Author Archives: Olivia Frederickson

How Do We Develop Food Preferences?


This past weekend, my dad came to State College to visit for Parent’s Weekend. The number one thing I was most excited for was a gourmet and expensive (since I wasn’t paying) meal. My dad and I share similar food preferences, so with a doubt, I knew we would be up for a quality steak or some late night pizza. With our other similarities that could possibly be due to genetics, I wondered are our food likes were due to genetics. With that I asked the question do genetics or environmental factors affect our taste/food preferences or do we learn them?

To explain the scientific reasoning behind genetics’ affect in taste, a study reported by Medical Daily explains that genetics affects food preferences based on different taste receptors and the certain genes that are found in them. Another source agrees by saying preferences or reluctances are found through bitter, sweet, unami (savory), and even fatty tastes. Although, Medical Daily’s  studies focuses on the personal nutritional engineering to cope with several disorders, making the study irrelevant to my question. I still need to see how environment does or doesn’t play a role in taste preferences.

In a British Study , a large-scale longitudinal observation was conducted by researchers in the United Kingdom to behold the possible genetic and environmental influence first recorded in pre-school aged twins, and followed them into adolescence. There were 2686 identical and fraternal twins ages 18-19. (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1). The process began when the twins were at an average age of 3.5 years old. This is when the twins’ parents all recorded their food preferences at this age. These preferances were then divided into 6 food groups of fruits, vegetables, meat/fish, dairy, starch, and snack-like foods. (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition p1). With this separation of food, another question can be asked- Are certain preferences for food groups determined more by genetics or environment?

The take away I made from this study is that through high and low correlations of preference between food groups, we can see the possible genetic influence. In addition, it is noted that family life is the main contribution to environmental influences, which is unique to age since the younger twins will typically spend more time in family life. With this take away, I came up with the null hypothesis that neither genetics nor environment will have long term effect on the twins, and the possible alternative hypotheses being combinations of these two factors having some and none effect in long term, or both having effect in long term.

It is then noted that the controlled variables were age, type of twin, the division of gender (slightly more females than males), there was an average BMI, some indicated certain diets and food allergies.(The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 4).picky-eater_u1gidk

The results of the first trial conducted in the twins when they were 3.5 years-old say that between fruits and vegetables, there was the strong correlation of liking/disliking the food. This is identified by a difference of percentage being lower than the p-value exhibited. (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 5). Although, there was a low correlation between snacks, starches, and dairy. This half of the study then shows that based on the stronger correlated preferences, genetics influences these tastes more than the lower correlations. Although, environmental factors influence the lower correlations more since children are born with a natural liking for sweet and salty snack-like foods, but they are only strengthened by a continuous exposure to it more so than fruits, vegetables, and meats, according to Dr. Alison Fildes, a researcher in the study . This natural preference for these tastes, as Fildes explains, is because in the past during food scarce periods, people sought out sweet and energy rich foods, which we adapted to these cravings over time.

Although, when research was re-conducted on the 18-19 year-olds, since environmental factors were not as present anymore, they began to develop independent preferences for starch, dairy, and snacks and their previously strong genetically influenced food of fruits, vegetables, and meat was only moderate now.

According to these results, environmental factors are unique and change as we grow, therefore having more effect when we are younger and little to no effect when we are older. Although genetically speaking, there is a moderate affect that follows us into adolescence and beyond. This would conclude with the alternative hypothesis among research, with support from the p-value data.

This study is very large and states that similar observations have been conducted in younger children with the same results, although there has not been much research that follows these children in long term effect. Therefore making these results not as reliable no matter the size and longevity of this observation. Leaving real life to accept the null, making the overall conclusion false-positive.

In my opinion, the take-away from these results is something I personally agree with based on experience. This is because, as I grew older and became more independent, my taste preferences grew but some stayed the same in accordance with the results of the specific food categories affected by genetics. In addition to my inference, one of the articles I utilized then made a very useful and important take-away statement. A child’s like and dislikes of good and bad food isn’t entirely dependent on genetics and can actually be changed through restrictions and re-introducing foods to them, hence the environmental factors of family life.









Is the Success of Becoming Bilingual Controlled by Age?

In my freshman check up the other day, my advisor expressed the benefit to being fluent in a 2nd language. With the countless years I spent taking Spanish classes, you would  think one would become proficient and fluent in a language. This is not the case although and made me think is there a certain time in our lives where we learn 2nd languages the more quickly and efficiently?

