Apologies for not taking on this week’s prompt. For tying class themes together, I see the suggested prompt as a theme each week. I must say, though, that everyone in the class has unique methods and styles that I enjoy reading more than my own. This is not so much a disrespect to my own writing as a realization that I like hearing perspectives that help promote my 1-dimentional view of things to a more 3-dimensional view of class and general topics. This in turn gives me the warms satisfaction of a higher level of understanding more apt to be communicated to others in future discussions.
I instead would like to reflect on one example of my own experiential learning. Would what I have gained from my internship have been able to substitute for required courses in my major of chemical engineering?
Company: ADM in research park
Time: May 2009 to present
Job: Research and develop computer simulations of chemical processes in the area of sustainable biofuels
First of all, what have I gained? I would say to categorize what I have learned, (1) context of my academic material into real world application, (2) “duh” points not mentioned in my academic studies, (3) communication skills.
One good thing that I have taken away from my job experience that I would expect from any internship is an understanding of how the technologies and knowledge base from my science and engineering classes are applied to work in the real world. Software used in my senior design class is extensively used for simulation of processes, in place of the 60-plus-year-old pencil and paper techniques taught in most of my classes. On the other hand, the qualitative understanding of underlying system physics that is emphasized in all of my classes is very important because equations can’t tell you when or if they are to be used. I was also amazed that thinking back, I have probably directly used on the order of half of required course material in my internship. There are also some topics used in my internship that are beyond the scope of undergraduate courses, but that are usually studied in graduate school. So, in relation to my required classes, some material is indeed used in my experiential learning, but as more of what I should already have mastered. The role of my internship has been to give context to the learning, which improves the quality of the students that are able to participate in such a program.
Perhaps the most noticeable difference between academic learning and experiential learning is the “duh” points that I have taken from my job. Most of these points in engineering disciplines are closely ties to economics and business considerations of products and processes. Some quick examples:
--Platinum and gold are superb catalysts; they are also too expensive to use in almost every situation
--It is a pain to deal with and dispose of millions of tons of highly corrosive acid on a yearly basis; alternatives should be seriously considered
--Sometimes you just use what’s lying around the lab because it’s more time and capital efficient, but it often makes for some odd laboratory setups and difficult calculations
This “duh” learning definitely improves the quality of the education of graduates from the department, but it doesn’t replace the material already being taught in my required courses. Thus, it is a plus for experiential learning that does not support reduction of required courses.
Communication. Yes, in required classes I have been taught to give nice informative presentations. My experiential learning has focused on what in a presentation is most important to hand off to the audience. In other words, my classes focused on clarity whereas my internship emphasized brevity and compactness of information (graphs not numbers, figures not words). I believe personally, both have been essential to my development in verbal and non-verbal communication.
In conclusion, my required courses could not be replaced with experiential learning, although experiential learning is very helpful to my professional preparation. General education courses, however, could be a target for replacement. And courses for majors with looser requirements could perhaps be replaced with more success than mine.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Writing as a Sinking Ship
I must admit, blogging as a new experience for me has been a little like jumping from a sinking Titanic into the icy waters of the sea in winter. Let me explain.
All of my shared writing that I’ve done up to now has been for a very specific audience- in most cases an audience of one- my teacher. I have been a very efficient learner growing up about what people want to hear. Teachers want to know that you understand the presented material, and that you can use it in correct context. This includes subjects directly related to writing, like grammar and literature, or indirectly related to writing, like chemical engineering. This type of writing, if published openly, would probably either bore most people, or be irrelevant enough for them not to want to read it. This type of writing is also ultimately self-alienating, and somewhat like going down with the Titanic in the way it confines individuals.
For me, the publishing of work to the open internet has a duality of effect on my attitude when composing. It is frightening because the audience could end up being anyone from my classmate to my mother, but it is freeing because I don’t feel pushed to please one person or type of person. The frightening part is coupled to by indoctrination by parents and teachers at a young age that the internet is a place where you must always be careful when inputting information; anyone connected to your past, present, or future could be reading. The freeing part allows me to write more about how I perceive things, and less how my audience may want to perceive things. Because the audience is an open one, I don’t even try to cater to their background, circumstances, beliefs, or biases. Instead, all I can do is humbly present my own experience and understanding with reasoning, and resign to the fact that there will be some people that vehemently disagree and some people that see my perspective as it is. The frightening part of publishing to an open internet is akin to jumping into a freezing sea, as it both hurts and can easily paralyze a person by the shock. Jumping in, however, allows an escape from a sinking ship and a way of freedom.
As a self-critique, I am not taking full advantage of the idea of posting to the internet as an open source. The benefits from openness are realized on my blog, but not necessarily the benefits of the internetness. The internet is a network of two-way streets, and I have not yet fully transferred the advantage of this structure to my blog. One thing that has happened is an exchange between individuals in the class reading and commenting on fellow classmates’ blogs. Ideally (and if each of us had more free time) we would fully extend this utilization outside the nucleated community of our classroom and outward to incorporate published writing and other media of outside sources that have meaning to us individually elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in a day, and for now it may be satisfactory for me to benefit from reflective writing on a blog as a way to get used to the open waters that invite me to express myself more freely.
All of my shared writing that I’ve done up to now has been for a very specific audience- in most cases an audience of one- my teacher. I have been a very efficient learner growing up about what people want to hear. Teachers want to know that you understand the presented material, and that you can use it in correct context. This includes subjects directly related to writing, like grammar and literature, or indirectly related to writing, like chemical engineering. This type of writing, if published openly, would probably either bore most people, or be irrelevant enough for them not to want to read it. This type of writing is also ultimately self-alienating, and somewhat like going down with the Titanic in the way it confines individuals.
For me, the publishing of work to the open internet has a duality of effect on my attitude when composing. It is frightening because the audience could end up being anyone from my classmate to my mother, but it is freeing because I don’t feel pushed to please one person or type of person. The frightening part is coupled to by indoctrination by parents and teachers at a young age that the internet is a place where you must always be careful when inputting information; anyone connected to your past, present, or future could be reading. The freeing part allows me to write more about how I perceive things, and less how my audience may want to perceive things. Because the audience is an open one, I don’t even try to cater to their background, circumstances, beliefs, or biases. Instead, all I can do is humbly present my own experience and understanding with reasoning, and resign to the fact that there will be some people that vehemently disagree and some people that see my perspective as it is. The frightening part of publishing to an open internet is akin to jumping into a freezing sea, as it both hurts and can easily paralyze a person by the shock. Jumping in, however, allows an escape from a sinking ship and a way of freedom.
As a self-critique, I am not taking full advantage of the idea of posting to the internet as an open source. The benefits from openness are realized on my blog, but not necessarily the benefits of the internetness. The internet is a network of two-way streets, and I have not yet fully transferred the advantage of this structure to my blog. One thing that has happened is an exchange between individuals in the class reading and commenting on fellow classmates’ blogs. Ideally (and if each of us had more free time) we would fully extend this utilization outside the nucleated community of our classroom and outward to incorporate published writing and other media of outside sources that have meaning to us individually elsewhere. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in a day, and for now it may be satisfactory for me to benefit from reflective writing on a blog as a way to get used to the open waters that invite me to express myself more freely.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Criticism
Criticism is important to relay direction and guidance from an expert to a novice, or from someone would feels they are an expert to someone who is believed to be a novice. I can offer criticism well to others only for subject areas that I have a considerable amount of knowledge to draw from.
Criticism only works when there is a measure of understanding between the two parties. I am highly reluctant to receive criticism, especially if it is harsh, from a stranger than someone who knows me at least somewhat. On the receiving end the person needs to accept that the critic:
(1) is knowledgeable in the subject of work
If my cousin who works in construction says that my interview suit is too flashy, I may brush the comment off. If a corporate executive suggests that my pink tie dominates the interview suit, I will probably take that criticism to heart and change my tie.
(2) is familiar with the environment, background, and circumstances the criticized person
If I am criticized for turning in an assignment late by my professor, I may tell myself that they are in the dark on how busy a student’s life can be. If my roommate recommends that I should use a day-planner to better manage my time for homework, I will probably consider doing it.
(3) is motivated exclusively by wanting to improve the person
If a salesman suggests that I can improve my life by buying a product, I immediately shut out the drone of his voice. If my mom suggests the same idea, however, I know that she wants the best for me and she must sincerely believe that product ABC will help me sleep better at night.
