In a Los Angeles Times article today, Bob Pool describes two competitions related to science: one was a high school research competition at Caltech; and the other was a Rubik’s Cube competition, also at Caltech. It is no surprise that these two events would take place at Caltech, a mecca of science and technology on the West Coast (along with Stanford) and undoubtedly a dream school for many of the competing high school students.
Pool makes the article interesting by moving quickly through the specifics with short paragraphs and simplicity. Unlike the typical science news story, there is no technical explanation of the science here; instead, there is just an overview of the different experiments of the competition, involving little or no further explanation beyond statement: students “teamed up to study the effects of titanium diozide and zinc oxide nanoparticles on teeth…examined microfluidic cell trapping for cell fusion and reprogramming…ma[de] computers recognize 57 emotions in human voices…” The quick, simple pace served Pool well throughout the article and into the description of the Rubik’s Cube competition, but there was one spot that was a bit confusing and it was his first sentence: “Over here, it was a battle of brains. Over there, it looked like a contest of dexterity.” The wording here makes it seem as though the “battle of brains” and the “contest of dexterity” are the same event when they’re actually the two different competitions. Perhaps Pool could have worded that first sentence differently so that the reader does not begin in a state of confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment