Is an Ivy League education worth it?

I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by all the religious discussions lately, but I do feel inclined to comment on the science side of this blog, or more specifically, the academic side.

Is there a difference between an elite and an average university?

Before I get too deep in this topic, I went to Cornell University.  I am fully aware that it is not Harvard or Princeton.  In fact, I hadn't ever heard of Cornell before my junior year in high school.

Utah students tend to think BYU is the top. People like to say it's the "Harvard of the west."  For reference:  US News and World Report national university (undergraduate) rankings has Harvard (and Princeton) at the number one slot.  Cornell is at number 15.  UCSD (the school I'm doing my graduate work at) is at number 38.  BYU is at 68.  Which is a good ranking for sure, but certainly not a Harvard high ranking.

Do any of these numbers mean anything?  Are schools really different?

The first evidence you look at is academic rigor.  Universities, especially liberal arts universities, are about learning and knowledge.  Don't expect obvious practicality.  Evidence of this fact is that elite universities don't have nursing programs, CPA programs, or big teaching certificate programs.  They have academic programs and research that provide a more intellectual experience than community college like certificate programs.  That intellectual experience is what makes students good writers and researchers.

When I was at Cornell, lots of my friends from back in Utah would ask me if I "really thought" my classes were any harder than theirs.  Well, at first it was very hard to have a valid opinion because I only attended Cornell, not their school.  I wanted to know as much as they did, after all I was putting a huge amount of effort into my education.

When I was a freshman, the only answer I had to these inquiries was that I literally barely passed some of my classes my first semester while my friends in Utah didn't struggle too much at all to get As at BYU, Utah State, and UVU.  After four years at Cornell, I can tell you that it wasn't that I didn't understand the material.  It was that every Cornell student got straight As in high school and they all expect to continue that trend in college.  But, when you're graded on a curve, only a fraction can get As while most get Bs and quite a lot get Cs.  The reality is that the quality of students was much higher where I went to school.  This is reflected by the admissions rate: 16% at Cornell and 68% at BYU.  But overall, that is pretty thin evidence and I didn't feel comfortable telling my friends how much I struggled.

I was able to get a much better comparison of academics when a friend of mine from church, a married biochemistry grad student named Jen (yes, a girl), sat in on my organic chemistry class in preparation to teach a semester of orgo at BYU.  For those of you who live outside the science sphere, organic chemistry is one of the most competitive classes at any university.  It is the most heavily weighted pre-med class requirement by med schools and students are notorious for cheating and performing general acts of cruelty to one another.  In addition to memorizing a vast number of reactions, we were expected to be able to use them together to create specified products.  The entire class at Cornell is just lecture and optional office hours.  Your grade is composed of three prelims and a final.  So Jen sat in on our class and ran special review sessions to allow her to engage with students and learn how to teach better.  Of the four exams for the class, the mean was always between 50 and 65%.  She took our exams and, wanting a higher mean, watered them down slightly.  Instead, the BYU class had lower means.  And Jen described them as less impressive about both their academic ability and work ethic.  Could this have been about her teaching?  Doubtful, because orgo is ultimately a memorizing class, the textbook is just as important, if not more so, than the teacher.  In fact, I missed most of the classes and just worked problems from the book and I got the mean on every test.

Ultimately, Jen gave me hope that my sweat and blood was worth something (I'm not being dramatic, I didn't know I could work that hard).

In the last month I started TAing for UCSD.  I picked a class that I loved as an undergraduate, Developmental Neuroscience.  I took it as a junior, there were 14 students (my smallest class at Cornell) and we read 2 to 3 journal articles per class.  With two classes per week, I read as many as six journal articles per week.  There was no textbook.  I felt like the class was ingenious, learning from the real research rather than a compiled text.  It was also very difficult because I had never read that many articles on such a consistent basis (which I now laugh at as a grad student).  At UCSD the class has 350 students and is pretty much lecture based (no text at all).  The professor also teaches through experiments (the same ones I read about) but with a touch of simplicity.  The students are smart, it just seems like less is expected of them.  Which makes sense when you have such a large discrepancy in class size.  But I've since found out that biology majors at UCSD don't often read journal articles.  They also only have a couple of lab courses.  I think this lowering of expectations may have to do with money.  Public universities admit more students with similar faculty numbers.  My experience with the undergrads at UCSD indicates that I got an amazing education and I am so incredibly glad that I put in the work and made the most of where I was.

All I've really said so far is that I got a great education.  But again, I only went to one school.  So, is there a difference in academics?  Absolutely.  But I can only speak for my education and experiences, all schools are different and vary from one discipline to another.

