Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Learn and Earn Programs in North Carolina

In North Carolina, an early college program, known as Learn and Earn, enable students to earn their high school diploma and up to two years of college credits in 5 years at no charge.

Learn and Earn is part of the New Schools Project, which looks for innovative approaches to keep students in high school and prepare them for college and for the future workforce.

An article in the New York Times recently cited North Carolina as a leader in the field of early college programs. With more than 70 programs across the states, these programs are designed to keep at risk students in school while blurring the line between high school and college.

Only 62 percent of students in North Carolina graduate after four years. Early college programs see little drop out even if the students do not receive two full years of college credit. Jobs for the Future conducted a survey in 2008 of early college programs that have been open for at least 4 years and found that they had a 92 percent graduation rate and 40 percent of the students completed at least a year of college credits.

Tony Habit, president of the North Carolina New Schools Project, reported that an independent study found that N.C.'s early college high schools:
  • Increase the number of students succeeding in college-preparatory courses
  • Reduce the performance gap between minorities and white students
  • Create a climate where students report significantly higher expectations, more rigorous and relevant instruction, and higher levels of academic and social support
With a large rural population and the loss of traditional industries like agricultural (namely tobacco) and textiles, North Carolina is adapting to a changing environment. Now that the state is looking at creating science standards, this is even more prevalent.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Building Bridges [draft]

I'm inspired by brilliant and creative minds;
slick rational thinking;
blue skies and rain.

I'm inspired by the promise of challenges;
the awe of solutions;
the smell of coffee.

I'm inspired by a firm handshake from a friend;
a hug from someone I've just met;
sunlight through a window.

I'm inspired by my daughter's laughter;
my wife's smile;
my mother's voice.

I'm inspired by my father's calloused hands;
my grandfather's stoicism;
my uncle's wisdom.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

What's with the dog?

Monday, February 1, 2010

Barefoot Running

Update 26 Feb. 2010: Thanks to Louie Herr for linking to this article, because I've been wanting to add a bit of editorial to it since I posted it. It seemed a bit lame to just copy and paste the article to the blog from ScienceDaily.

Since posting this article, myself and a couple friends of mine have been routinely running barefoot. I have not ventured outdoors yet but have worked on the treadmill in bare feet and notice a huge difference in stride and stress on my joints and limbs.

This Week in Science reported on a study that running in traditional running shoes provided the same type of stress on your foot as a pair of high heels.

It should also be noted that Vibram, the company who makes the foot glove, or whatever it is called, funded this study. I have not tried them but as Louie mentioned, they're probably in my near future.

I am completely sold on BF running.

###

Barefoot Running: How Humans Ran Comfortably and Safely Before the Invention of Shoes

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2010) — New research is casting doubt on the old adage, "All you need to run is a pair of shoes."


Scientists have found that those who run barefoot, or in minimal footwear, tend to avoid "heel-striking," and instead land on the ball of the foot or the middle of the foot. In so doing, these runners use the architecture of the foot and leg and some clever Newtonian physics to avoid hurtful and potentially damaging impacts, equivalent to two to three times body weight, that shod heel-strikers repeatedly experience.

"People who don't wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike," says Daniel E. Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University and co-author of a paper appearing this week in the journal Nature. "By landing on the middle or front of the foot, barefoot runners have almost no impact collision, much less than most shod runners generate when they heel-strike. Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world's hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain. All you need is a few calluses to avoid roughing up the skin of the foot. Further, it might be less injurious than the way some people run in shoes."

Working with populations of runners in the United States and Kenya, Lieberman and his colleagues at Harvard, the University of Glasgow, and Moi University looked at the running gaits of three groups: those who had always run barefoot, those who had always worn shoes, and those who had converted to barefoot running from shod running. The researchers found a striking pattern.

Most shod runners -- more than 75 percent of Americans -- heel-strike, experiencing a very large and sudden collision force about 1,000 times per mile run. People who run barefoot, however, tend to land with a springy step towards the middle or front of the foot.

"Heel-striking is painful when barefoot or in minimal shoes because it causes a large collisional force each time a foot lands on the ground," says co-author Madhusudhan Venkadesan, a postdoctoral researcher in applied mathematics and human evolutionary biology at Harvard. "Barefoot runners point their toes more at landing, avoiding this collision by decreasing the effective mass of the foot that comes to a sudden stop when you land, and by having a more compliant, or springy, leg."

The differences between shod and unshod running have evolutionary underpinnings. For example, says Lieberman, our early Australopith ancestors had less developed arches in their feet. Homo sapiens, by contrast, has evolved a strong, large arch that we use as a spring when running.

"Our feet were made in part for running," Lieberman says. But as he and his co-authors write in Nature: "Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning."

For modern humans who have grown up wearing shoes, barefoot or minimal shoe running is something to be eased into, warns Lieberman. Modern running shoes are designed to make heel-striking easy and comfortable. The padded heel cushions the force of the impact, making heel-striking less punishing.

"Running barefoot or in minimal shoes is fun but uses different muscles," says Lieberman. "If you've been a heel-striker all your life you have to transition slowly to build strength in your calf and foot muscles."

In the future, he hopes, the kind of work done in this paper can not only investigate barefoot running, but can provide insight into how to better prevent the repetitive stress injuries that afflict a high percentage of runners today.

"Our hope is that an evolutionary medicine approach to running and sports injury can help people run better for longer and feel better while they do it," says Lieberman, who has created a web site, www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu, to educate runners about the respective merits of shod and barefoot running.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Up Close and Personal

I read today in the News and Observer that the Morehead Planetarium is replacing its Zeiss model with a digital system in the planetarium. While I heard about this a while back and knew it was coming, the article gave me that little painful twinge of nostalgia.

Almost five years ago (has it really been that long?) I wrote a story about Steve Nichol for the University of North Carolina Gazette, the staff publication. Nichol knew that Zeiss inside and out. He knew every little nut and bolt and light. And there were a lot of lights. It is one of the stories I'm most proud of, because this was a person who was genuinely in love with his job. He opened that projector up for me and showed me its inner workings.

He was a great guy to talk to too. I found out he was from southwest Pennsylvania and though that's on the other side of the turnpike from where I grew up, I knew the area fairly well. But the thing I remember taking away from that interview the most is that I want to have a job that I love as much as he loved his.

Here's the story from the Gazette: http://gazette.unc.edu/archives/04may19/morestories.html#6

Friday, January 22, 2010

Teen Media consumption Soars to Almost 8 Hours/Day

"An updated study released Wednesday by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that children average 7.5 hours of media consumption per day, an a increase of almost two hours and fifteen minutes in five years. When multitasking – consuming more than one form of media at the same time – is taken into effect, the total jumped to 10 hours and 45 minutes, the Foundation found. "

I'd be curious to find out what the parents' media consumption is like. I have to be pushing the 12 hour limit if you include iPhone. And now that I have WIFI, I'm multitasking like a fool.

But the question I have for myself is: what am I getting done?

FULL ARTICLE

Shackleton's Hut

Sent in from Kevin Moore who received a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Student Science Enrichment Program grant in 2006. He took this photo at a hut near the McMurdo research station in Antarctica. Pay special attention to the labels on the bottles.