Why is Monty Hall problem so hard for some game show participants? In class we learned that the Monty Hall problem is a game show brainteaser that requires you to choose from one of Monty’s three doors, with hopes of getting a prize. While only one of the doors holds a prize, like a car, the other two doors hold a sham prize, like a goat. After you pick your door, Monty opens one of the unpicked doors with a goat behind it. “Do you want to keep your door or switch doors?”

Answer: SWITCH!

Behind the answer is a long mathematic equation proves that there is a 2/3 chance of winning the prize by switching doors, rather than the 1/3 chance of winning by staying. In class we learned that the problem is hard because of Omission vs. Commission. But why do we refuse to change our way of thinking?

The Experiment

There are scientists who believe there is a connection between the Monty Hall Problem and cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feelings of discomfort that result from holding two conflicting beliefs, according to psychology.about.com. Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed a theory of cognitive dissonance that “people have an inner need to ensure that their beliefs and behaviors are consistent.” In the experiment conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith, 71 participants agreed to take part in an experiment on ‘measures of performance’. They were told that the experiment that the experiment would take two hours and would fulfill their requirements. The participants were asked to carry out a series of “boring” task; but one group of participants were given no introduction to the tasks, while the second group was given an interesting and fun introduction by an experimenter. After performing the tasks, each of the subjects was interviewed about their level of enjoyment during the task. Whoever thought the task was enjoyable was then asked to give the next group of participants a introduction for the tasks they already performed, while the participants either received $1 or $20 for doing the task, and again they were asked if they enjoyed doing the task.

The Results

Results of the experiment showed that for boring task, the unpaid control group rated the task -0.45. While for the paid group, the ones who were paid $1 rated the task +1.35 and the ones paid $20 rating the task -0.5. This showed that according to the results, the cognitive dissonance phenomenon is true. According to the experiment “participants experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions of telling someone that a particular task is interesting when
the truth is, they found it rather uninteresting and boring.” You may ask why, but those who were paid $1 made their selves believe that the task was “enjoyable” because a dollar isn’t much of a promoter; while the participants who were paid $20 made them selves believe that they we’re only doing it for the money.

How does this relate to the Monty Hall Problem?

Well our brains are hardwired to believe certain things. According to Kendra Cherry, author of the Everything Psychology Book,  “Attitudes are often the result of experience or upbringing. They can have a powerful influence over behavior.” Many things affect your attitude towards activities. For the Monty Hall Problem, our brains towards the game of “chance” is wired to believe that we have a 50:50 chance, but in actuality we have a 2:3 chance with switching doors.

Resolving Cognitive Dissonance

There are a couple ways to avoid the common psychology of cognitive dissonance. First thing you can do to avoid this is to be self-awareness. Knowing that this now exists puts you at an advantage. “If you find yourself justifying or rationalizing decisions or behaviors that you’re not quite clear you firmly believe in, that might be a sign that cognitive dissonance is at work” says Dr. John Grohol, founder & CEO of Psych Central. So stay aware to the things you do unconsciously due to cognitive dissonance, like the Monty Hall Problem.

How strong is the power of the mind? In class we always talk about how double-blind placebo trails are a more accurate way to get results; but if the patient believes he/she is getting the correct medicine, could it effect the outcome of the placebo patients? In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, only about half of the participants are given the treatment, while the other half are given fake treatments, or placebos. In these trails the researchers, doctors, and the participants do not know who received the actual treatment until the end of the trail. But could the mind trick the body into healing by believing that the correct treatment is being given to them?

The placebo effect is the process by which believing that you are being treated therefore causes your symptoms to improve. The amount of times the placebo effect is effective varies based on the trial. For some trials, it could range from 0% of the placebo patients healing to 70%.

In an study, de la Fuente-Fernandez et al scanned patients with Parkinson’s disease. The patients with Parkinson’s disease were blindly measured under two conditions, one being a placebo drug or an active drug, including apomorphine, a dopamine receptor agonist. With the placebo patients, a decrease of raclopride binding potential was found in the striatum compared with baseline observations. The placebo effect in the Parkinson’s disease study seems to have made a difference by increasing the synaptic levels of dopamine in the damaged patients system. In more clearer terms, the placebo effect healed patients more than the actual treatment. De la Fuente-Fernandez and Stoessl assume that “the perception of clinical benefit must be rewarding” and have proposed that “dopamine is released within the ventral striatum with respect to the expectation of reward.”

