I’m quite excited – I will most likely be giving a teaching seminar to graduate students in January! Most teaching assistants (TAs) do not get any training on how to teach well, so the Teaching Support Centre on campus hosts such seminars and events for this purpose.

My seminar will focus on how to best ask and answer questions in a lab or tutorial setting. So, instead of just asking closed-ended questions (that only require one-word responses), or by directly answering questions, I will teach them how to use questions to foster a better learning environment. I will lecture for a short time, but the majority of the seminar will be dedicated to group work on case studies. This will give the students direct experience with these situations that can be applied to their lab or tutorial setting.

It’s always fun to give some examples of questions that have been asked in labs/tutorials/classrooms that the TA or prof found difficult to deal with.

Some examples might be:
- (chemistry lab) “Is the water boiling?”
- (math course) “So, irrational numbers must be female then?”
- (any class) “What is the point of us learning this?”

So, what is the strangest or most interesting question you’ve heard in these or other settings? Let’s hear your best (or worst) question experiences!

Last week I wrote about my job search. Not more than a couple days later I had a pseudo-offer on the table for a post-doc. Pseudo because it’s not set in stone until a) I say that I’d like the position and b) my PhD supervisor gives me a good reference (which hopefully shouldn’t be an issue).

The (potential) problem? It’s in a different field.

I don’t want to get into details on the good ‘ol internet, but the field is somewhat related to mine, but far enough that it makes me nervous. However, it’s a field that I’ve been interested in for some time, and was even contemplating it as an option when I was considering dropping out of my PhD (the many, many times I was considering it).

So, anyone out there switch fields in a 45-degree-angle sort-of-way? Thoughts? Advice? Would I be crazy to do it (or not to do it)?

Some of you may remember a few weeks ago (Oct. 9th) when NASA slammed a spacecraft (2 parts of LCROSS) into a crater near the south pole of the Moon. If you watched live, or saw recordings of the crash later on, you were most likely disappointed. Not much was to be seen, unlike NASA’s simulation of what might occur.

Although it would have been cool to see a big plume, the main purpose of this was to find out if there was water on the Moon…and they found about 25 gallons of it!

Here are some links to some of the stories coming out today:
NASA’s LCROSS site
Associated Press
Space.com

The Leonids meteor shower is one of the better showers of the year (behind the Geminids in December and Perseids in August). One can typically view 40 meteors per hour during the peak days, which are November 17th and 18th this year. However, meteors can be seen anywhere between November 13th-20th. It should be a decent year, since it will be a new moon during this time.

How do you know you’re seeing a Leonid meteor and not just some random shooting star? All of the meteor showers are named according to the constellation the meteors will appear to originate from. So, all you need to do is find the constellation of Leo, and any meteors coming from that direction are Leonids!

To find Leo, you need to be able to find the Big Dipper (a part of Ursa Major). Once you find that, you can use the “pointer stars” (the two stars at the end of the bowl of the dipper). If you draw a line through those two stars in a downward direction, you’ll hit what will look like a sickle, or a backwards question mark. That is the head of Leo the lion.

For those of you who like maps, go here. Ursa Major is right in the center, and Leo is just below.

Let me know if you see some Leonids over the next week!

I haven’t blogged about my job search, but that’s because there hasn’t been much to report.

Some background: My husband received a permanent job in his lab as of October 1st. I currently have a post-doc position, but only until the end of December. So, since mid-September I’ve been applying for a few jobs, and trying to speak to as many people as I can who are doing research or activities I’m interested in.

Since I am geographically limited in my job search, I’ve had to widen my area of interest. From my experience in outreach, I’ve developed quite the interest in education research, as well as sociological issues scientists face (particularly women in science). I have also been interested in getting into environmental science for some time, so that is another avenue I’m exploring.

I’ve applied to six jobs outside the university, and one inside. I’ll admit that it was a stretch for me to apply to most of these, but there were a couple that I thought at least I’d get an interview. No go though.

The last couple of weeks I’ve been having meeting after meeting with various people around the university. It’s been very interesting hearing about all the research going on in different faculties, departments, and centers. Each person I meet gives me another list of names to contact – and around it goes. I wonder how many people I have to meet before someone gives me the contact information of the first person I spoke too?