The other aspect of comparing universities, and most Utahns would argue that this is the considerably more important aspect, is career prospects.  The highest ranked universities in Utah are BYU and the University of Utah (keep in mind these are undergrad rankings, grad programs are ranked separately and are quite different).  Both have nursing programs and big education departments.  All schools in Utah are focused on practicality--what kind of a job can you get?

Well, I haven't gotten there yet.  I was able to get into some really good PhD programs with relatively poor grades.  But that's about all I got so far.  I do know that at schools like Cornell, you graduate in 4 years or less.  In fact, if you want to stay longer you have to petition your dean and they expect both a good reason of why you're not done and a plan of how you're going to finish quickly.  At BYU, I've seen people just stick around and take classes because they have relatively no incentive to graduate.  It's cheap, it's fun (haha), where else would you want to be?  In fact, I have lots of friends who find excuses to stay in Provo after they graduate because they don't want to leave BYU.  Less restrictive, but similar situations occur with the vast majority of people I went to high school with.  They stayed in Utah for college and want to stay and work.  In general, that is very limiting on career prospects.  When I get a job, I'll be willing to travel to most states in the US because I've already learned to adjust to new environments far from my family.  Moving isn't so scary.  But I understand that's not so concrete of evidence.  I'll be sure to update you when I finish grad school and get a job.

In summary, I had some convincing experiences that academic rigor does change from one university to another and that college applicants should consider what that means in the grand scheme of their lives. I am a much better graduate student because I already had many of the skills I needed for the work I do.  That is thanks to the university I attended and the expectations that were placed on me.

The dreaded post on gender roles...

Women and traditional gender roles seemed to occupy the thoughts of many of the general authorities as they prepared talks for this general conference (April 2013).  In reality, I'm fairly certain it is always like this and that I noticed it more because of the Ordain Women movement and my current preoccupation with my own life.

This blog, as I've said before, is more for me to work out my feelings and thoughts than for people reading to glean insights (it is definitely not a place I will rant).  I do, at the end, talk to all the people who have been saying awful things on Trib's comment section for the article on saturday's meeting of the Ordain Women movement. With that in mind, I'll plunge in...

Men and women are obviously different, but that doesn't mean they can't both share leadership roles in the church and simultaneously share child rearing responsibilities.  My husband is perfectly capable of taking care of our little son all by himself for as long as I am.  Our relationship is much like this, we both work and take care of our child (up until now he has not attended daycare but may in the future).  We both have our own separate hobbies and interests, exercise, and spend lots of times with our baby.  If one of us were called to leadership (which, let's not lie, probably will never happen given our bishop's inability to remember who we are) the other would be perfectly capable of making up for it.  But it wouldn't matter if it were him or me.

So when listening to all the talks about men and priesthood and women and motherhood I am torn between gagging and rolling my eyes.  It seems to me that over the last fifty to seventy-five years, men have become much more involved in their children's lives.  As this has occurred, men have become considerably better nurturers.  It seems like we're capable of what we think we are or what we expect of ourselves.

Despite that, Adam is much more fun than I am and I am the one who consciously thinks a lot about how much our baby has slept or ate.  But I still spend lots of time playing with the baby and Adam still feeds him and makes sure he naps.  So, yes, we are all better at different things, but that shouldn't limit us in any way.

I read a story about how a woman with four very young children had such a difficult time each Sunday because her husband was in the bishopric.  So, there is a pretty major issue here.  Mormons have lots of kids all close in age that require a lot of work and responsibility.  Obviously, both parents in such a situation cannot be in major leadership roles--someone has to take care of the kids during Sacrament meeting and what not.  But that doesn't mean it has to be the man in the leadership calling and the women running after children through all the halls of the church, not getting anything out of the meeting.  (In fact, in my ward it's usually the men that take the kids out during sacrament)

I think some presidencies should be co-ed.  Sunday school, for example, is full of men and women and the presidency doesn't need the priesthood anymore than the relief society presidency does.  Primary could also be co-ed.  They have lots of men teachers, men could help in organizing as well.  If the bishopric wants to be all men, that's fine.  But there are lots of roles women would be great at and should have the opportunity to take a more active role in.

-----

The priesthood is a whole separate issue.  Not because it's actually a separate issue, but because it is such a huge concept.  Women holding the priesthood.  Savor it for a minute.  I had to, my first reaction was "why would I want the priesthood?"  There is NO doctrine that says women can't hold the priesthood.  Don't lie to yourself, it's not there.  It's only controversial because we are already so behind the rest of the developed world in our gender roles.  Actually, the Temple was the place I really realized it wasn't such a controversial thing.  We kinda already have the priesthood.  So why not?  What does it really hurt?  Who does it hurt?  Is it necessary for women: no.  But if we're supposed to have it in the eternities, why not now?