In the article published by M. Beauregard / Progress in Neurobiology 81 (2007), multiple studies are shown to prove the existence of the the placebo effect. They concluded that

• In their first experiment, “the placebo treatment significantly decreased reported pain in over 70% of volunteers.”
• “Expectation of analgesia prior to the placebo intervention and the analgesic effectiveness of the placebo were rated at 51%.”
• And even during a trial when they promised the volunteers that 50% had a chance of receiving the treatment, but yet they all received placebo. “The placebo produced a significant bilateral dopamine release in the thalamus, which was reflected by a 15% reduction in thalamic.”

This data analysis shows not only how the placebo effect works but also, it shows that it does in fact work. But is using deception on patients ethical, even if it bears results?

An example of deception in medicine is the practice of prescribing methylene blue to patients as an active placebo. The placebo does nothing but pass the kidneys and turns the urine deep blue. Doctors told the patients that their condition was caused by a benign tumor but that the treatment (placebo) would eliminate the tumor. The patients were told that they would know the treatment has worked when their urine turns blue. The purpose of this deception was to convince a patient that they were healed, so that their symptoms would heal. This type of placebo trail seemed less ethical though because the subject was “tricked” by being told lies used by a doctor/physician.

Although there are specific regulations, strict ethical rules, and people put in charge to oversee those rules, there is really no such thing as “full” disclosure. This means that some doctors/physicians use judgement to decided what  patients need to know and what he/she doesn’t need to know. In the article “The Ethics of Deception in Medicine”, Steven Novella says “It is therefore difficult to impossible to have a workable system of medical ethics within an unscientific sectarian health care belief system.”

Ted Kaptchuk, from Harvard University, and Andy Avins, from University of California, found that the use of deception in research on the placebo effect prompted the development of an Authorized Deception. They state that “Subjects are not informed in advance about the use of deception but are “debriefed” at the conclusion of research participation.” Is this ethical? 68% of physicians who answered the survey said that when they recommended a placebo treatment they described it to their patients as “a medicine not typically used for your condition but may benefit you.”

The use of deception is still questioned to be either ethical or nonethical, but if you were a sick patient in those shoes, would you want a doctor “lying” to you?

Have you ever debated between sleeping or studying right before your exam? Recently I found myself at the crossroad of studying for a test or sleeping. Which to choose? I figured it out; I would pull an all-nighter, study, take the test at 9 am, and then I’ll have the rest of the day to sleep. It sounded like a plan. So I pulled out the Red Bull and the Starbucks, I played some loud music, and studied. After 3 am, studtying became a breeze; I was wide awake and excited that I was retaining so much information. But when I arrived at the test that morning, the sugar rush had ended, my eyes fell low and guess what? I failed! Was pulling an all nighter a bad idea? If so, why didn’t I feel tired before class?

To find some answers I looked to UC Berkeley and Harvard Medical School who says yes, rest less nights can come with many consequences. The study conducted by UC Berkeley and Harvard Medical School showed that there are many hidden side effects in “pulling all-nighters”, staying up throughout the night, that we may not know about. They found that the side effects include fatigue, shakiness, sallow skin tone, and short-term euphoria. What is euphoria? Euphoria is a feeling of excitement or happiness, which experts say can potentially lead to poor judgment and addictive behavior. Matthew Walker, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, explains that “When functioning correctly, the brain finds the sweet spot on the mood spectrum. But the sleep-deprived brain will swing to both extremes.” Is this why I didn’t feel tired the night before my exam? Is this why I went from extreme excitement for my test, to becoming sleepless and instantly tired?

The researchers decided to study the brains of 27 young adult by using a brain imagine method. The study involved half participants whom pulled an all-nighter, while the other half of participants didn’t. In the study all of the participants were shown images of scenes like bunnies or ice cream, and were asked to label the pictures as positive or negative. The study concluded that participants who had enough sleep were more likely to give moderate scores, while participants who skipped sleep were more likely to give more positive ratings for all the images. This showed the short term euphoria that lack of sleep causes. In study also showed that “the brain scans of the participants who pulled all-nighters showed heightened activity in the mesolimbic pathway, a brain circuit driven by dopamine, a neurotransmitter that regulates positive feelings, motivation, sex drive, addiction, cravings and decision making.” –Berkeley

So if staying up all night was so negative, I wondered, what are some better ways to study last minute? I hypothesized that maybe if I lose a couple hours of sleep a night during the week, then maybe I could avoid the sleep deprivation side effects.

But according to new research done by the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, losing sleep chronically can cause the same effects as sleep deprivation. Dr. Chiara Cirelli, from The Center for Sleep and Consciousness, and her colleagues, from the University, used rats to test the loss of sleep chronically vs sleep deprivation. They found that five consecutive nights of only four hours of sleep had the same effect on the brain as just one night of sleep deprivation. The experiment consisted of Dr.Cirelli recording the brain waves of rats who were kept awake for 20 hours a day for five days constantly. Cirelli’s results showed evidence that lack of sleep causes negative effects for both the brain and the body. Cirelli says that “Scientists have learned much from 40 years of studies on total sleep deprivation,” she continues on to say that “now we know we can apply the lessons we learned from acute sleep deprivation to chronic sleep restriction, which is very relevant to people’s lives today.”

So is there a right way to study? Dr. John Grohol, the founder & CEO of Psych Central, says the first step to studying correctly is to be in the right mindset about it, a focused mindset. A few other steps include:

• Finding a good spot to study, i.e. the library, a study lounge or a quiet coffee house. Somewhere you can focus your attention on your work and finding the best spot can be a big difference in your study habits.
• Knowing what to bring.. and what not to bring. Most college student should know by now, what will distract them and what won’t. Don’t be afraid to turn your phone off, or even leave it at home. Although it may seem like laptops are needed in the study process, most of the time they cause constant distracts and delay your studying.
• Make schedules and stick to them.  Study shouldn’t only be something we do in our spare time. Just like you have a class schedule, create a study schedule, utilizing the hours between 8am-8pm are best.
• Take breaks & give yourself rewards. After a good study session in the library, don’t be afraid to walk by the creamy and treat yourself to some ice cream. “Because so many people view studying as a chore or task, it’s human nature to avoid it. If, however, you find rewards to help reinforce what you’re doing, you may be pleasantly surprised by the change you may find in your attitude over time” says Dr.Grohol.

Finally, most of all, do not pull an all-nighter. Many of the side effects are overlooked, but all-nighters only damage your mind, body… and your grade!

Milk cartons, light post, post offices, store windows and news channels; all places you can find a missing children’s poster. But does Missing Child posters really work? According to the FBI, in 2014 there were 466,949 NCIC entries for missing children. The Child Find of America reports that an estimated 23,000 children go missing EVERY DAY in the United States alone! If you saw a missing child’s poster would you stop and at least take a look? If you saw that child from the poster, would you help?

A NBC News asked the same questions and set up an experiment in Mamaroneck, N.Y. to help answer some of these questions. Missing posters were printed for an actress named Alyssa and hung around a New York bakery and even inside of the bakery. With a could hidden cameras placed around the bakery, NBC watched as unsuspected people reacted or disregard completely. Some people reacted to the poster, asking the cashier about it several times, or noticing the girl as she walking into the store with a male man (also a paid actor). Even though some of the bystanders noticed, most did nothing to stop the abductor and some even tried to justify their actions by saying “What if it wasn’t really him” or “I was too scared to get involved”. But a majority of the people ignored the posters and even ignored the girl entirely. This scenario was repeated 16 times and throughout the day only three people called the police. Heres another example of bystanders disregarding their surroundings, even when a child is in danger.

So why is it that we ignore things that are right in our face and not get involve? Well it may be because of the Bystander Effect.

The bystander effect occurs you avoid intervening in an emergency situation because a crowd is present. Bibb Latané and John Darley, two social psychologist, made the concept come to light in 1964 after the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City. They found that the amount of people in a room correlates with the amount of time it takes the person to respond; no one wants to take responsibility. We hope for someone else to report something rather than ourself so when there’s more people around we tend to react slower with hope of another person reacting quicker. Another reason is the when others fail to react, we believe that reaction is therefore unnecessary. Lastly, we  fail to intervene because during a crisis we give the benefit of the doubt. Without conformation we convince our self that it isn’t happening.