There has also been some action regarding the outreach program I have proposed to set up. Many people have expressed an interest in the program, and there has even been some hushed conversations about funding.

Nothing concrete has developed in terms of employment, but I am optimistic, especially after reading Eva’s recent post.

Richard W. asks: What are the current/upcoming telescope technologies?

There have been many changes in telescope technologies over the past few years, so I won’t try to hit them all; just the ones that I find fascinating!

Although perhaps not exactly recent, the most widely used technology is the CCD camera. This basically changed the face of astronomy, because now images can be stored, and analyzed, on computers.

One CCD camera in particular is MegaCam on the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. This camera is one of the largest astronomical CCD mosaics in the world, consisting of 36 2048 × 4612 pixel CCDs, with a 1-degree by 1-degree field-of-view. This means it can fit the full moon and more in one frame! It is the equivalent of a 340 megapixel camera. Pretty good, if you ask me. I actually use data from this camera, and we have found thousands of asteroids that have never been seen before.

Another technique currently being used is adaptive optics, which reduces distortions in an image caused by turbulence in the atmosphere (which is what makes stars twinkle!). A sensor measures the distortions on millisecond timescales, then a computer calculates the optimal mirror shape to reduce the distortions. The mirror, which is deformable, is shaped accordingly. Pretty cool stuff.

One popular upcoming technology is the use of interferometry – using two or more smaller telescopes, separated by a certain distance, to get a bigger field-of-view. This is most widely associated with radio telescopes, like the Very Large Array in New Mexico, but is now being used at different wavelengths. One such idea was Constellation X, which was going to be an X-ray observatory with 4 telescopes placed in Earth’s orbit. This one has since been changed to the International X-ray Observatory, and sounds like it will only be one telescope.

Another example of this is PanStarrs – an optical telescope that will use 4 smaller telescopes to get a panoramic view of the sky. One of these telescopes is built, and they intend to have the other three built and working by 2012. It’s primary mission is to detect potentially hazardous asteroids in near-Earth space.

The bigger the mirror, or light bucket, the fainter we can see. That’s the motivation behind the Thirty Meter Telescope. Yup, that means the main mirror will be 30 meters (or about 100 feet) across. I don’t know what else to say about this except that it’s frickin’ cool.

Having large mirrors poses a problem, however. They just can not be made at high quality over a certain size. To address this, scientists have come up with two solutions: combining a bunch of smaller mirrors (usually hexagonal in shape), and liquid mirrors. This works by rotating a small layer of liquid so it makes a parabolic shape. The problem here is the mirror cannot be tilted, but you don’t have to worry about cutting yourself on all that glass. Come up with a method to tilt one of these babies, and you’re golden.

I know many of you are waiting on me to answer the string theory question…I admit that I’ll probably avoid that for a while, but will get to it eventually! I’m trying to figure out how to discuss it with my friends.

One of my favorite things to show in the night sky is actually man-made: the International Space Station (ISS). Usually when I tell a group that we’ll be looking at the station, they’re not very interested. I mean, who hasn’t seen a satellite pass over head? But, things sure change once we’re outside, and the station appears out of nowhere and sometimes shines brighter than any star. It becomes the highlight of the night!

It’s easy to figure out when and where you can see the ISS – just head on over to their tracking website. On the left hand side, choose your country, region, and city, and it will generate a list of the observable times over the next week or so. If you’re unsure of the directions, there is a help page.

It’s even more fun to say that there are astronauts living up there right now, doing all sorts of wonderful science from biology, to atmospheric physics, to engineering!

If the weather is decent in your area, try it out this week and let me know how it goes!

As I posted on Monday, I was at the Women in Astronomy and Space Sciences conference this week. For a great summary of the events, head over to the WiA blog, where Hannah writes about each session. Also, videos of the talks will be posted on the WiA website, so go check it out.

