Author: Deanna Pisacreta

As someone who does not typically enjoy science courses, I found this class far surpassed my expectations. Dr. Greer presented the science in a way that it was accessible for the science impaired such as myself. The labs were a great learning experience, while also being somewhat simplistic in nature and fun.

I loved the 3D printing aspect of the course, and found that it was technology Baruch has that I otherwise would not have taken advantage of. I found that the 3D printing also put us a step above the other posters presented at the STEAM Festival. The other posters were very research and data heavy, but our classes were far more creative and innovative. I loved that we were able to show our own ideas at the festival, rather than simply presenting research conducted by other scientists.

Overall, I enjoyed this course far more than I ever expected to, and I am so grateful I chose to take Dr. Greer this semester!

I think it is important to be doing a lab in a classroom setting to see what we have learned in a hands-on environment. A controlled lab environment with expected results is optimal for teaching purposes because it gives students a chance to learn how to complete an experiment with the correct methods and procedures. This way, those students learn how to correctly conduct an experiment if they chose to conduct one with unknown results in the future. In the context of “non-specialist” science courses, I think these labs are still a necessity. This is because a student in any science course should have the opportunity to conduct lab work, as it is an essential part of any of the sciences. In the labs for this class, I hope to gain the experience of hands-on science. I have learned the theory in class, and I’m excited to see the chemical reactions I’ve learned about happen before my eyes.

In a non-science course, such as history or American literature, a “lab” would look like any hands-on experience. For example, in a literature course a “lab” would be creating your own stories rather than just reading other authors. However, for a science lab report, a much different style of academic writing in necessary. It must be much dryer writing, in order to avoid personal opinions clouding the results. A lab report must be as unbiased as possible, it strips away all of the fluff writing in order to allow the data to speak for itself.

I found throughout this article, there was more scientifically technical information than would be found in a New York Times article today. The way it was written, the intended audience has at least some science background. Early in the article, there was a bit more jargon than I was comfortable with, or I felt was appropriate for an article intended for the general public, but as I read further it became a much easier read.

I felt the molecular drawings, while interesting to look at, were unnecessary in a New York Times article. The publication is intended for a general audience, most of whom would not understand the visual representation of a molecule.

The study discussed in the article was quite interesting, and seems to be the beginning studies of modern day Plan B contraceptives. I am very curious to know if the drug discussed in this article is the same one that is a popular contraceptive today, or if this study was more of a starting point for other pharmaceutical companies to begin their own oral contraceptive research.

Overall, I felt had this study been done today, this same article in the New York Time would have been much shorter, and held much less hard fact. It would be much more opinionated, and contained less jargon to make it more accessible to the general public.