To the trib commenters (who were pretty vicious) : the Ordain Women movement isn't asking for the priesthood.  They're asking the general authorities to pray about it and see if women should have it.   Similar agitation of the general authorities lead to blacks getting the priesthood and the elimination of plural marriage.  It's not a new or heretic concept in anyway.  They have a right to ask.  Don't judge them (or me) for being open minded about something new and potentially good.

And for those of you who are so content with the church as it is (more trib commenters):  stay out of all of this.  Not everyone feels so happy and fluffy at church.  Lots of people feel isolated.  You don't know what that is so don't judge those of us who struggle with some of the basic cultural issues at church (notice they're not doctrinal issues).

I really loved how at the end of conference Monson talked about being tolerant and loving others.  I think it's important to be as tolerant and loving of people we may not agree with within the church as much as people of other faiths.  I did really enjoy conference, some of the talks were amazing and very touching.  I'm looking forward to hearing the new Young Women's presidency next conference.

I'm not being disrespectful of the Mormon church.  I still love the doctrine, the real stuff.  I'm grateful that I get to go each week to feel the spirit and that twice a year I get to listen to the apostles and the prophet.

The New Era

The New Era is an lds magazine that has church articles geared towards the youth.  When I used to read it I felt like a lot of the stories were superficial, they were all about how blessed you'd be if you didn't play sports on sunday or if you dressed modestly. Yesterday I decided to see what the focus and tone was in the 70s when the magazine started, assuming  the worst.  

The first article I pulled up was called What about pop music? from the 1971 January edition.  I expected the author to say that it was bad and why.  But he actually started with an interesting and surprisingly insightful history of how music had been innocent in the 50's and become politically charged in the 60's.  He calls it the "age of the 'message lyric.'"  Then he just talks about how to discern for yourself what music uplifts you.  He ends by saying that music you listen helps define you.  For some reason, the whole thing lacks judgement--It's not even cautionary.  It seems to be informative, like the author just wants people to know that music has messages and you should think about them and if they uplift you.

It was pointed out to me that I am reading out of the context of the time, but more of that later.

I next read an article called A Testimony of My Conversion from the 1971 February edition.  It was about a 60 year old guy who had been a convert for four years.  He talks about how he grew up a Quaker, what made him happy and what ultimately dissatisfied him.  Arthur talks about how Quakerism lacked vigor.  He talks about William Butler Yeats, D.H. Lawrence, and T.S. Eliot and how their writings and opinions on religion affected him.  He has such an intellectual perspective on religion, it's fascinating.  He looked at so many religions and somehow settled on Mormonism.  He ends with a beautiful testimony.  It kind of made me feel proud of being Mormon.  Something I need more now living outside of Utah than I ever did before.

For perspective, I wanted to read a new article in a recent article.  First I downloaded the April 2013 edition and didn't find any title that really spoke to me.  So I pulled up the March 2013 magazine.  I read The (CM)2 Project because I didn't know what (CM)2 could possibly mean.  It was kind of what I remember--short and sweet about how the author wanted a clean mouth and mind.

So I wanted something more, so I pulled up I have a Testimony of the Family written by the second counselor in the Young Women General Presidency.  Instead of a cool article like the 1971, it was a 10 step plan to getting your own testimony.   Step 1: pray.  Step 2: read The Proclamation to the World. Step 3: Read the words of the prophets. etc.  The 1971 article was so rich in words like 'dogma' and philosophy and literature.  Why did it change?  I pulled up almost every article from the March 2013 issue.  There are many more articles, but all are a lot shorter.  So, while I had intentionally avoided the main General Authority article that is associated with each edition of The New Era, I resorted to it.  This month Elder Quentin L. Cook talked about being yourself, essentially not giving in to peer pressure and becoming someone others want you to be.  I was a little more impressed with this article.  Elder Cook talks about church history and how specifically his words apply to modern day.  My biggest complaint was that he felt the need to talk about pornography, which is a relatively minor issue to me (I'm just a little tired of hearing it is all).  It still lacked the depth and intellectualism of the earlier articles, but it was interesting to read.

My quest into the history of Mormonism through the magazines has just begun, but so far I'm feeling like the older format of fewer, longer articles invited more stimulating articles. 

Now, to address the most major issue: I do not live in the 70's and I never did.  From what I know, the whole world was politically charged and everyone was changing.  Maybe the church was writing to their audience: kids then wanted the intellectual part of the church and now people are apathetic.  Ultimately, I am not offended by the particularities of what was being said because I have no emotional attachment to the advice.  I can't control for that in any way, sorry.