One main way I believe I am effective at giving criticism is making my comments both specific and general. There is an essential balance in good criticism between making specific statements and making general suggestions. Be too specific, and the other person may not come away with a gauge of their achievement on the task. But be too general, and it becomes near impossible for the other person to make corrections in the right areas or improve specific techniques. Because I tend to think in a deliberate and logical manner, I prefer to lean towards specific criticisms. When receiving criticism, it is hard for me to bear the correction of someone who expresses an overall sense that my work needs to improve by moving in one direction or another. I am much more accepting and am able to apply myself to utilizing others’ criticisms when they direct me to correct X by improving Y which comes from practicing Z. When I give criticism in an area of my own expertise, I try to be specific as possible so as to provide the other person with a high level of clarity. However, a measure of generality is needed to make sure criticism has a maximum effect. This is an interpretation of the popular saying, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” The specific can be limited in how helpful it is if context is not built, and students can easily forget nuggets of information not attached to a broader system of understanding.
In light of a mentoring program, it is important that the mentors are mature enough to understand that helping others to learn is not ultimately about memorizing facts, or techniques, or methods, or protocols, or formats, or heuristics. When you commit to helping others learn, you commit to making sure that the mentee receives the ability to generalize to situations that come from diverse areas of study, areas of study that may only exist in the future, and perhaps even life outside study.
Criticism only works when there is a measure of understanding between the two parties. I am highly reluctant to receive criticism, especially if it is harsh, from a stranger than someone who knows me at least somewhat. On the receiving end the person needs to accept that the critic:
(1) is knowledgeable in the subject of work
If my cousin who works in construction says that my interview suit is too flashy, I may brush the comment off. If a corporate executive suggests that my pink tie dominates the interview suit, I will probably take that criticism to heart and change my tie.
(2) is familiar with the environment, background, and circumstances the criticized person
If I am criticized for turning in an assignment late by my professor, I may tell myself that they are in the dark on how busy a student’s life can be. If my roommate recommends that I should use a day-planner to better manage my time for homework, I will probably consider doing it.
(3) is motivated exclusively by wanting to improve the person
If a salesman suggests that I can improve my life by buying a product, I immediately shut out the drone of his voice. If my mom suggests the same idea, however, I know that she wants the best for me and she must sincerely believe that product ABC will help me sleep better at night.
One main way I believe I am effective at giving criticism is making my comments both specific and general. There is an essential balance in good criticism between making specific statements and making general suggestions. Be too specific, and the other person may not come away with a gauge of their achievement on the task. But be too general, and it becomes near impossible for the other person to make corrections in the right areas or improve specific techniques. Because I tend to think in a deliberate and logical manner, I prefer to lean towards specific criticisms. When receiving criticism, it is hard for me to bear the correction of someone who expresses an overall sense that my work needs to improve by moving in one direction or another. I am much more accepting and am able to apply myself to utilizing others’ criticisms when they direct me to correct X by improving Y which comes from practicing Z. When I give criticism in an area of my own expertise, I try to be specific as possible so as to provide the other person with a high level of clarity. However, a measure of generality is needed to make sure criticism has a maximum effect. This is an interpretation of the popular saying, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” The specific can be limited in how helpful it is if context is not built, and students can easily forget nuggets of information not attached to a broader system of understanding.
In light of a mentoring program, it is important that the mentors are mature enough to understand that helping others to learn is not ultimately about memorizing facts, or techniques, or methods, or protocols, or formats, or heuristics. When you commit to helping others learn, you commit to making sure that the mentee receives the ability to generalize to situations that come from diverse areas of study, areas of study that may only exist in the future, and perhaps even life outside study.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Social Impacts and Social Problems
While reading chapter 5 of Drucker, “Social Impacts and Social Problems” I was somewhat shocked that there are politically active men and women (an example is Ralph Nader) who promote unlimited social responsibility for big business. They have asked themselves, “should businesses bear the burden of having both responsibility and authority in all matters of social problems occurring in their communities and societies?” And their answer has been an emphatic, “yes, responsibility in all matters.”
This philosophy necessarily urges businesses to assume a position of authority in the realm already served by other (non-profit) institutions. For example, to say that Du Pont is responsible for using its economic success to push for racial equality, health care reform, and the improvement of public schools is to say that Du Pont should usurp a large amount of authority outside its area of expertise. Du Pont should take over the role of several non-profits- including the government- that already concentrate on these issues and prove themselves a boon to society by accepting all authority to solve these problems.
