not because you think it will get you into school.  
• Dumb As A Rock:  You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Don't Know (The American Dream):  Yet another tale describing how our students are a bunch of dimwits.  The problem:  This test isn't very comprehensive.  All of the questions cited in this article deal with U.S. government, which isn't exactly the most exciting subject in the whole world to most teenagers.  Additionally, we don't have any clue how kids in other countries do when asked about their governments, so it's a little hard to determine whether our kids are in better or worse shape than those elsewhere.  What I can say, however, is that oversimplifying things to make it sound as if our kids are stupid is both dishonest and disrespectful to our kids.
• Segregated Charter Schools Evoke Separate But Equal Era In U.S. (The Knights Party / Ku Klux Klan):  In a vote of support that I know all charter school advocates were waiting for, the Ku Klux Klan has endorsed charter schools as a way of keeping their white children away from those of other races.  I don't bring this story up because I like the KKK or any of their opinions - I bring it up because it's worth considering that the Klan wouldn't be supporting this idea unless there was some real possibility that they could make it happen. Charter schools have the potential to be a positive force in U.S. education, but it worries me that some of them could devolve into the sort of racist hate-mongering that the KKK supports.

Hi folks.  Usually I don't post a blog on Wednesday, but I wanted to post a quick blurb about the stop online piracy act (SOPA) and the protect IP act (PIPA).  Both bits of legislation sound good - they want to stop online piracy - but go too far and threaten the structure of the Internet.  I'd say more about this, but I'd much rather that you read more about it from people who understand it better than I.  And if you feel about these acts as I do, I hope you'll contact your congressman and senator to get them to kill both acts.

I read an article online a couple of weeks ago that I found interesting ("Children becoming 'addicted' to computers", The Telegraph).  The gist of this article is that if you give kids too many computerized devices such as smartphones, they'll "harm... their long-term development."  For some reason, this is particularly true of boys, or so the story goes.

Before I share with you my incredibly wise words on this issue, I'd like to tell you two stories from my daily life:

Story 1:  In 1996 I was living in Ft. Collins, CO with my wife.  We had a friend who needed a ride down to the airport in Colorado Springs (about 2 1/2 hours away) so I got in the car and started driving.  We'd gotten maybe 20 minutes past Denver when my car died and we coasted to the side of the road.  At this point, I got out of the car and started walking over fields and through a half-finished housing development so that I could phone my wife for help.  I was finally fortunate enough to find the model home for the development and they were kind enough to let me use the phone.

Story 2:  My wife and I currently have an exchange student from Germany named Lotti.  She's a nice kid, but we've noticed something strange - she's always on the computer.  And when she's not on the computer Skyping with her friends or using Facebook, she's on her cellphone texting somebody. She can go for hours without actually speaking to anybody.  This is confusing to me, as I don't even have a cellphone and wouldn't know how to Skype if my life depended on it.

Back to my main point:  Is the proliferation of computerized devices a good thing or a bad thing? Well, let's consider a couple of things:

• Even though I don't have a cellphone or a Facebook account, I manage to keep in contact with everybody I know.  Clearly, computerized devices such as the ones that Lotti has aren't necessary to get by in modern socity.
• If 2012 technology were available to me back in 1996, I would have been able to just pick up the phone and call my wife.  Better yet, I could have looked online to find the number for AAA and just called them directly.
• If Lotti were stuck in 1996 without a cellphone or computer and got stuck by the side of the road, I imagine that she'd do just fine.  She wouldn't die at the side of the road waiting for help - she'd adapt and take care of herself.

So, is the proliferation of computers something that we should fear?  Does it make our lives better, or does it make our lives worse?

The truth is this:  We live in a different world than we did ten years ago.  It's not a better world and it's not a worse world.  It's just a different world with different rules and different ways of getting things done.  Though researchers may find kids to be stunted by the use of computers, I imagine that's because they're measuring the kids' success in life based on archaic standards of how to do things.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I find cellphones to be annoying as hell.  However, are they stunting anybody?  I doubt it.

Here we go:  The top five things you should check out this week.