I'm feeling like if such intellectual articles have been published in the past, maybe someday in the future they will be too.

Evolution

It has to be here. As a Mormon biologist, I cannot ignore both the existence and perception of evolution.

First of all, I find it somewhat annoying that Biologists almost literally worship Darwin for his contribution of evolution.  I also find it annoying that very few non scientists have taken the time or thought to realize that evolution is much bigger than human evolution and the long existing controversies associated with it.

At Cornell, in every biology class we talked about evolution at some point in addition to taking a 3 credit evolution class.  In my high school in Utah we'd barely addressed the concept so I was surprised when I was told evolution is fact.  As in, has been completely proven.  In science, we hesitate long and hard before labeling any theory as 'fact' because we know that there is still more we don't know that could disprove that theory.  Evolution has been labeled a fact, as have most of Charles Darwin's ideas from On the Origin of Species.  Now, for those of you who were not inundated with biological knowledge, On the Origin of Species does not address human evolution specifically.  It talks about the nature of populations, the variation between individuals for example as well as stable population size and available resources.  The variation is the key--he hypothesized it would be heritable and the best suited variations to the environment would be the most likely to carry on.  Natural Selection, Darwin said, was the driving force.  Now, all his theories have been rigorously studied.  Species have variation and change over time: fact.  I've seen it myself in flies over a period of months.  It happens.

Now, how to fit that into my previous framework that "God created man in His own image."  I'd already come to accept that the Big Bang probably happened and I'd never had a problem with that being potentially the way God had created the universe.  I don't know enough about astrophysics to argue it either way.  But since we don't believe in The Bible being completely literal, I don't see a problem with acknowledging the popular scientific theory.  Likewise why not have evolution be the hand of God guiding the formation of man.  I mean, is it really less believable than that He gathered dirt in His hands and blew life into it? And then proceeded to take a rib from Adam to create woman?  In the 1909 statement, which the church has paraphrased over the years and even reprinted in 2002, all it says is that man is created in the image of God.  Truthfully, the origin of man from apes (which is actually incorrect--the correct wording would be that apes and man share a common primate ancestor) is less controversial to me than the concept of evolution itself.  As we evolve (and people evolve over time, there has been a noticeable change in height for example) we would be changing the image of God, albeit only slightly.   Eventually, man will be quite different from what we are today.  I used to try and cop out with the concept that the 2nd Coming will happen long before those changes occur, but now I'm just accepting that whether or not that is the case, it's okay.  I cannot deny the changes in humans over known history.

For those of you to whom these ideas make you uncomfortable:  feel comfortable knowing that scientists have yet to identify the common ancestor of apes and man.  If you want to believe God magically created us, there is no proof to deny that.  But it might eventually happen and what then?  Your choices are 1. don't believe science because you're afraid or 2. have a crisis of your faith because The Bible and religious cultures around the world have told you it could not be and it is.  All I can say for sure is that I believe God created man and that evolution is a fact.  Put it together however you want.  

Lifelong conversion

The topic of lifelong conversion was broached yesterday with an attitude of flippancy.  Just do it.  Be converted. Read the scriptures and pray and you will have no issues.  (Okay, am I the only one noticing we say virtually the same thing every week as part of every lesson).  I have issues.

Does conversion mean just believing in basic principles or everything?  Can I have a lifelong conversion even though I had a boyfriend when I was 15 and still today at 24 don't see anything wrong with that? Because that sort of makes me a "buffet Mormon."  I chose not believe some teachings in For the Strength of Youth.  

We are supposed to be "converted unto the Lord".  The church website describes it as a process to becoming a better person.  A change of heart.  What about when you were raised to be this way?  When did this process start and what am I changing from?  And really, does drinking beer or coffee constitute you as a bad person?  Most people are inherently good and will make good decisions provided they don't have a serious conflict with the decision and their own best interests.  So, how does a convert change?  My mother is a convert and the only change she made in her life besides gaining a testimony was to move to Utah and give up her partially completed law degree in favor of having kids.  

That same link discusses the 4th Article of Faith.  The ordinances of baptism and confirmation are important to eternal salvation, but faith and repentance contributed far more to my conversion because it all happened in my mind and heart.  I barely remember my baptism.  I do remember that at around that age I could easily distinguish between making 'right' and 'wrong' choices so I understand that age of accountability aspect of baptism.  But the choice to get baptized did not necessarily indicate I was converted.  With the cultural pressure and expectations it wasn't even a choice.  