It’s time to change our way of thinking and prevent The Bystander Effect. “Some psychologists suggest that simply being aware of this tendency is perhaps the greatest way to break the cycle” (psychology.about.com). Unlike the bystanders in the bakery, use your judgement and pursue it. When you encounter an emergency or situation that could be dangerous please get involved by CALLING THE POLICE. 911 is waiting for your call. You could save a life!

Breast cancer, being a hard to understand cancer, typically leads to a lot of myths. But does the myth that bras lead to breast cancer have any truth in it? The 1995 book called Dressed to Kill by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, started the rumor that bras and breast cancer correlation. Dressed to Kill claimed that a women that wears underwire bras for 12 hours a day will have a higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who do not.

Some doctors that agree with this idea of correlation say, wearing certain bras that are tight fitting can cut off lymph drainage, which can lead to the development of breast cancer. In the book Dressed to Kill, the authors conducted a study of over 4,000 women and found that women who wore bras for less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 52 risk, while women who wore bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer. They argued that the correlation of bras to breast cancer is four times greater than smoking is to lung cancer.

But other doctors say no, there is a lack of proof and data for the correlation of bras and breast cancer. The American Cancer Society quoted that “there is no evidence that compression of the lymph nodes by bras causes breast cancer; in reality, body fluids travel up and into the underarm lymph nodes, not towards the underwire.“ Basically stating that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence that justifies that bras cause breast cancer. In 2014 researcher conducted a observational study on postmenopausal female participants about their bra wearing patterns. More than 1,000 women with breast cancer and almost 500 who did not have breast cancer participated in this study. The conclusion, the researchers found no evidence of a connection between breast cancer risk and the hours at which a woman
wears her bra.

This correlation is still fought over with doctors, physicians, and experts. There is no clear cause of breast cancer and no clear evidence to link or unlink breast cancer and bras. It’s up to you to decided if you believe it to be true of not, and if you should avoid bras or not. Ask yourself, does the risk outweigh the cost?

Sources:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/05/19/Can-Wearing-Your-Bra-Cause-Cancer.aspx

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/one-more-time-no-wearing-a-bra-does-not-cause-breast-cancer/

Have you ever met an impatient child? Seen a child who throws fits when he/she can’t watch their favorite show? Or one who cries in the mall because “Mommy’s taking too long?” Well, teaching a child to be patient could benefit them in the future and save a parent from all the stress and anger of temper tantrums.

The “Marshmallow Test” was a study conducted by Walter Mischel and Ebbe B. Ebbesen at Stanford University in 1970. In the test, preschoolers were placed in a room alone with only a desk, a chair, and a plate with a marshmallow. The child was given one marshmallow and was promised another one if he/she waited for the instructor to come back. The instructor planned on returning to the room in 15 minutes to give the child another treat if they waited the period of time. The test left each child with the option to either have 1 now, or 2 later. The goal of the test was to investigate how long a child would wait to eat the marshmallow. Some children ate the marshmallow immediately, others fought the urge for some time, while others made it long enough to receive the second marshmallow. In the experiment of more than 600 children, a few children ate the marshmallow immediately and a third waiting long enough to gain another marshmallow.

But, the Marshmallow test did not become famous for it’s delicious name, but instead it is known for it’s follow-up results. The follow-up study found that unexpected correlations began to show between the time it took the child to wait to eat with their level of success in the future. In 1988, the first follow-up occurred showing that “preschool children who delayed gratification longer in the self-imposed delay paradigm, were described more than 10 years later by their parents as adolescents who were significantly more competent” (Mischel, Walter). The second follow-up, which occurred two years after the first, showed that the delay also correlated with SAT scores. The longer the delay, the higher the score. 

Even though the outcome of this test can interest us and maybe even influence our future decisions, we must remember that, correlation does not equal causation. Although those who waited for their second treat had higher SAT scores, the results does not prove much. Other factors could have altered the study like the role of chance that has effect on every experiment, but also, the University of Rochester study suggests that “some children may have given up because they simply didn’t believe the researcher would give them that second treat.” Other third variables could’ve been the child’s hungry level, the child’s age, what happened in the child’s life between the study and their SATs, and while many other factors could’ve came into play.

