The Rookie T.A.

Did you know that the Centre for History of Science, Technology, and Medicine PhD students have a blog? And that it’s full of subject-relevant, generally interesting, and random things (not to mention the little hub of social things for those coming to ICHSTM 2013)? Well now you do. And what do you know, I’ve written a post for them! It’s about my year as a TA. Behold:

“When it was first confirmed that I would be doing a PhD, I had not thought about teaching at all. I had decided that it was something to look into for the second or the third year – when I know a bit more about the subject area and what gaps there are in the current line-up of modules – and did not worry about it so much.

Nine months later, I have mixed feelings about the fact that I will not be undertaking any pedagogic activities next year, due to a fairly extensive fieldwork schedule. (And not because of ineptitude. One hopes.)

Not long after I had been approved by the grant committee, I received an email asking if I would consider a position as teaching assistant on the introductory module of the Chinese Studies bachelor’s degree. I would be helping to plan and run the Study Skills Sessions – supplementary classes in study skills (referencing, writing essays, constructing arguments, critical engagement with literature, and so on) – and marking half of all the assignments. The hours were not that many, and I thought that a bit of extra cash would not come amiss, so I said yes…” Read the rest here!

Easing back in…

Right. There are excuses for the absence, but who cares now that I am back? (Permission to use smiley in text: 😉 .) Thank you dearly for being so understanding. Part of the excuse is that something very exciting and science-communication-related may be happening in my quarters very soon, and if everything goes to plan, I will be more than happy to share the bounty. In the meantime, please consider this:

Blood cancer. Nice and succinct.

The poster does feature the words leukaemia and lymphoma  in the corner, but the BIG LETTERS say blood cancer. Of course, that is what leukaemia is (lymphoma tumours target the immune system too, but not through the blood stream **disclaimer** this is not my field, so if I am wrong, please correct me), so it makes perfect sense. If the reader however does not know what leukaemia is, might the fact that it says “blood cancer” help them understand what the fund-raising is for? Is this wording helpful or patronising?

I rather like it the way it is, hence the caption on the image.

On an almost completely tangential note, this reminded me of another discussion revolving around fancy names. A friend was once asked his favourite artist. He said Rachmaninov, and got called a posh git. I once made a comment about Lapsang Souchong, and got teased for it. I will endlessly defend the favourite-artist-Rachmaninov, because ‘why not’? And on the Lapsang Souchong, I suppose I went asking for the mickey taken out of me, so I accept that. However, sometimes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use a simpler descriptor if it helps reach a wider audience.

That said, maybe I am a posh git. You don’t know my life. (Although I will try to get the update rate back up again.)

Cheerio!