According to an article in Psychology Today, the is a common notion some people believe is that a child cannot become bilingual if they are not taught two languages in their youngest years. This is supported by another theory that a second language is easier obtained and learned by younger children. Although, Dr. Grosjean says this belief is not completely true. With Grosjean’s speculation, I began to consider the possibility of this belief to be a fluke.

In addition, I will be researching to prove either the null hypothesis that would be younger age doesn’t affect the ability to learn a language, and the alternative hypothesis that it does.

In one study at Stanford University, an experiment testing 200 kids between the ages of 6-15 who were learning English in the American public school as their 2nd language was conducted. The study defines this testing as an oral production test to determine the children’s ability to become proficient in English in the areas of understanding and producing it otherwise explained in terms of morphology and syntax.

The controlled variables were defined as the division of students who had been in the United States for 1, 2, and 3 years. Other controlled variables was that some schools had a 2nd language program offered. The study found that older children (11-15) showed higher performance in the areas of morphology and syntax than younger children (6-10). This was seen through a a p-value less than 0.1%. As for learning phonetics, the younger age group excelled more than the older with a p-value of less than 5%. According to this study, age has an affect of language, but it can’t be determined very significant since the study is relatively small. Also, uncontrolled variables such as maturity, physiological, and environmental factors among the children were not attested for.




Although, there have been other studies with the same kind of results. According to  researchers at the University of British Columbia, humans have been influenced by three fallacies of becoming bilingual. They first point out the previously stated theory that younger learners are better at learning 2nd languages. They then point out in accordance with the study at Stanford that older learners have certain skills over younger learners in areas of cognitive abstraction, generalization, and classification. All these skills are seen in retaining a 2nd language.

This is then seen in another study at Harvard through English speakers learning Dutch. The older children (12-15) were seen as quicker learners but they also noted that as age increased, it might be more difficult to practice a more native tone and accent when speaking the language.

Back the 2nd fallacy claimed at Harvard, it is claimed that becoming bilingual uses a different part of the brain than learning a 1st language. This was seen as a fluke although by a neuropsycholinguist who proved that acquiring a 2nd language is through the same neurons as a first languge. The final fallacy is noted that failure to become bilingual is consistent in older learners. This can be denoted since motivation and support are serious factors that play apart in their success to obtain proficiency. These factors may the vary from person to person, affecting their success.

With the studies I acquired, including the fallacies a false negative conclusion could be possible since researchers and scientists in many studies saw consistency that in fact younger learners aren’t better at obtaining the a 2nd language but in fact older learners are more likely excel at this. But with the correlation that phonetics are better obtained at a younger age the null hypothesis has to be accepted since there is too much variance. Although, in real life there is something going on with these results, making it negative.

In addition, I have noted another confounding variable; the type of language and difficulty of that language may play apart in the results. Although this conclusion could be argued, There is still an insignificant amount of consistent data present to make any final conclusions.



Is Paleo Healthy?

The paleo diet is a diet I, like many people, was unaware of. A couple years a go, a friend of mine decided to switch to this life-style. After hearing these great benefits my friend was experiencing, I decided to try it our for a month last year. To be honest, it was very difficult at first, but once I started to feel a positive affect from it, I could understand why some people commit to this diet for life. Although, since it is a very restrictive diet I decided to ask the in long term effect, is it actually healthy?

For those of you who don’t know what a paleo diet, or the “caveman” diet is, it’s basically, the supposed diet of our great ancestors. It consists of a high-protein, low-carb diet. It includes most fruits and vegetables, meats, nuts, and eggs. It excludes all grains (anything made from flour or other grains), legumes (including peanuts since they are technically legumes), dairy, and any type of processed foods.

Now we can revisit the question, is this lifestyle healthy? I say lifestyle since we are looking at the effects of it in the long run. According to the Scientific American, they say the diet can be considered unnecessary and possibly dangerous because of the restrictions. They also use the term “half-baked” when describing the diet suggesting only half of it is widely accepted medically. This is due to cutting processed foods high is sodium, sugar, refined flour, and other potentially harmful chemicals is good for your overall health. On the contrary though, it cuts out health benefitting foods such as dairy, grains, and beans. That claim is that our bodies still need these food sources because, since the time of our ancient ancestorspaleo, our bodies have evolved and rely on these sources to maintain good health.