In science, an experiment showing any type of change must have a control experiment that parallels the actual experiment in every way but without what you think is causing a change.  For example, if you are administering a drug that you think will have a desired effect, you must have people/mice that take a placebo pill/water instead.  In this type of set up, you can easily see the change wrought by the drug.  I wish I could have one of those It's a Wonderful Life moments where you see how different your world could be.  A contrast difference really shows change.

Am I converted?  I have faith, I try to repent of my bad decisions and change my bad habits.  I want to follow Jesus Christ's example.  That is what conversion means to me, to be as good as I can and not apologize for the rest.  I don't think I have to focus on every tiny thing any general authority has ever said.  I want to be a good person, a person who stands up for herself and opens herself to others.  I want to reach out to those who are struggling and be a comfort to anyone who needs it.  While I am unable to focus every day on how I need to be the 'perfect Mormon girl,' I can focus on being a solid person who cares for others.

Heaven

After the first two posts, I suppose it might sound surprising but I love my beliefs.  I never feel more peaceful and happy than when I'm in one of our beautiful temples or at church (although I'm often more in my own head than listening to people).  In thinking very seriously about what I like about Mormonism and my testimony, I concluded that maybe it is about the after life.  I see lots of perfectly happy people every day who are not Mormons and so I have no illusion that Mormonism is the only way that a person can be happy.  So it really is about the temple and how that connects with death and post death.

I really appreciate that I don't have to believe in a black and white heaven and hell with an awful gray purgatory in between.  I love the idea that there are three levels of heaven and if you're the best you can live with God in the celestial kingdom.  No one really goes to hell, or outer darkness as we call it.  I, personally, would be happy to live in the telestial kingdom that is supposed to be a beautiful idyllic Earth.  I also really love that I'm not going alone, that Adam goes with me.  And that I'm connected to my parents and my kids somehow.

The temple is very open and white inside and when I'm there I feel light and unburdened.  It seems like we're super secretive about what happens there, but I think a lot of that is because its a long explanation about somewhat foreign sounding things and there is one thing we're not supposed to talk about that people are afraid they'll come to close to. Once your twelve you can go and do ordinances for the dead: baptism and confirmation.  When you're an adult you can go and receive the next couple levels of ordinances  including the sealing ordinance that seals you to your spouse (our version of marriage) and then do them for the dead.  The others are difficult to explain and so I wont try it here.  I know it seems like we're obsessed with the dead, but there is something logical to me that everyone should get an opportunity to go to heaven.  If we didn't provide those services for everyone ever the whole concept of needing ordinances to go to heaven wouldn't work for me.

I'm happy here on Earth and I don't need to have this knowledge to be happy.  But, the whole idea of the three degrees of glory (as we call them) really resonates with me.  I believe.

To my baby and little Victoria

Picture of European parliament member Licia Ronzulli with her seven month old.

I really love this picture, it feels so empowering.  It's not a thing to bring your children to these kind of formal events, but Licia Ronzulli has enough respect and authority to bring her little Victoria without any opposition.  In this picture she is voting to improve women's employment's rights.

I work 40 hours a week and I have quickly realized since my own son was born that men and women have completely different approaches to the balance of work and children.  I am fortunate enough to have a flexible job that allows me to choose my own hours and I choose them to be from the very early morning, allowing me to get home by 1 pm.  I understand The Proclamation to the Family when it says men and women's roles are different because even though my husband is an amazing father who can do anything I can do for my baby, take care of him by himself for just as long, we have fundamentally different approaches.  I can't imagine only seeing my baby at night, but most men who work do that.  My baby goes to sleep at 7 pm (literally screams and fusses uncontrollably if you try to put him to bed later...), I would barely see him if I worked until 5 pm.

Here is the reality:  I was raised in a religion that does not support women working.  I took that and decided that even though I didn't like children, I would probably want them some day and I wanted to be there for them as much as possible.  I was pre-med at Cornell, one of the best programs in the country, and I knew that it would be too hard for me personally to live through med school and residency and being a doctor, on call and obligated to a hospital and patients and to also have a family.  I chose to go to grad school, in part, because even though scientists are crazy obsessed people, they pick their hours.  I have a friend who works in her lab from 8 pm until the early morning hours because that's when she feels the most productive.  The big key in a lab is progress, getting your projects done and analyzing your results.  Eventually writing papers and getting them published.  Once I realized how flexible it could be, I knew it was where I wanted to pursue science.

That sounds cheesy, like what I wrote in my personal statement in the application (note: definitely not what I wrote in my personal statement) but it is the honest truth.  I chose science first because of its stability and second so I could have a family life.  I love being at work and I love going home to play with my baby, I can get the best of both and it makes for a pretty great life.