The first problem with this expectation to me is a glaring probability of conflict of interest. The implication of a profit-biased company running multiple “noble” efforts to curb and correct social problems, is that each correction must ultimately be profitable or it becomes doubly a cost to the business. If Du Pont believes (correctly or incorrectly) that promoting racial equality will decrease the quality of workers it can hire in its factories, the company must pay to run a program for racial inequality and it must pay the cost of decreased profits from poorer quality workers. To expect such a sacrifice from a company in a capitalist economic system is unrealistic in my mind. It immediately brings the danger of insincere and damaging social authority by businesses to replace the clear-minded goals of non-profits.
Although putting all responsibility of social problems squarely on the shoulders of big business is not reasonable, it is always important for companies to be mindful of social problems surrounding their customers, as this can be directly linked to their effectiveness as an institution. If the main objective of a business is to create a customer, it should behoove the business to see customers coming from the pool that is the local community as living in a society that has problems. I do not feel like it is good or possible to separate the needs of a customer (or potential customer) from his or her relationship to the society that has problems that affect everyone. Although Drucker made a good point by stating that some social problems can be seen as economic opportunities, and thus the connection to the customer make sense, the connection of the customer to problems that are not solvable by business innovation are just as important or more important to consider. It seems that these problems, because they are less likely to be “solved” in a defined and specific way, are going to be a part of the customer’s everyday context for some time into the future, which influences the wants, needs, practices, and habits of the customer.
So, is Ralph Nader correct for pointing out that companies neglect social problems too much and congratulate themselves for positive social impacts too much…probably. Is Ralph Nader right in demanding complete responsibility for correcting social problems from big business… for the ultimate good of society, probably no.
This philosophy necessarily urges businesses to assume a position of authority in the realm already served by other (non-profit) institutions. For example, to say that Du Pont is responsible for using its economic success to push for racial equality, health care reform, and the improvement of public schools is to say that Du Pont should usurp a large amount of authority outside its area of expertise. Du Pont should take over the role of several non-profits- including the government- that already concentrate on these issues and prove themselves a boon to society by accepting all authority to solve these problems.
The first problem with this expectation to me is a glaring probability of conflict of interest. The implication of a profit-biased company running multiple “noble” efforts to curb and correct social problems, is that each correction must ultimately be profitable or it becomes doubly a cost to the business. If Du Pont believes (correctly or incorrectly) that promoting racial equality will decrease the quality of workers it can hire in its factories, the company must pay to run a program for racial inequality and it must pay the cost of decreased profits from poorer quality workers. To expect such a sacrifice from a company in a capitalist economic system is unrealistic in my mind. It immediately brings the danger of insincere and damaging social authority by businesses to replace the clear-minded goals of non-profits.
Although putting all responsibility of social problems squarely on the shoulders of big business is not reasonable, it is always important for companies to be mindful of social problems surrounding their customers, as this can be directly linked to their effectiveness as an institution. If the main objective of a business is to create a customer, it should behoove the business to see customers coming from the pool that is the local community as living in a society that has problems. I do not feel like it is good or possible to separate the needs of a customer (or potential customer) from his or her relationship to the society that has problems that affect everyone. Although Drucker made a good point by stating that some social problems can be seen as economic opportunities, and thus the connection to the customer make sense, the connection of the customer to problems that are not solvable by business innovation are just as important or more important to consider. It seems that these problems, because they are less likely to be “solved” in a defined and specific way, are going to be a part of the customer’s everyday context for some time into the future, which influences the wants, needs, practices, and habits of the customer.
So, is Ralph Nader correct for pointing out that companies neglect social problems too much and congratulate themselves for positive social impacts too much…probably. Is Ralph Nader right in demanding complete responsibility for correcting social problems from big business… for the ultimate good of society, probably no.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Alignment of the "Saltshaker"
Alignment is “a state of agreement or cooperation among persons, groups, nations, etc., with a common cause or viewpoint” according to dictionary dot com. I immediately thought of the house where I live on campus, endearingly referred to as the “Saltshaker”. Eight young men from my church live there including me, and we generally are supposed to function as a unit in order to maintain a pleasant “home away from home”. In addition to this main purpose, objectives outlined include such things as: keeping the house clean, cooking dinner four nights a week, and providing a healthy atmosphere physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Formal management of the house is responsibility of a “house dad”, but because of the small size of the group, personal accountability to each other is a significant part of how the house of managed informally. Because we each come from different families and different hometowns (albeit all in central Illinois), we will each naturally deviate to operating according to our own ideas of “how things should be” if not aligned.