Although, some people who follow the paleo lifestyle closely say our bodies haven’t changed as much as we think and that we still need to follow this diet to stay our healthiest. This leads me to ask, how much have our bodies changed since our ancestors?

In studies conducted by Dr. Stephan Guyenet, who sides with positive effects from the paleo diet, he says that according to where our ancestors descend from determines how longs they have been consuming grains. I found this information to be a major confounding factor to how various people may have genetically changed. This is also agreed upon in the Scientific American.  For example, the origin of wheat was 11,500 years ago but the Western-European region has only been consuming grains for roughly 7,000 years. According to Guyenet, this time-span is considered very little time for humans to fully develop adaptation to this food source although, another problem with his study is that he only looks at the source of grains excluding legumes and dairy.

Although, Guyenet then explains how we have adapted a couple genetic mutations. Most importantly, the salivary amylase gene. This has been proven to aid in the digestion of starchy foods. Although, the other  include the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and apolipoprotein B genes, which are gene proteins connected to blood pressure and cholesterol. These factors both respond well to a low-carb diet which suggests that keeping a low-carb diet may aid in a healthy cardio-vascular system.

This is also supported by a study in the Czech Republic of people who have a large in-take of carbohydrates but also varied in the three genotypes II (most obese at 42%) ID (37%) and DD (36%) with a p value of 0.04. This p-value rules out genotype II since its difference with the other two genotypes is abcavemanove the p-value. In summary, the study includes measurements of carb intake, sex, and BMI to support variable significance, although they do not mention age which can have an effect in the accuracy of the study.



More research in The Scientific American shows although in addition to the amylase mutation, there is another mutation seen around 7,000 years ago involving our ability to have lactose tolerance when dairy became available after infancy (when we utilize our mother’s milk) yet, some people don’t develop this mutation, leaving them lactose-intolerant. Other mutations include tolerance to malaria, and blue-eyes. In addition, there have been many produce products that have mutated over time that were not consumed by our ancient ancestors leaving even more room for variance of defining the paleo diet in today’s day. We will never know exactly what our ancestors ate, making this another confounding variable.

There are so many studies that look at the positive and negative effects, and further historical information that support each side. The research I made looked at both of these opinions, although with the significant value of variables present among each side, it is impossible to make a reliable conclusion. Although since from both sides, they do agree there is some positive affect on our health from the paleo diet but little evidence suggesting  this. In return, we have to accept the null variable that the paleo diet isn’t healthy in the long run. Although, in real life, people see results including  some healthy and some negative. This then concludes in real-life, there still is something going on with support from the study done with a likely true p-value. This then concludes as a false-negative.

Pros and Cons of the Paleo Diet

image 2

image 1

How Does Divorce Affect Children?

As I was sitting in a lecture the other day, my professor gave my class a nice reminder to be thankful for the people who raised us and taught us to be the people we are today. It made me think about how I have been blessed with rewarding childhood in a mostly happy household. I also began to realize how many people I know with divorced parents, and people who live in single parent households. How different their childhoods were and how different their lives could be because of this different living situation. It made me question how does a divorce really impact a family but more so their children?

The first thing I wanted to research when asking this question was how family life affects children. According to an article reviewing divorce and its effects on children, family is a strong determining factor to the building blocks of a child’s future. It can either leave a positive of negative effect on someone’s life. With this inference, I concluded the null hypothesis would be divorce leaves no significant affect on children, or the alternative hypothesis divorce can affect them among many areas. These areas include, trouble in school, bad behavior, and antisocial behavior, depression, and anxiety. All these outcomes then all have to be determined in short term and long term affects.

Through my research, I began to see a common trend between these two hypotheses. In an article by Scientific American, their research resides with the null hypothesis saying that only a small percentage of children suffer from serious problems as children or later as adults. I then found these “serious problems” are considered hard end points since they result in mental disorders, extremely troublesome behavior related with crime, or a future of unsuccessful relationships such as divorce.

In another source, they conducted an observational study of 99 college students who experienced a recent divorce in their families in the last 3 years. They asked the students various questions in which all conclude with “soft end points” effects as seen in the chart below.

ImageThese effects are very normal, according to Emory. They all deal somewhat with grief which is not a mental disability, it’s being human.  

In another study in 2002, Psychologist E. Mavis Hetherington at the University of Virginia and a  graduate student Anne Mitchell Elmore saw that in a short term time period of about two years, children can experience similar short end effects such as shock, anger, disbelief, and short term anxiety. Although, there was still a minority of children who continued to feel these effects and worse.

