Preparing for University: Life Science Prep Classes Pt. 2

In my last post, I talked about my first lecture and study group meeting for the Life Sci prep course. I stopped after that because a 4-page blog post wouldn’t have been the coolest idea. So here is what happened over the next three weeks.

As mentioned in the lecture, the existence of irisin was highly debated at the time Spiegelman published his paper. He first published a paper explaining the molecule, then other scientists began to argue against it, saying their tests were unable to detect any such molecule, and then he published a second paper about finding irisin using mass spectrometry.

That is the paper we were assigned to read during the second week. We had to understand a bit of what was going on, try to wrap our heads around the procedure and find the thesis/argument of the paper. The activity was to reinforce our critical thinking skills and give us a taste of what university science courses are like.

The first lecture felt like an info dump, but this paper was only 8 pages long (at least the one assigned to us), so it was easier to get through. My way of reading it was starting from the title and asking questions, and then trying to find answers within the paper or by Googling. I googled a lot of terminology and processes because they were new to me, but I didn’t want that to stop me from understanding the paper. I made annotations all over the paper and summarized what I understood on the back of each sheet.

My method of understanding the paper was quite different from what the others in my study group did. Because 3 people were too few for a group, the coordinator clubbed two groups together to form a larger one, and by week two, we had 7 people. A total of 4 people attended the discussion; not much more than the first week, but the conversation was a lot more interesting because we knew what to talk about. We shared our techniques and 3 out of 4 people used OneNote to make notes and summarize. I was the only one with annotations.

We discussed things like mass spectrometry, gel electrophoresis, and why the subjects of the study were all men. There were a couple of inconsistencies in their methods that I personally am not a fan of. A total of 10 people were studied, 4 sedentary men and 6 active men. First, why were the number of people in each group not equal? If they were equal at the beginning but the scientists had to disregard someone’s results for some reason, they should have mentioned that. And second, why were no women studied for this experiment? Do women not have irisin? Can they not follow the exercise routine you’ve set for the men? I understand that adding women to the study would mean having to consider more factors, but in a time when we’re fighting for equality and equity, it feels a little backward to include only men in an experiment regarding exercise. That is my critical analysis of their methods. Besides that, they highlighted their own shortcomings pretty well.

For the rest of the meeting we talked about high school and university and what our plans were. It was nice talking to people I’ll have classes with later on this year. It gave me the reassurance that I’m not in this alone and there are people who are just as scared and clueless as I am.

For our third week, the professor uploaded a 30-minute lecture, de-briefing us on the paper. His intention was to make sure we don’t miss any important details in the paper, especially because not a lot of us are used to reading scientific literature yet. I got most of what he said the first time I read the paper but when he got to the discussion section of the paper, I realized I had missed something really cool. It was definitely because of the minimal experience I had reading scientific papers, but I missed the fact that Spiegelman was being very petty and blunt when talking about why, and how, the other scientists that were debating the existence of irisin were wrong. He was throwing shade left and right, and he deserved to because these people had tried to come after his work. All I could think of during the lecture was that meme “Don’t talk to me or my son ever again;” it was hilarious.

Our meeting that week was the same as the week before. We discussed the lecture for a few minutes and then started talking about our own lives. We really bonded XD.

For the last week of the course, we had to do a quiz based on the two lectures and the paper. It was 10 questions, worded uni-style, and I got 8/10 on my first try. It was so cool because the material was new to me, but I hadn’t memorized anything, and I still got that score. I wouldn’t have gotten the other two right even if I wanted to; I still don’t know where the answers for them are in my notes. I took my quiz before the last meeting and so did a few others, so we didn’t really fulfill the purpose of the meeting, which was to discuss possible questions.

Besides the lectures, the course provided us with a lot of study techniques to try in university. A lot of them are common advice and few things are new and interesting. I’ll try them out and see which ones I like, before sharing them here. We also got a few videos each week from a peer mentor, in which she described her own experiences and tips for having a good first year. I can’t say I enjoyed them too much, but A+ for effort.

The study group will now be converted to a recognized one, which means we could have it on our co-curricular record if we fulfill the requirements. We’ve met even after the course finished and I’m looking forward to having more to talk about with them.

This was all about the Life Sci prep class. I wanted to post something from the lectures or paper but I was afraid of copyright, so I think I’ll post my notes from the lectures as part 3 someday. Till my next post, toodles. – Aarushi