But, in conclusion we can all say that this was a pretty tasty test. To see the experiment, watch the video below:

More Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/magazine/we-didnt-eat-the-marshmallow-the-marshmallow-ate-us.html?_r=0

http://jamesclear.com/delayed-gratification

Taking the stairs instead of the escalator is something we always heard from our doctor, or seen in a magazine. But most of us don’t heed the warnings. This is just one of the obstacles that The Fun Theory took on. “The Fun Theory” was created by Volkswagen Sweden and ad agency DDB Stockholm as a competition to recognized that “fun is the easiest way to change people’s behavior for the better.” One of Volkswagen’s fun theories included was the Piano Staircase. The theory was that people would take the stairs more often instead of the escalator or elevator by making the staircase “fun.” The hypothesis propositioned that by making a staircase more fun to do, people would stop using easier ways of transportation, such as escalators. By promoting the use of stairs, we could eventually improve the health of others by promoting an active lifestyle and a good well-being.

Volkswagen decided that persuasive technology could convince people to begin to use the stairs again. The concept was for each stair in the subway staircase to produce various sounds when pressure was applied to their surfaces, as a piano would if it was being played. The randomized controlled experiment took place at the Odenplan subway station in Stockholm, Sweden, next to an escalator. A group of randomized unsuspected subway commuters were tallied as they were given the choice to take plain steps or an escalator. In the second trail, another group of randomized commuters were give the same option, but with musical stairs. This left people with the choice to either participate in the giant musical steps or to use the escalator.

In the concluding video you can see that more commuters became interested in the musical staircase. The resulting video showed that the interactive staircase persuaded 66% more people than normal chose to use the staircase instead of the escalator.

Although there could have been a third variable involved, such as more active people commuting on one day instead of the other, or the role of chance coming into play, the statistics are strong and would be very interesting to see in a more controlled experiment.

The goal with these fun theories are to promote Volkswagen’s new environmentally friendly BlueMotionTechnologies brand. DDB Stockholm quotes that “as traditional advertising is becoming less effective, and the competition in the market for environmentally sound cars is becoming more fierce, we believed we needed a more innovative approach to draw attention to BlueMotion.” Although Volkswagen’s main goal is to promote their new car, they bring up a very goo theory. That making this fun can promote and teach the world. He also goes on to say that “[Volkswagen’s] experiments and our Fun Theory films make the world a better and more fun place to live.”

Watch the video to see how fun can transform people’s way of thinking and doing.

Have you ever seen an older couple and realized how much they looked alike? If you answered yes then you are not the only one. A couple Universities, including the University of Liverpool, the University of Durham, University of St Andrews and the University of Michigan, performed a study to investigate the strangeness of why older couples start to look similar.

In the University of Liverpool, Durham, and St Andrews’ collaborated study, the team of universities asked participants to judge the age, attractiveness, and personality traits of married couples. In the study, the team of universities separated the photographs of females and the photographs of males, leaving the surveyor unsuspected to the fact that the pictures of the people were in fact married couples. Dr Tony Little, from the University’s School of Biological Sciences, reported that the results concluded “perceptions of age, attractiveness and personality were very similar between male and female couples. For example, if the female’s face was rated as sociable then her partner was also more likely to be rated as sociable.”

A psychologist from the University of Michigan, Robert Zajonc, conducted an study to test this observation. In Zajonc’s study, he used photographs of couples, one taken as newly weds and another taken after 25 years of marriage. His results showed that over time couples do begin to gain similar facial features, but he also found that the happier couples were, the more likely they are to have physical similarity. Zajonc hypothesized that “older couples looked more alike because people in close contact mimic each other’s facial expressions.” That is to say, couples tend to laugh a lot together, forming laugh lines, and other couples tend to frown together, forming frown lines. According to Dr. Ekman,  “There is no question that we unconsciously use our facial muscles in the same way as the person we are looking at,” he said.

Although this study has correlation, it does not imply that there is a causation. Yet this was more of an observational study because the investigators observed the subjects and measured a variable without assigning anything to the surveyors. I would say that this study was executed to see if a myth had any truth behind it. Yet, these studies still showed how similar facial features and marriage (measured in happiness and length) had a correlation. Showing us that we are attracted to similar faces of our own and that our features tend to grow as our mates, as we age and bond together.

