Back in Class

Ah, back to school for me.

I'm in an online college now. Western Governor's University I did a lot of research and found out it's pretty good and not too expensive.

This was my main choice because it's all online and it's a "go at your own pace." I've discovered my pace can be pretty fast, so it felt like a good fit. I pay for my time, not credit hours.

Anyway. I completed my first class last week. I don't feel as though it should entirely count because it was an introductory class to online universities. How to set up classes, watch videos, access their library, things like that.

I've been playing around in my real first class today (Nursing Theories and Research) and I'm already 25% done. Whee!!

I do have a few frustrations though...

This textbook...

Sucks.

Understanding the Work of Nurse Theorists.

A Creative Beginning.

I guess the "Creative Beginning" should have clued me in. This is a load of fluffy---- well, it's very subjective.

My assignments are things like,

"Perform an Internet search using the phrase Hubble Space Telescope to find stunning photographs of outer space taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. Print your favorite photo to represent Roger's theory and paste it onto page 148 to share with classmates."

Excuse me? This is a MASTER'S program not 2nd grade. I stopped "pasting things to share with the class" when I learned how to open Microsoft Word.

You've got to be kidding me. When our graduate level classes have things like "paste to share with the class" as our assignments, no wonder so few people take nursing as a serious profession.

For another project I get to learn how to make a paper crane. Now, while I've always been interested in origami, I didn't expect to learn it in my Nursing Theories class.

Ugh. I'm thinking about posting about this aggravation to the "class community" but I don't want to be labeled as a troll this early on.

I guess I'm not much of one for the "Art" in the "Art & Science of Nursing."

Get your facts right!

More comments on Andrew Wakefield.

It's almost been a year since his paper has been retracted. I'm kinda glad and disappointed that we're still talking about this issue.

He was a fraud. He published a fraudulent paper. It was retracted and we're still feeling the effects of his fraudulence. (Look at pertussis for USA between years 2009 and 2010)

I'm glad it's still getting attention, because people need to know that vaccines do not cause autism!

I"m disappointed because it's been a LONG time since this started. It has caused a number of issues since it slipped through.

What is going on with the peer-review process?

It's a bit like this arsenic based life thing.

Things are getting out before they've been accurately checked. There's something wrong with the process if it's taking so long to be "reviewed and approved" but the "information" is still out for the general public to see. People made some very bad decisions based on the Wakefield incident.

Rebecca Watson made some interesting comments about this in the beginning-ish portion of this Skeptics Guide. (I had too, this is me with Rebecca Watson and some other weird-o...)

She was saying that now it's more the blog-o-sphere thats doing the fact checking and hand calling on bad science.

That's good in a way, but how can you tell who's a good blogger and a bad blogger. People go in search of blogs that reinforce their current beliefs and opinions. So, it seems that people are only going to get the data they want when they can search for it themselves.

It doesn't seem very objective.

On the other hand, it's good to get a lot of differing voices if you're presenting to a skeptical audience. Then they can discern for themselves.

Ugh, I feel it's time for a big overhaul in the peer-review process. When things like Butt-reflexology, fraudulent vaccine claims, and untested lifeforms keep on creeping in we've got problems.

It's no wonder the common man doesn't trust science.

Here's a Point of Inquiry that talks about why I think this is such a vast problem. Why Facts Fail.

After a while, once someone hears the initial data, it doesn't matter how much true data you can present them with. After they've formed their opinion, they're sticking with it, no matter how ridiculous it seems.

So, we really need to be sure we're getting the facts right. People just making stuff up so they'll get attention (AHEM, arsenic-based life) is not helpful. It's not a search for truth about our environment. It's not science.

*Steps off soapbox*

New Year!

Isn't everyone posting about New Years now?

I had a good 2010 and could regale you all with most of the stories about my life in 2010.

Biggest Event in 2010 for me Per Month

1. My cat was 1 year old.

2.John and I took a trip to KC and watched a free concert we learn about from google buzz 2 hours before it started. Good job social media.

3. John's Birthday, We learned about medschool acceptance.

4.I began applying for jobs in AR and we looked for houses

5.We bought a house

6.We moved to Arkansas and met Spencer (bad timing on that)

7.I began working in a new hospital, we hung out with some friends at the lake.

8.John started school

9.Met some medschool peeps.

10. I began marathon training in earnest, Kelly and I ran in the mud

11. Had a great Thanksgiving and Skepticon III

12.Traveled home for Christmas with family!

My life isn't that exciting according to this.

Maybe my New Year's Resolution should be to have more fun in life.

Things upcoming are the Little Rock Marathon and something else from my "list" that I haven't decided if I want to reveal...

According to WIRED, 2010 was a pretty dangerous year. I knew about the Russians and Wikileaks, but it seems I don't pay that much attention to the other things going on.

I guess it's time to compare and contrast Fail-Safe with Dr. Strangelove.

ACTUALLY.

It's Isaac Asimov's birthday. He'd be ninety one if he hadn't died of HIV complications. A bad blood transfusion killed a man that has been published in nine out of ten sections of the Dewey Decimal system.

Go hug a robot but, as Zog reminded me, make sure it follows the three laws of robotics first.