Since this minority of children is still a possibility, I found through research that this minority could possibly be children who are troublesome prior to divorce. These are the children that are likely to suffer from hard end point effects. These prior conditions although are confounding variables. Other confounding variables that can worsen effects are parent’s mood post-divorce, which means that cannot aid to the children’s needs, or if marital discord is first introduced to the children in the event of divorce, which can worsen their shock and other reactions. This is because children can be more resilient if surrounded by discord prior to divorce.

In conclusion, with this information which was very similar across many studies and sources, there are so many variables that cause the severity of effects which can result in a false negative since there still is something going on but scientists still conclude with the null hypothesis that there is nothing significant happening. But honestly, it may depend on the possible variables and specific details within different divorces families. With this, it’s very hard to draw an actual conclusion.

Although divorce can be a very tragic and traumatic happening within family life, it is very possible and hopeful parents and children can recover and live happy lives. I can’t say this is true at all from my lack of experience, but I know that with tragedy comes a new enlightenment and room for improvement for a better future. -source and picture credit

Higher Intelligence Related to Laziness?

Being a typical 18-year-old, I was recently on a Facebook feed frenzy and came across a very interesting spectacle which addressed a newly researched question of whether or not being lazy means someone is more intelligent. Sounds strange, right? With those specific words, the information was a bit misleading and personally, quite offensive since I enjoy being physically active. I decided to research this bizarre speculation. My first question of action was what determines someone’s intelligence?

According to a set of studies done by the Journal of Health Psychology , they defined the term Need For  Cognition (NFC) in association with this specific relationship between thinking and physical activity. The NFC is defined as the enjoyment to engage in cognitive notions, or intrinsic motives; how likely someone wants to think intuitively. How is the NFC affected though? In one study by Watt JD and Blanchard MJ  showed lower-NFC people experience more negative boredom and high-NFC people are prone to avoid boredom (JHP 3). This leads to the question of why is boredom more common among these so-called lower-NFC individuals?

The whole point of this study is to see how this how different leveled NHC’s satisfy their physical activity levels, and with that come many variables that affect either side of the spectrum. The conginitive variables include preferences, intentions, and self efficacy as well as behavioral disorders that include anxiety and ADHD which are defined by neurochemical imbalances in the brain. The physical variables include approach avoidance motivation, which can be defined by people acting upon their good qualities rather than their bad, a person’s health status, sensation seekers, which is defined as people who commonly become bored without intense feelings they find in sensational experiences or things, or the Big Five Personality Traits which can directly affect someone’s personal. I found that since cognitive variable are accountable for the NFC, in addition, in a study conducted testing the physical variables by grouping them in categories of social structure or social cognition. This proved the difference social standings and social cognition have on being more physically active. It was seen that social cognition, which is apart of NFC (JHP 3), was related to how physical a person is (JHP 2).  Otherwise, the more socially motivated a person is, the more likely they are to interact in social environments that may include physical activity.

In response to this data, two possible alternative hypotheses were made: higher NFC results in more higher thinking than physical activity or a higher NFC may mean a higher need for social cognition which can be physical activity. The null hypothesis would be having a higher or lower NFC has no effect at all on physical needs due to confounding variables.


Their (JHP) experiment included 60 participants ( 45 females) from Appalachian State University  that were tested on their levels on NFC. Previous to the experiment, There were tests in which asked them questions that had them agree or disagree. Based on the results, they were divided 30 with high-NFC, ad 30 with low-NFC. Then they were then given a device that recorded their movements for a week. According to the graph above, over-all the high NFC individuals showed significantly lower physical activity levels than the low- NFC individuals. With the probability 0.9% difference. The weekend effect also has to be accounted for since they were significantly different results, especially on Sunday which very close levels of physical activity for both NFC levels. The probability on Saturday being 12.7% difference and on Sunday 65%.

In conclusion, The alternative hypothesis of higher of NFC= lower physical activity was accepted but with the acception that the weekend affect showed extreme difference, which could be by chance, and the fact that these were all strictly college students with restricted schedules. This causes limited knowledge still upon this hypothesis. This study would then be a false positive. Since it is a relatively new study, there is limited research so as of now this hypothesis is still just a possibility and needs more testing.

As a side note, most of us will never have our NFC levels recorded. Your own intelligence should not be the cause of how physically active you are. Everyone needs some sort of physical activity to stay healthy and happy.