The largest practical means of aligning the group to focus on our objectives is the semesterly house meeting, where we evenly divide up all jobs (from cooking to cleaning bathrooms) based on a point basis. All jobs have rules which are written down in a list of job descriptions, and additionally include motivations like: “if dishes are not done, party responsible will acquire all subsequent dirty dishes until job is completed.” And because we know each other well enough, we can feel free to refer each other to the job description if someone is neglecting their duties. On the other hand, the reward system for doing jobs is weak in my opinion, as it consists only of a sticker chart for each person’s job each week. Although everyone is pretty honest in withholding their sticker if they failed to do their job, the chart seems to hold little importance in terms of shame or pride in completing duties.
What management (the house dad) might do to maintain alignment in doing jobs correctly and completely is to institute a better reward system by peer evaluation- perhaps a system like a rent surcharge to poor job performance as indicated by a simple survey of the house residents each month.
Another part of alignment that has become evident at the Saltshaker is difference of opinions in procedural and organizational matters. Two examples are whether the shopper can buy groceries at a more expensive store if the food quality is slightly higher or the store is easier to shop at, and the arrangement of parking to get eight vehicles in a single driveway without creating the environment for fender benders or trapping others’ vehicles. What management can do to align us in these matters is to consider the options in light of the overall house objectives and write down the procedures to give concrete direction to us all. Also, it helps that we each are thankful to have such a nice place to stay with cheap rent, and thus are somewhat internally motivated to maintain the house. “For the good of the ‘Shake’” is a popular slogan we say occasionally (when someone needs to “take one for the team”) to remind us that personal sacrifices must sometimes be made to keep the good thing we have. Thus the most effective way to maintain alignment in the situation of the Saltshaker is to well define our objectives and tasks, and then promote each resident to take a personal stake in this home of ours.
Formal management of the house is responsibility of a “house dad”, but because of the small size of the group, personal accountability to each other is a significant part of how the house of managed informally. Because we each come from different families and different hometowns (albeit all in central Illinois), we will each naturally deviate to operating according to our own ideas of “how things should be” if not aligned.
The largest practical means of aligning the group to focus on our objectives is the semesterly house meeting, where we evenly divide up all jobs (from cooking to cleaning bathrooms) based on a point basis. All jobs have rules which are written down in a list of job descriptions, and additionally include motivations like: “if dishes are not done, party responsible will acquire all subsequent dirty dishes until job is completed.” And because we know each other well enough, we can feel free to refer each other to the job description if someone is neglecting their duties. On the other hand, the reward system for doing jobs is weak in my opinion, as it consists only of a sticker chart for each person’s job each week. Although everyone is pretty honest in withholding their sticker if they failed to do their job, the chart seems to hold little importance in terms of shame or pride in completing duties.
What management (the house dad) might do to maintain alignment in doing jobs correctly and completely is to institute a better reward system by peer evaluation- perhaps a system like a rent surcharge to poor job performance as indicated by a simple survey of the house residents each month.
Another part of alignment that has become evident at the Saltshaker is difference of opinions in procedural and organizational matters. Two examples are whether the shopper can buy groceries at a more expensive store if the food quality is slightly higher or the store is easier to shop at, and the arrangement of parking to get eight vehicles in a single driveway without creating the environment for fender benders or trapping others’ vehicles. What management can do to align us in these matters is to consider the options in light of the overall house objectives and write down the procedures to give concrete direction to us all. Also, it helps that we each are thankful to have such a nice place to stay with cheap rent, and thus are somewhat internally motivated to maintain the house. “For the good of the ‘Shake’” is a popular slogan we say occasionally (when someone needs to “take one for the team”) to remind us that personal sacrifices must sometimes be made to keep the good thing we have. Thus the most effective way to maintain alignment in the situation of the Saltshaker is to well define our objectives and tasks, and then promote each resident to take a personal stake in this home of ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)