How much does an UG need to know?

There's a saying I often pass along to my students ...

"You'll never know when you need to know what you know."

Okay, maybe it's a tad corny, but the message is real. Everythng you learn will help you somewhere in your life. Unfortunately, one cannot predict to what degree it will be helpful. The flip side is to therefore learn as much as you can,

So, you may be asking, what has this to do with UG research? Well, all students come to the table with much more information than they truly realize or, for that matter, that we realize. It is my belief that every student who wishes to engage in research can contribute in some fashion. However, the less a student actually knows, the more we, as educators, may need to be engaged supervising said student.

Oh, how simple it is to mentor a graduate student, someone who often has sufficient knowledge and skills to supervise themselves. But UG students are rarely as accomodating. Do some educators shy away from working with UGs because it is inappropriate, or because the educators choose not to undertake the additional work?

I'm convinced the reason is most often a combination of the two. Yes, it is true that UGs cannot perform at the same level as grads, but they can do work. UGs can experience what true, original research is all about, and perhaps see it as an integral part of their career paths. Most, if not all, professionals undertake research with a lowercase "r" somewhere in their career. If we never engage in original work, we'd never move forward. Therefore, if we wish to encourage students to be (gulp) productive members of society, then why not also encourage them, invite them with open arms, into the world of research? To me, this makes perfect sense.

Getting back to the title of this post, the answer seems to be that whatever a student knows is sufficient for them to begin research, even if it is simply as a junior member of a research team. But now I get to stick my neck out a tad further. I also believe that UGs can engage in original work, with a minimum of supervision, as opposed to simply being an extra pair of hands.

Reason? There are all sorts of probems and issues, big and small, that need to be addressd in a research project. A skilled eye can determine those tasks, that demand original thought, that an UG can deal with successfully. It is work for the educator, but aren't the benefits sufficient?

Nuff said!

Welcome & first thoughts

Sometimes, when I have a few spare moments, I find the time to dash off some comments about one of interests. Today, it's the issue of undergradate research. I am an evangelist when it comes to this topic. I firmly believe that all undergrads should be involved in original research before they graduate. And I do mean all.

Why? Because of the vast array of educational benefits, which could all be lumped into the "I made this!" effect. So much of what a student creates has actually been explored over and over again by former students. Where, and how, does the average student take what they've learned and apply it in the creation/discovery of something new?

Okay, true, art students often create portfolios of original work, but what about everyone else? It's time we recognize the merit of research, as a separate component in a student's education, and work towards ways of making this a reality.

Nuff said!