Au Naturale

In the past year, I have taken serious consideration and action to becoming a healthier eater and person in general. My first move towards these new health goals were to start eating organic foods for the most part and cut out any artificial ingredients and additives in my diet.

Organic food has a largely viewed reputation as a spectacle healthy food source. Although we can understand this from the broad and general facts organic food industries provide us with, are we actually getting the benefit for our buck?

According to, there are 14 important and well researched advantages and disadvantages to purchasing and consuming organic food products.  organic1

The nine advantages they provide include how organic food is generally healthier to consume. This is because there are no pesticides or herbicides used when growing any plant based products. In conclusion, these contaminants can be potentially harmful to us. Also, because there is a lack of preservatives, they can aid in weight loss or management since preservatives can complicate how our bodies process and break down food. With preservatives, and these harmful chemicals, there have been correlations that connect them to many different diseases. Some include leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, and even infertility. It’s easy to say from observations like these that organic food is also safer to eat.

Additionally, the additives in nonorganic food can have an effect on the taste of them. This means organic food can be naturally better tasting since there are no additives. Also, organic food has a significantly higher content of antioxidants. These are necessary to help prevent a variety of cancers, heart disease, and other health risks.

Their effects on society are also extensive. According to this article, organic food can promote healthy families since preservatives and other harmful chemicals in processed food have been linked to infants being born with potential defects that affect the braorganic-2in and other functions of the body. Organic food also promotes protecting the environment since there aren’t harmful chemicals in the production of them. The reproduction of animals is also supported by organic foods because when livestock are fed with organic food, it can also prevent the risk of infertility, similarly in humans. They also explain how local food suppliers and farmers benefit economically from the consumption of organic foods. Lastly, they explain how in the long run, organic food can be cheaper. When your body becomes accustom to organic food, it can begin to not want to retain junk foods as regularly, or not at all. This concludes that your money won’t go to buying that type of unhealthy food anymore.

The disadvantages they list include that organic resources are expensive to produce, since they don’t contain preservatives they don’t last as long, they are hard to find and not as easily available, and in some circumstances they may not be as worth the time and money as you thought. Since crops are raised and planted in soil that is naturally fertilized with manure, they can contain up to 6-7% more E.coli than nonorganic produce. This bacteria can possibly lead to other health complications in conclusion.

Honestly, these pros outweigh the cons according to my personal preference. I am all about keeping my life as naturally resourced as possible and keeping in mind how organic farming and livestock can protect the environment which is also so important. All-in-all, go organic, or go home.

source 1

photo 1

photo 2


Sleep Deprived

Living and sleeping in a room with seven other roommates can come easy to some, but is definitely a struggle for others.

I was put into supplemental housing this semester with seven other roommates, so adjusting to college life has definitely been much different for me than most freshmen. One thing I have to be mindful of is the fact that I have to be awake for two 9 a.m. and two 8 a.m. classes a week. This means I need to set my alarm for a painfully early time if I want to beat the early morning Starbucks rush.

sleep-deprived1I have to set my alarm at a very loud level since I’m a deep sleeper, but what I have noticed is I wake up half the room by accident when I do this.

I began to wonder what makes me a deep sleeper? What makes others light sleepers?

According to a Time article by Alice Park, scientists have recorded in a study that certain people, depending on how their brains work, can cancel out ambient or environmental sounds better that others. From these studies, researchers hope that they can one day re-construct the brains of people affected by these sounds to cure their light sleeping patterns.

The brain constantly receives information, even in our sleep, says Park. Studies at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital have conducted a way to see the brain wave patterns of sleep. These can clearly point out when and where interrupted sleep can take place within a deep sleep. This research was conducted by neurologist Dr. Jeffrey Ellenbogen.

Ellenbogen preformed a series of experiments observing 12 “healthy”, or normal sleepers in their sleep. The first night the experiment didn’t protrude any noise during their sleep, although on the second night they played various noises from flushing toilets to overhead jet sounds. (Park 2).

Ellenbogen then recorded the brain spindles, or measures of waves of sleep which are present in the thalamus. These measurements are electric impulses that the brain creates. On the first night, they found people who had more brain spindles sleep better on the second (Park 2).

In conclusion, Ellenbogen wishes to find a cure or produce a medication in which manipulates the spindles of people with less frequencies of them.