I’d like to share what I thought were the main points that were brought up again and again during the conference:

1. Mentoring is KEY!
We were told over and over, by astronomers from all different levels and career paths, that having a good mentor (or a few) can really make a difference. I totally agree, but as I talked to graduate students and other post-docs, many questions came up. How do we find these mentors? How do we know who will be a good mentor for us? What if there is no one in our department who we want to emulate? How do we find mentors outside of academia?

2. We need to put the same value on non-academic jobs
This seems obvious, doesn’t it? If all of us were researchers, we certainly wouldn’t get far. We need people who want and can teach, do outreach, be policy makers, or work in industry and government labs. The tenure track should not be the end-all and be-all for everyone in astronomy, and that should be okay.

3. Choose a career path where you will do the most good for your field
This relates to the point above. It’s okay to play to one’s strengths, to choose something you want to do (not something others think you should do). If you’re a good teacher and like to teach, then teach! Personally, I know my strengths are in organizational roles, particularly in outreach, and that is the path I want to follow, even if others see it as “soft” or as a “failure”.

4. Women have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Minorities are where women were 30-40 years ago.
This became very evident when looking around at the conference. Yes, it was amazing to see 250 female astronomers in one room, but there were very few minorities in the group. They are going through the same crap women did a generation ago. In particular, we heard many disturbing stories from African Americans (women and men). Things are still so far from being where they should be.

5. Judgments and biases between women are prevalent.
I won’t talk about these much here (see my personal blog for more), but it bothers me when women argue with each other about who does things the “right” way. We should all know by now that there are as many ways to do something “right” as there are people. I believe women would get much further in the fight against discrimination if we stopped fighting with each other and supported each other in whatever decisions we make.

This conference was an amazing experience. I was able to meet women from all fields in astronomy (which we don’t get to do much) at all career levels – from graduate students, to tenured professors, to NASA administrators, and outreach coordinators. It really opened my eyes to hear the stories of the “senior” women and the problems us “early career” women are still having. I hope that the organizers of the conference manage to keep the lines of communication open so that we can continue to address and fix these issues.

This week I’m heading to the Women in Astronomy and Space Sciences conference. This will be my first non-science conference, and I am very much looking forward to it. There will be speakers and discussions, but it doesn’t sound like it’s set up like a typical science conference (with 10-15 minute talks in blocks).

There will, however, be a poster session. I am presenting the results from a short survey I made up on how educational experiences of women in astronomy influence their career choices. All participants who are presenting a poster have been invited to write a paper on the same topic, and will be published after the conference (I believe).

The sessions include such topics as: addressing unconscious bias, how do professional communities impact percentages and retention, paths to non-academic careers, generational issues, career breaks, and work/life balance.

The organizers have also done a fantastic job in making into more of a networking event. All of the breakfasts, lunches, and two dinners were included in the registration, so there is ample time to mingle with all the other participants. During the breakfasts, junior scientists are teamed up with more senior scientists/VIPs, so we can ask all the questions we can think of!

The conference ends with a tour of the White House – how cool is that?

I will definitely give a summary of my experience once I return.

In my department, the only faculty positions are for researchers. This becomes a problem when researchers only want to do research, but, because of contractual obligations, are forced to teach 1, 2 or even 3 classes each semester. This is far from ideal for these researchers.

I know that in many colleges and universities in the United States there are tenure track positions for research faculty and teaching faculty (is it the same elsewhere?). In my mind, this makes the most sense because the researchers get to do research, the teachers get to teach, and everyone is happy.

So, why isn’t this the case here? There is still the very much archaic feeling that teaching is “second class” to research. That, if there were teaching faculty, they would be treated as “lesser” faculty, and this just isn’t fair.

Personally, this is garbage (to put it nicely). I know many people who would love the opportunity to teach full time, with job security, and not have to do research (I am one of them). Why not get people who love what they do to do what they want to do? Research would be done more effectively and efficiently, and the level of teaching would increase exponentially.

Many of our universities fully admit that their focus is not on teaching – that they are research institutions (even though some pride themselves as giving “the best” undergraduate experience). Why not have both? It’s an easy enough fix, and imagine how much better a university would be if they had great research and great teaching!

What is the situation at your university or in your department? Are there research tenure tracks and teaching tenure tracks? Do you believe there is a benefit to having both, or is it better to only have researchers?