• Laptop computers:  I sure like having a small computer rather than a great big one taking up all kinds of space in my office.  I would recommend that everybody throw away their big desktop computers and get a laptop.  Wait, you mean I was the only one in the world who still had a desktop.  Well, never mind, then.
• Rotary phones:  Yep, I'm talking about those great big old phones that have the rotating dial.  I like the one in my office, despite the fact that I can never "dial 1 for English" like everybody else in the civilized world.
• Normal phones:  I need to get one of these because I can't "dial 1 for English", as I mentioned above.  This doesn't mean I'm going to get rid of the old phone, just that I'll only use it when talking to people and not robots.
• Fake aquariums:  I got one that looks like a lava lamp and has fake fish in it.  However, I strongly recommend that you check it out before you buy, as the one I have sounds like a very tiny jet airplane getting ready to take off.  Which isn't as soothing as you'd think.
• African violets:  I've got several of those in my office and they are very nice to look at.  They're kind of dying, what with the winter weather, but they always perk up in the summer.  Get one today, while they're cheap!

That's it for this week.  Next week, I'll discuss the benefits of various brands of caulk in keeping my neighbor's front door shut.

I read online somewhere the other day that some school district or another was making news because they have banned Facebook interactions between teachers and students.  I was going to make a note of where this was so that I could post a link here but figured that because this "news" story seems to come up about three times a month it wasn't worth the trouble.

The main issues with teachers communicating with students on Facebook are usually said to be that:

• It may result in teachers giving away too much personal information to students.
• It may foster an unprofessional atmosphere between the teacher and the student.
• It may [blah blah blah - I usually quit reading the article at about this point].

Anyhow, my take on the whole matter is this:

• Teachers shouldn't use Facebook at all.  This is because teachers are adults, and presumably have more important things to do with their time than friend the guy from that Whitesnake tribute band they like so much.
• If teachers use Facebook, they shouldn't friend students because it's stupid.  It's not like you're going to head out for drinks after fourth period.
• If teachers have pictures or descriptions of themselves doing idiotic things in their Facebook profiles, they pretty much deserve to get nailed for it.

Now, what I'm not saying here is that teachers can't have any interaction with the Internet, or any Internet presence.  No, we teachers have the same rights to express ourselves on the Internet as anybody else.  However, we should always remember that we're role models and have the responsibility to act like it.  It's not like we're politicians where idiocy and irresponsibility is expected from us.

So teachers, before your school district decides to give you a hard time for making Facebook friends with your students, do us all a favor and knock it off.  It'll keep the media out of our hair for a while, and might give you some more time to check the facebook pages of the guys who installed your toilet last year.

I got an email last week from somebody that had done very poorly in high school chemistry and wanted to go back and teach themselves chemistry.  They asked me for advice on subjects that they should brush up on, and then a good resource for teaching themselves chemistry.

I've said more than once before that the first time I learned chemistry (in college - I did terribly in high school) I did so because I had a lousy professor.  In fact, because this professor was so lousy, I was forced to teach myself chemistry rather than rely on his explanations.

However, this is not to say that this professor didn't give me anything at all.  Though I didn't attend classes, the pacing of the class gave me some idea of how fast I should be learning.  Additionally, the amount of time spent on each topic in the syllabus told me which topics should be given greater emphasis in my studies.  Without even attending a class, I had a pretty good idea of what I should be studying, and how fast.

I also found that the exams, though unpleasant, provided that bit of accountability needed to keep me on track with my education.  Without these exams, I would have had no real driving force to keep learning - I could have put off my studies without consequences, or even skipped the parts of chemistry that I found boring.  

So, what does a chemistry teacher do?  Minimally, even the worst teacher does the following:

• They let you know what you need to know.
• They let you know how fast you should learn it.

Of course, a good chemistry teacher does a lot more than this.  A good teacher should be able to help cram that information into your head and should make it entertaining whenever possible.  A good teacher should be accessible enough that you can get help if you need it, and friendly enough that you don't feel uncomfortable doing so.  

However, for those of you who don't like your teachers, don't tell me that it's impossible to learn anything from them.  I know from experience that even the most useless teachers make it possible for you to learn, provided you've got the needed motivation.