Ever heard of “The Cheerleader Effect”? Well Urban Dictionary defines it as “seeing a group of girls or guys and they look hot, but when you see each person individually they are NOT.” The cheerleader effect gets its name from the scenario that cheerleaders look highly attractive as a group, but alone they look more average and show more flaws. So does this urban slang have any truth behind it?

Studies shows that YES, being with a group of girls or guys can make you look more attractive. Some say the cheerleader effect exists because a person may believe that by being with a group of peers correlates with having friends or being well-liked. However, a study done by Psychological Science (Walker & Vul, 2013) proved that the cheerleading effect is true because being with a group of people “averages” out your facial features. Drew Walker and Edward Vul of the University of California found the correlation through five experiments. In these experiments Walker and Vul made participants in the survey rate the attractiveness of
people using photographs. In these pictures some people were pictured alone while other pictures were people in a group. The results of the observational experiments showed that both men and women found that people in groups were more attractive. The reasoning concluded by Walker states that “Average faces are more attractive. Likely due to the averaging out of unattractive idiosyncrasies.”

How can you use this in your life? Walker and Val’s study also showed that the cheerleading effect could improve your online presence. Having a profile picture with a group of people you are more likely to be seen as attractive. Now you have a good excuse to gather with your friends for fun nights out and lots of group pictures! Enjoy!

Being a Grey’s Anatomy fanatic, I found myself watching the show religiously on abc and Netflix. Recently, I was asked by a friend “What would you do if I passed out right now?” and I responded “I watch Grey’s Anatomy, so I’d know what to do.”

I began to wonder, was I too gullible for believing what a show taught me? Am I the only one who believes and retains the medical science of Grey’s Anatomy?

Looking deeper into the medical science of the show, I found that I wasn’t the only one believing the details of the show. Three surveys was done by The Kaiser Family Foundation on the effect Grey’s Anatomy has on it’s viewers. The survey was done to measure if an episode had an effect on viewers’ awareness. In the study viewers were asked to take a pre-show survey, post-show survey, and a follow up survey conducted 6 weeks later. The survey was about the viewers’ previous knowledge about HIV-positive women giving birth and their attitudes on the subject before and after the show aired with the correct statistics about HIV-positive women giving birth. In the show, Dr. Izzie Stevens, a lead doctor said “I wasn’t saying there’s some chance your baby might not be sick. I’m saying there is a 98% chance your baby will be born perfectly healthy. Ninety-eight percent!” In this quote, Izzie assured a pregnant woman diagnosed with HIV that her baby would be born healthy. The correlational survey showed that viewers who were aware that “with the proper treatment, there is more than a 90% chance of an HIV-positive woman having a healthy baby increased by 46 percentage points after the episode aired (from 15% to 61%).” –Grand Rounds 2011.

Even though during the follow up survey 6 weeks after the episode aired, the amount of people who knew the correct response decreased to 45%, it still showed that 30% of surveyors gained knowledge from the show. This study was continued with other questions such as the one above .

This proved that I was not the only one retaining information from this show. So next time you question yourself about binge watching Grey’s Anatomy, just remember that the more you watch the show, the more you are turning into a doctor by retaining the information taught on the show. So let’s all run to our couches for “Netflix & Chill” while tuning into Grey’s Anatomy.

Source: http://ethicalnag.org/2011/01/31/greys-anatomy/

Hi, my name is Elisa Jones and I am a freshman majoring in Computer Science with interest in Graphical Design. I am also from Philadelphia, PA!

I am taking this course because, although I am in the College of Engineering, I do not have to take chemistry as a science and was given an option of picking my science class. Despite it’s name, computer science has little to do with actual science, but more so math and programming. I am taking this course because science does not catch my attention and I find it very hard to retain information about a subject that bores me. I also choose to take this class because the description said “aimed at non-scientist” and “no background knowledge.” I do not want to pursue a major in science because I am more interested in computing and designing because I love artistic things and creating programs. Therefore science is not too involved in what I want to do so I stray away from it.

I am a die hard Penn Stater so if you are too then follow me on twitter.

I knew I wanted to attend Penn State since 8th grade so here is a picture from the first time I visited to Penn State’s campus with my friends.