Personally, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and Ellenbogen’s research certainly provides very well cited investigations. Ellenbogen says two view points were always considered when ruling out variables in light sleeping. These variables only dealt with the independent variable of the actual sound and source of sound. Although, what is different about his experimental process is he that he looked at the dependent variable of what is happening in the brain itself, according to Park.


Sleep is a very interesting topic and is something we need especially as college students. With the various sounds that play a part in dorm life, apartment life, and greek housing; we have to all be aware that we aren’t alone and respective to the hard working and fellow Penn Staters among us.

source 1

photo 1

photo 2


Does Vitamin C Actually Protect Against Common Cold?

It’s the middle of the third week of classes and I am sitting in my Econ102 lecture of 600 students. I usually make sure to get a front seat to avoid getting distracted. Although, this time there is a consistent and very violent noise that is unavoidably distracting and quite frankly disturbing. It’s the dreaded cough and all I can think is it’s a matter of time that washing my hands and taking a good helping of vitamin c won’t protect me from getting infected by the common cold.

I like to make sure to take vitamin c since it is one of the easiest ways to boost your immune system and protect against the contagions that literally surround college students all the time. Although, does vitamin c actually provide this reliability against the common cold?

According to Kris Gunnars at Authority Nutrition, vitamin c has been tested for this proof since 1970 when it became a very popular topic of interest in the science world. Gunnars also gives mention that vitamin c is found in immune cells. When these cells are attacked by infections, vitamin c is depleted.

There have been series of randomized controlled studies that have taken place over the past decade. They concluded with results that showed vitamin c does not reduce chances of getting infected by the common cold, according to Gunnars. Gunnars also says the average human will contract the common cold several times a year.

Although vitamin c may not prevent the common cold, it can shorten the amount of time you are actually sick, said Gunnars. I found this somewhat relieving especially since the studies mentioned in this article were disappointing and a little surprising.

According to  Dr. Mark Levine, from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, he suggests against taking vitamin c supplements altogether and to just make sure you are getting enough fruits and vegetables.

Levine doesn’t support taking in extra amounts of vitamin c because according to trials that tested the long term affects of taking vitamin c, your body can only withhold a certain amount of it. If you take too much, your body will begin to absorb less and less. This is why getting vitamin c naturally may be the best way to go.


I agree with this statement because most of the time, our bodies respond best to the natural supplements we take in. Although, all of our bodies work differently, so it really depends on what your body best responds to.

Since I am new to college life where I have to really take care of myself, getting sick is something myself and everyone else dreads. I try to take advantage of the supplements and foods that keep me healthy, but when studying, doing laundry, and campus life in general become a full time job, it’s easy to let other responsibilities become not as much of a priority as they should.


source 1

source 2

image 1

image 2



Making Connections

Hi everyone!

My name is Olivia Frederickson and I am from a suburb outside Detroit, Michigan called Grosse Pointe. I am currently a freshman in the College of Communications with the intent to study advertising. When I first made my schedule, my advisor and I decided that this class could fill out a general ed requirement without having an intense focus on generic science concepts. When I read the description of this class, it was really clear to me that it has a unique curriculum and simply looked really interesting.

I have always had a variety of interests when it comes to what I have enjoyed studying throughout my life. Surprisingly, science was always among my main interests including marine biology and the human body; I have always loved learning about life sciences. Growing up being constantly surrounded by water and as a swimmer, marine biology has always sparked my interest. After I wanted to be a marine biologist, I became more interested in human anatomy and how our bodies work. The whole concept of being a doctor, specifically a cardiologist, sounded extremely ideal since it is such a fulfilling and meaningful career plus the income isn’t bad. Science in high school got a little tricky though and soon made me wonder if I could actually find a real passion in science when it came time to choosing a career.

I learned a lot about myself through the college application process and investigated what certain majors entailed. One thing I discovered is that I love making connections in life and solving problems through means of communicating. As broad as this sounds, it helped me recognize that every type of interest anyone has does just this. In science, it takes a very special ability to understand the specific details but anyone can and should recognize how important and truly incredible these details and specifics are. In addition to this statement, here is a link that will remind you of some essential things science gives us everyday.

science is everyewhere                                             Photo (

My interest in science hasn’t necessarily died, but in a way it has expanded. I love to find meaning in things other people are really passionate about and I think this class can really give me an opportunity to do that through this specific viewpoint of science.

In conclusion, I’m really excited to have an open mind and make connections with the scientific topics we will learn and discuss in this class!:)